Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:46 pm VA's argument for moral objectivity fails at every stage. Stage 1 is as follows.

Premise: To assert what we call a fact is to express a (subjective consensus) opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are no facts, but only (subjective consensus) opinions.

That is a non sequitur fallacy. And anyway, a 'subjective consensus opinion' is both subjective and an opinion. The 'consensus' condition - even if it's expert consensus - makes no difference. So VA thinks facts and objectivity - are based on or grounded in subjectivity - matters of opinion.

But wait. At stage 2, VA forgets the 'subjective consensus opinion' nonsense, and tries to reinject actual facts and objectivity by insisting on empirical evidence to support the credibility of a 'framework and system of knowledge', such as physics. But - empirical evidence of what? It can't be facts, because they're just subjective consensus opinions.

But wait. At stage 3, VA wants to show that there are moral facts - for which there's empirical evidence - which have nothing to do with mere opinions about moral rightness and wrongness. Oh no. 'Morality-proper' is about the avoidance of evil - and it's just a fact that evil is to be avoided. But. There are no facts, but only subjective consensus opinions. So if the subjective consensus opinion is that X is morally wrong (evil), then (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong (evil). Q E D.

And this is supposed to be a rational, coherent argument for moral objectivity.

Face palm.

Strawman again, the "1000th" times.

I have never asserted the following;
Premise: To assert what we call a fact is to express a (subjective consensus) opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are no facts, but only (subjective consensus) opinions.

I asserted the following [also a "1000" times];
1. What is fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. What is fact is a realized-reality in entanglement with the specific FSK.
Note I raised a thread;
3. Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
4. What emerged therefrom is a FSK-Conditioned Fact.
5. Such a FSK conditioned fact is objective is supported by intersubjective consensus.

Of course, such realizable emerged facts can be expressed and described.
The credibility of the truth, descriptions and claims are subject to the credibility and reliability of the FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK being the most reliable at present.

Your strawman merely focus on the expression of the fact but you are ignorant of points 1-5 above.

My points 1-5 refute your dogmatic view;
A. that reality exists mind-independently from the human conditions [Philosophical Realism], -this is unrealistic and nonsensical as QM has proven that.
B. Based on this unreal view, you assume this "reality" is composed of mind-independent entities, i.e. fact which are states of affairs, that-is-the-case, that-clauses as truth-makers for prepositions.

To you, "it is a fact that the moon exists."
That is more like your subjective personal opinion.
If not, whose authority are you relying on to insist you are talking about is objectively real and independent of mind?
It is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Austin, Strawson, Armstrong, who else?
At most you are relying on a FSK that is specific to whoever or group you are trusting.

You cannot claim your authority is science, because to you science is merely making linguistic statements based on intersubjectivity about the fact that the moon exists.

Note QM [thesis of the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics] has refuted your 'the fact that the moon exist' as an objective mind-independent thing in reality.

What QM asserts is, it is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific-Physics-QM FSK that the moon exists mind-interdependently.

My thesis re morality is this;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
(the most reliable FSK is the scientific FSK)
2. Moral facts are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK.
3. The majority of inputs into the moral FSK are from the scientific FSK.
4. Thus, the reliability of the moral FSK is supported by the reliability of the scientific FSK.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:12 am
1. What is fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.

This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And that has nothing to do with what we believe or know or say is the case.

For example, the expression 'we may not know all the facts' demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. And if we have to 'find out' or 'discover' the facts, that means those facts don't exist within a framework and system of knowledge.

VA muddles things that are separate: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the signs in context. (This is a methodological taxonomy, not a metaphysical one.)

It's not a fact that exists within (is 'conditioned upon') a framework and system of knowledge - it's a description - a true factual assertion, such as 'water is H2O'. The chemical constitution of water - the fact, the feature of reality - has nothing to do with knowledge or descriptions.

According to QM, there is no objective fact 'the chemical composition of water' as a feature of reality.

Note Model Dependent Realism;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

It is meaningless to claim there is a "true reality", i.e. 'that chemical composition of water', I would add it is nonsensical, i.e. it does not click with the senses, thus whatever 'that chemical composition of water' you claimed as a 'fact' is an illusion.

Model-dependent Realism is not about mere knowledge nor description but entail a realization of reality in entanglement with the human conditions via the scientific FSK.

You don't get it when I have stated many times,
re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"
This is very counter-intuitive and difficult to accept by the majority, but that is the really real reality.

Of course within common sense [also Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics] there is a moon that is external to the senses and human being, but this is not really-real in contrast to QM realism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:19 am

Could you please respond to posts in the thread where you find them. When you create a new thread like this, it worsens the signal to noise ratio. PH does respond to your posts regardless, so there is no need to create what is NOT a new topic like this.

I don't know if you are playing to the gallery somehow or don't understand the idea of threads and posts, but whatever the reason is, you are creating noise.

