Philosophy Now Forum

What is most disturbing is there are a certain dogmatic ideologues [Peter Holmes & gang] who insist only their way of what is fact is the only way; when what they claimed as facts are ultimately illusory.

Here is a view [acceptable by whoever is rational] where 'what is fact' is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fact
Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.
There is a range of other uses, depending on the context.
For example, fact may be argued under the authority of a specific discipline, such as scientific facts or historical facts.
Rhetorical assertion of fact is often forwarded without an implied or express basis of authority.

Although the term fact often implies objectivity and truth, it is not so obvious that facts are free from interpretation; some argue that facts are established only within certain frameworks of thought and value perspectives.
For example, historians understand historical facts within a certain context of understanding.
Similarly facts in social sciences are established by social scientists according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.
Statistical data is determined by the methodology that is used.

Even in the natural sciences, facts are meaningful only within certain theoretical frameworks.

The issue is closely related with the concept of objectivity and issues regarding the universality of truth.

From the above, facts in morality are established by moralist according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.

What is more is, I insist all claims of objective moral facts must first be verified justified within the scientific FSK before they can qualify as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.

Views?

The above is supported by this from WIKI;

A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Whilst not mentioned, it is implied the above facts are conditioned by their respective FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:30 am What is most disturbing is there are a certain dogmatic ideologues [Peter Holmes & gang] who insist only their way of what is fact is the only way; when what they claimed as facts are ultimately illusory.

This means 'I disagree with PH's position. I also have not changed my mind.'

Here is a view [acceptable by whoever is rational]

This means: Here is my view.

From the above, facts in morality are established by moralist according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.

This means 'That is my view.'

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:30 am What is more is, I insist all claims of objective moral facts must first be verified justified within the scientific FSK before they can qualify as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.

They are values, so they cannot be tested by any scientific method whatsoever.

Only a truly dreadful scientist would get mixed up in VA's ludicrous project.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:30 am What is more is, I insist all claims of objective moral facts must first be verified justified within the scientific FSK before they can qualify as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.

They are values, so they cannot be tested by any scientific method whatsoever.

Only a truly dreadful scientist would get mixed up in VA's ludicrous project.

You didn't add that your view is [acceptable by whoever is rational].
How is anyone going to be able to take you seriously?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:24 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:30 am What is more is, I insist all claims of objective moral facts must first be verified justified within the scientific FSK before they can qualify as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.

They are values, so they cannot be tested by any scientific method whatsoever.

Only a truly dreadful scientist would get mixed up in VA's ludicrous project.

You didn't add that your view is [acceptable by whoever is rational].
How is anyone going to be able to take you seriously?

Good point. The hard sciences investigate via actions such as reproducible experiment etc and thus investigate nothing evaluative at all, therefore [as any fule kno] any "science FSK" that attempts to justify the blithering nonsense that VA writes would be definitively a pseudoscience.

Thus instead of a "credible" science FSK enabling a "credible moral FSK" the result [acceptable to any competent owner of a human brain in reasonable working order] would be two Frameworks of Systematically Assembled Fiction [FSAF] both more comparable to phrenology and astrology than to any useful field of investigation.

Meaningful credibility is unattainable by the means described by VA and his lifelong pursuit of it is nothing more than the waste of a life. He should stop now and do something else.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:51 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:24 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:20 am
They are values, so they cannot be tested by any scientific method whatsoever.

Only a truly dreadful scientist would get mixed up in VA's ludicrous project.

You didn't add that your view is [acceptable by whoever is rational].
How is anyone going to be able to take you seriously?

Good point. The hard sciences investigate via actions such as reproducible experiment etc and thus investigate nothing evaluative at all, therefore [as any fule kno] any "science FSK" that attempts to justify the blithering nonsense that VA writes would be definitively a pseudoscience.

Thus instead of a "credible" science FSK enabling a "credible moral FSK" the result [acceptable to any competent owner of a human brain in reasonable working order] would be two Frameworks of Systematically Assembled Fiction [FSAF] both more comparable to phrenology and astrology than to any useful field of investigation.

Meaningful credibility is unattainable by the means described by VA and his lifelong pursuit of it is nothing more than the waste of a life. He should stop now and do something else.

.
Now that is a view that is [acceptable by whoever is rational].
The above is supported by this from WIKI;

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves"[1] in the construction of an argument[2][3] which may appear stronger than it really is if the fallacy is not spotted.

What is most disturbing is there is a certain dogmatic ideologues [VA] who insists only his way of what is fact is the only way; when what he claimed as facts are ultimately illusory.

Peter Holmes wrote: For continuity, I'm reposting here a comment on yet another of VA's OPs.

Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

And this clearly shows that we use the word fact in two completely different ways. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth-value; it just is or was the case. But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.

The point is that these different uses of the word fact allow for equivocation, which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways. And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim. So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.

But VA forgets the other use of the word fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)

So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.

I should add that, from incomprehension or pig-headedness, VA will ignore this explanation, and make little or no attempt to rebut it. I live without hope.

I am not a coward like you.
You still have not answered my question;
Are scientific facts, truths or knowledge objective, i.e. independent of individual[s] opinions, beliefs or judgments?

PH: I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.
I have already addressed this many times.

I have already stated there is no such things as
'a feature of reality - by itself
that is or was the case - by itself
independent of individual[s] opinions, beliefs or judgments?

This is what I stated, your above is based on the ideology of Philosophical Realism;

Philosophical Realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views ....
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

You cannot deny your definition of what is fact, i.e. 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' fit into the above.
Yes? if No, why and how?

