Philosophy Now Forum

PH and Gang argued there is no Objective Morality because there are no moral facts. [1]
PH's fact is regarded as a truth-maker that enable truth bearers [propositions].
PH's insist that a fact [is objective, independent of invidual[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment] is just-is but cannot provide proofs that the just-is-fact exists as real.
As such PH's argument [1] is groundless, baseless and unsound.

That is no different from the theists' claim, because there are things in existence, there must must a things-maker which is just-is.

So, PH prove your mind, human, brain, independent-fact is real?


On the other hand, what I claim as fact, knowledge, truth is always conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality [FSR], i.e. they cannot exist as real, independent of the human factor.

Objectivity comes in degree relative to the credibility of the FSK.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
At present the conditional scientific FSK with its objective scientific facts is the most credible and reliable.
The majority of inputs into my moral FSK are from the scientific FSK.
Thus, in this sense there are objective moral facts of a reasonable degree of objectivity, so, morality is objective independent of any individual's assertion, description, opinion, beliefs, or judgment related to morality-proper.

Truth-maker/truth-bearer theory is just correspondence theory made over. And the correspondence theory of truth is obviously incorrect. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality that it asserts.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:22 am Truth-maker/truth-bearer theory is just correspondence theory made over. And the correspondence theory of truth is obviously incorrect.
There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality that it asserts.

You missed my point;
In this case, the fact that snow is white is not the assertion.
'That snow is white' is the fact i.e. a feature of reality [the truth-maker] for those who rely on functorial fact.
An assertion would be 'this snow is white' which truth need to be justified empirically.


If you do not use the correspondence theory of truth, then how do you reconcile your 'human-independent-fact as a feature of reality' with the observation and assertion of that fact of reality?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:08 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:22 am Truth-maker/truth-bearer theory is just correspondence theory made over. And the correspondence theory of truth is obviously incorrect.
There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality that it asserts.

You missed my point;
In this case, the fact that snow is white is not the assertion.
'That snow is white' is the fact i.e. a feature of reality [the truth-maker] for those who rely on functorial fact.
An assertion would be 'this snow is white' which truth need to be justified empirically.

Stop there. What would empirical justification of the assertion 'this snow is white' consist of? And anyway, how do we 'know' that, generally, snow is white? And anyway, if reality is as we perceive, know and describe it, why do we need empirical evidence for anything we claim to know or say about reality? Do we not know what we created or invented?

If you do not use the correspondence theory of truth, then how do you reconcile your 'human-independent-fact as a feature of reality' with the observation and assertion of that fact of reality?

Perhaps you've forgotten. I propose a three-part methodological taxonomy: features or reality that are or were the case (ie facts); what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them.

So, what we call truth and falsehood are (classical) attributes of factual assertions - what we say. And, outside language, features of reality (facts) have nothing to do with what we say - any so-called truth theory.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:08 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:22 am Truth-maker/truth-bearer theory is just correspondence theory made over. And the correspondence theory of truth is obviously incorrect.
There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality that it asserts.

You missed my point;
In this case, the fact that snow is white is not the assertion.
'That snow is white' is the fact i.e. a feature of reality [the truth-maker] for those who rely on functorial fact.
An assertion would be 'this snow is white' which truth need to be justified empirically.

Stop there. What would empirical justification of the assertion 'this snow is white' consist of? And anyway, how do we 'know' that, generally, snow is white?
And anyway, if reality is as we perceive, know and describe it, why do we need empirical evidence for anything we claim to know or say about reality? Do we not know what we created or invented?

There is no absolute certainty what we perceived, supposedly know and describe is empirically real.

From experience it is evident our perceptions are not reliable, e.g. there are loads of sense illusions to deal with, there is hallucination due to various reasons, medical etc.
In this case, there are possibility what is perceive may not be empirically real.
Thus we cannot accept the assertions of any individual, groups or even the majority [flat earth. god exists] as empirically real and true.
This is why we have to subject all claims that necessity reliability to empirical testing, verification and justifications.

The most credible and reliable empirically verified facts are those from the scientific FSK.

Science can confirm 'snow in general is white' based on its reliable scientific verification and justification process as a scientific fact, but this scientific fact is conditioned to the scientific FSK.

That snow is white cannot be a human or FSK-independent fact by itself.

If you do not use the correspondence theory of truth, then how do you reconcile your 'human-independent-fact as a feature of reality' with the observation and assertion of that fact of reality?

Perhaps you've forgotten. I propose a three-part methodological taxonomy:
1. features or reality that are or were the case (i.e facts);
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them.

Your 1 is meaningless, groundless and a mere speculation and it is illusory.

Your 2 has to depend on a FSK, how else?
In that case the science FSK is the most credible and reliable belief, i.e. independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgment but conditioned upon the consensus of a collective of subjects [scientists].

3. The credibility of 2 will depend on the credibility and reliability of the FSK that conditioned your belief and knowledge.

From the above you might as well ignore 1 which is meaningless, groundless and a mere speculation and it is illusory.
As such all you need are scientific facts or other reliable facts as qualified to the specific FSK.

So, what we call truth and falsehood are (classical) attributes of factual assertions - what we say.
And, outside language, features of reality (facts) have nothing to do with what we say - any so-called truth theory.