VA is a lonely boy who has put almost everyone on ignore in order to create his own isolation problem. So sadly he has everything banked on getting attention from Pete, but Pete won't let him set the terms for that attention. All these call out threads are a symptom of his powerful anguish that nobody he is willing to talk to is willing to talk about the things he wants to talk about.

Sometimes I feel a bit bad for him.

Speaking of which, what happened to Henry?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:52 pm VA is a lonely boy who has put almost everyone on ignore in order to create his own isolation problem. So sadly he has everything banked on getting attention from Pete, but Pete won't let him set the terms for that attention. All these call out threads are a symptom of his powerful anguish that nobody he is willing to talk to is willing to talk about the things he wants to talk about.

Sometimes I feel a bit bad for him.

Speaking of which, what happened to Henry?

I have to say I am impressed and horrified by both of their (VA and Ph) wills to continue their 'dialogue' so long. Perhaps Henry found true free will and slipped out of causation like a Buddha.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 2:21 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:52 pm VA is a lonely boy who has put almost everyone on ignore in order to create his own isolation problem. So sadly he has everything banked on getting attention from Pete, but Pete won't let him set the terms for that attention. All these call out threads are a symptom of his powerful anguish that nobody he is willing to talk to is willing to talk about the things he wants to talk about.

Sometimes I feel a bit bad for him.

Speaking of which, what happened to Henry?

I have to say I am impressed and horrified by both of their (VA and Ph) wills to continue their 'dialogue' so long. Perhaps Henry found true free will and slipped out of causation like a Buddha.

I'm after a million views and 8000 replies. Call me shallow.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:45 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:23 am

This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And that has nothing to do with what we believe or know or say is the case.

For example, the expression 'we may not know all the facts' demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. And if we have to 'find out' or 'discover' the facts, that means those facts don't exist within a framework and system of knowledge.

VA muddles things that are separate: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the signs in context. (This is a methodological taxonomy, not a metaphysical one.)

It's not a fact that exists within (is 'conditioned upon') a framework and system of knowledge - it's a description - a true factual assertion, such as 'water is H2O'. The chemical constitution of water - the fact, the feature of reality - has nothing to do with knowledge or descriptions.

According to QM, there is no objective fact 'the chemical composition of water' as a feature of reality.

Note Model Dependent Realism;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

It is meaningless to claim there is a "true reality", i.e. 'that chemical composition of water', I would add it is nonsensical, i.e. it does not click with the senses, thus whatever 'that chemical composition of water' you claimed as a 'fact' is an illusion.

Model-dependent Realism is not about mere knowledge nor description but entail a realization of reality in entanglement with the human conditions via the scientific FSK.

You don't get it when I have stated many times,
re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"
This is very counter-intuitive and difficult to accept by the majority, but that is the really real reality.

Of course within common sense [also Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics] there is a moon that is external to the senses and human being, but this is not really-real in contrast to QM realism.

A model is not the thing being modelled. A description is not the thing being described. The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions. It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.

Yes it is kindergarten, that a model is never the thing-being-modelled.

But you were just very blind with the term 'realism' in Model-dependent Realism where the focus is not on the 'model' per se but rather the 'realism', i.e. the reality.

You need to read Hawking's book, The Grand Design to understand what he was referring to re 'Model Dependent Realism'.
In his book, Hawking argued against the classical mind-independent objective reality of Philosophical Realism which is impossible, not tenable nor realistic.
As such Hawking proposed what is most realistic is 'Model Dependent Realism'.

The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions.
It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.

It just exists?? and we have empirical evidence for its existence??
How can you be so ignorant on this issue of reality? re philosophical perspective. That is because you are stuck in the kindergarten class.

Humanity can only claim [not described] whatever exists as real upon the verification and justification of the related empirical evidences its existence.

It not just, but the verification and justification must be conditioned and in compliance with a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality[FSR].
This is what I have been drumming into you for 'eons' but your skull is so thick.

You cannot claim 'it just exists' without qualify its existence to the specific FSK or FSR of your claim or reality.

At present the most credible FSK in justifying what is real is the scientific FSK which has its sub-FSK in terms of degrees of reality;

1. Newtonian FSK -classical reality and objectivity but limited
2. Einsteinian FSK - more realistic and objective than 1
3. QM FSK - more realistic and objective than 2 and 1.

Btw, the science FSK merely ASSUMEs the ASSUMPTION that is an objective reality out there awaiting discovery.
Note ASSUMPTION!

As such, WHO ARE YOU to think your FSK is more credible than the science FSK, where you are claiming there is really a mind-independent objective reality out there.
What you have been claiming as a reality that is 'just is' is merely a reified illusion.

You keep babbling about 'description' with blinkers on within a silo.

What we have re reality is this;

1. Scientific-FSK-conditioned-reality [SFCR],
2. Description of that SFCR.

There is no objective reality that is 'just it' without its specific qualification or predicate.

Whatever is objective reality must be qualified to a specific FSK.
The morality FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK.
Since science is objective, morality is also objective.