If the above is your ideology, of course there are no objective moral facts in that sense because you are referring to objective moral facts from a God claimed by theists and platonists' ideals and universals.

In addition your fact i.e. 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' are ultimately flawed as countered by QM, i.e. there is no facts of independent objective reality out there.

The only realistic view of 'what is a fact' is what I have arguing for, i.e.
FSK Conditioned Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39405

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.

What wrong with, there are sexual assertions, so there are sexual facts.

As claimed,
whatever is fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK.
Scientific facts from a scientific FSK,
Sexual Facts from a scientific-biological-sexuality FSK.
So, moral facts from a credible moral FSK

without exceptions;
astrological facts from astrological FSK.

The principle is, how credible facts are depend on the degree of credibility of the specific FSK,
At present the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible, thus the standard bearer to evaluate the credibility of all other FSKs on a continuum of credibility and reliability.

From the FSK perspective [as qualified] there are 'astrological facts' but since the astrological FSK is way off the credibility of the scientific FSK, the astrological facts have relatively low credibility and reliability, say 10/100 which typically would not be typically recognized as facts.

I have argued the above points before where there are half-truths along a continuum of truths.

Your OP "What could make morality objective?" exposed your biasness and unbalanced thinking from an unbalanced mind.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:26 am From the FSK perspective there are 'astrological facts' but since the astrological FSK is way off the credibility of the scientific FSK, the astrological facts have relatively low credibility and reliability, say 10/100 which typically would not be typically recognized as facts.

This claim instantly and irreversibly undermines any possible claim to credibility that the FSK theory can ever make.

Vegertable Albatross has a credibilty rating of about 0.07 out of 40 billion [as defined by the VA is an obvious Fuckwit FSK [VAoFwFSK]]

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:50 am Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

And this clearly shows that we use the word fact in two completely different ways.
A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth value; it just is or was the case.
But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.

The point is that these different uses of the word fact allow for equivocation, which the above extract demonstrates, and which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

As I had stated your views are very shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
I have asked you to define 'what is fact' and explain in a more thorough manner with supporting references.
So far, I have not seen any reference from you to support your claim of what is fact.

I have been reading up on your supposedly 'what is fact'
The SEP's article re "Facts" focus on a very narrow view along your views.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/

The word “fact” is used in at least two different ways.
In the locution “matters of fact”, facts are taken to be what is contingently the case, or that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge. Thus Hume ...

In this second use, the functor (operator, connective) “It is a fact that” takes a sentence to make a sentence (an alternative view has it that “It is a fact” takes a nominalised sentence, a that-clause, to make a sentence), and the predicate “is a fact” is either elliptic for the functor, or takes a nominalised sentence to make a sentence.

What I have been doing is based on the Humean 'matter of fact' via the scientific-biology and moral FSK which is empirical or a posteriori.
This is not related to Hume 'is-ought' where he referred to religious and platonic oughts.

Meanwhile your focus on 'fact' as in the functor (operator, connective), "It is a fact that .."
There are many versions of such facts, propositional, compositional facts, states of affair only fact, etc.
I believe you are very ignorant that this 2nd usage is very contentious and many do insist there is no such facts.

Note "Against Facts"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt17kk830

This is a book against facts. It argues that we have no good reason to accept facts in our catalog of the world, on the major metaphysical theories of facts known to us. It holds that neither of two major such theories are tenable: neither the theory according to which facts are special structured building blocks of reality, nor the theory according to which facts are whatever is named by certain expressions of the form ‘the fact that such and such’. There is reality, to be sure, and there are entities in reality that we are able to name, but...

There are many other articles that refute the existence of your sort of facts.

I have argued you are delusional to insist such illusory facts are valid or real.

The one from WIKI is more balanced;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways.
And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context.
There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim.
So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.

Strawman.
What I claimed as fact is fundamentally a science-biological fact, not a linguistic fact.

But VA forgets the other use of the word fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

I have already argued "a 1000" times there is no factual, real nor objective
'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' as a fact-in-itself independent of the human conditions.
Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism# quoted above.

Actually this fact of your is conditioned upon a specific Language FSK, Ordinary Language or whatever.
I have asked you to give me references to support your claim; this will establish the FSK you are relying upon to make your claim of what is fact.

(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)

There is no fact that has an independent nature from what 'is known'.
QM [re the thesis of the 2023 Nobel Prize of Physics] has refuted this claim of absolute mind-independent nature of any claim of reality.

So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.

What I claim is not a linguistic fact but a scientific-biological-moral fact within a moral FSK.
What is descriptive is secondary from the emergence-realization of the fact.
A FSK-fact is a reality that emerges and is entangled with the human conditions as one united thing; there is subject -predicate in this ultimate sense.

I have raised a few threads that asserted humans co-participated in the emergence of reality that it perceived and then describe.

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.

I should add that, from incomprehension or pig-headedness, VA will ignore this explanation, and make little or no attempt to rebut it. I live without hope.

As I had pointed out, you are speaking from your delusional stance of illusory facts which you have never supported with references, thus you are merely echoing from hearsays.

As I had argued, there is an inherent moral function as human nature which drives humans to deliberate on moral [as defined] issues [as evident].
Human nature are obvious represented by empirical facts which obviously comprised empirical moral facts via a moral FSK.

Your clinging to your views of what is fact with so much arrogance from ignorance is like an emperor with no clothes.

Point is your 'what is fact' is so contentious whereas my 'what is fact' grounded on scientific facts to moral facts in that qualified state cannot be easily refuted.

Whatever rebut you present is definitely going to be a strawman.