Are you implying your features of reality is dependent on language?
In that case, whatever is your fact it is conditioned upon a language FSK which is not reliable in contrast to the scientific FSK.

As I had stated elsewhere why you are so dogmatic with 1, which is meaningless, groundless, a mere speculation and it is illusory is primarily due to desperate psychological impulses within you.

If you stick to facts that are conditioned to a specific FSK [scientific and other reliable FSK] what do you lose, instead you would ejecting your FSK that is churning out speculations and illusions.

It's only day 3 of this new tactic and he's already run out of papers to link to?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:18 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:29 am
So, what we call truth and falsehood are (classical) attributes of factual assertions - what we say.
And, outside language, features of reality (facts) have nothing to do with what we say - any so-called truth theory.

Are you implying your features of reality is dependent on language?

Can you actually read and understand a sentence? Try again with what I wrote, and then think very hard about your question.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:18 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:29 am
So, what we call truth and falsehood are (classical) attributes of factual assertions - what we say.
And, outside language, features of reality (facts) have nothing to do with what we say - any so-called truth theory.

Are you implying your features of reality is dependent on language?

Can you actually read and understand a sentence? Try again with what I wrote, and then think very hard about your question.

English is not my first language.

My question is based on what I read your above as;
inside language, features of reality (facts) have something to do with what we say - any so-called truth theory.

Perhaps you could elaborate in a simpler way.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:18 am
Are you implying your features of reality is dependent on language?

Can you actually read and understand a sentence? Try again with what I wrote, and then think very hard about your question.

English is not my first language.

My question is based on what I read your above as;
inside language, features of reality (facts) have something to do with what we say - any so-called truth theory.

Perhaps you could elaborate in a simpler way.

By all means. And I apologise. This is perhaps the first time you've politely asked me to explain something.

To repeat, there are three separate things: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them. To simplify: facts / knowledge / description.

In this methodological taxonomy, features of reality (facts or states of affairs) have nothing to do with what we know and say. So I reject your claim that we somehow invent or create reality through what you call FSKs - though it's true that a description is always contextual and conventional.

And, obviously, I reject the idea that features of reality are, somehow, inside language - that they are linguistic phenomena. (As I've pointed out many times, that we also use the word 'fact' to mean 'true factual assertion' is very confusing.)

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:24 pm
Can you actually read and understand a sentence? Try again with what I wrote, and then think very hard about your question.

English is not my first language.

My question is based on what I read your above as;
inside language, features of reality (facts) have something to do with what we say - any so-called truth theory.

Perhaps you could elaborate in a simpler way.

By all means. And I apologise. This is perhaps the first time you've politely asked me to explain something.

To repeat, there are three separate things:
1. features of reality that are or were the case;
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them.
To simplify: facts / knowledge / description.

In this methodological taxonomy, features of reality (facts or states of affairs) have nothing to do with what we know and say.
So I reject your claim that we somehow invent or create reality through what you call FSKs - though it's true that a description is always contextual and conventional.

And, obviously, I reject the idea that features of reality are, somehow, inside language - that they are linguistic phenomena. (As I've pointed out many times, that we also use the word 'fact' to mean 'true factual assertion' is very confusing.)

Point is your earlier sentence was a bit to complicated and I want to make it a point I understand [not necessary agree with] what you are trying to say.

OK, I noted your beliefs are as follows;
1. features of reality that are or were the case;
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them.
To simplify: facts / knowledge / description.

1. features of reality that are or were the case;
As I had stated I do not agree with the above.
You have not elaborate and confirm, but from what you have posted,
such a fact is independent of the human conditions, i.e. individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.
Can you confirm my understanding is correct?

I have argued against your above, i.e.
Paper: No Mind [brain, human]-Independent Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39502

In addition, I stated QM realism has debunked the existence of feature of reality that are or were the case as independent objective reality, independent of humans opinions, beliefs and judgments.

2. what we believe and know about them;
If you postulate 1 and 2, then it is implied you have to rely on the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
If not how can you be confident what you believed and know about is the fact you supposed to exist as they are or were the case?

I reject your 1.
It is a strawman to state that "I claim that we somehow invent or create reality through what you call FSKs" as if it is like a magician pulling rabbits out of thin air.

Rather, by default my view is based on common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics, there are things that exists independent from the person, e.g. there is an independent out there in the apple tree. This to me is Empirical Realism but to you is dogmatic [Philosophical Realism - PR]

BUT as with QM realism [QMR], I do not accept the above PR as the ultimate reality, but rather than QM realism as interdependent with the human conditions [FSK conditioned] is more realistic.
Can you confirm you understand [not necessary agree with] the above?

3. what we say about them.
What QMR posit is there is no pre-existing facts or features of reality existing independent of the human conditions that is awaiting discover by humans. This the thesis of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics which would be very tough for to to refute.

First there is the emergence reality from QMR that involve the entanglement of the human conditions, which thereupon, enable us to describe them.

This is very counter intuitive which why you have a great resistance to attempt to understand [not necessary agree] what this all about.
Even when QM realism point to this direction with evidence and results, you still cannot grasp what it is all about.
This as I had stated is a psychological issue.