Philosophy Now Forum

PH, you reject my version of objective moral facts as conditioned upon a human-based moral FSR-FSK on the basis of what is fact to you.
To you, PH, 'what is fact' is that feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which are independent of subject[s]' opinion, beliefs, or judgments.
My question is do you claim the above with 100% certainty?

I don't think you are claiming your 'what is fact' with 100% certainty because all humans including you are fallible, i.e. not an OMNI-whatever God.
Now, if you do not claim your 'what is fact' with 100% certainty, then, you are inputting elements of subjectivity, i.e. mind-independence in your claim.
As such, whatever you claim cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
In this case, your 'what is fact' as that which is real beyond human opinions cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Your 'what is fact' is that feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which are independent of subject[s]' opinion, beliefs, or judgments, cannot be credible especially when you are unable to provide proofs for your positive claim.

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 8:43 am PH, you reject my version of objective moral facts as conditioned upon a human-based moral FSR-FSK on the basis of what is fact to you.
To you, PH, 'what is fact' is that feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which are independent of subject[s]' opinion, beliefs, or judgments.
My question is do you claim the above with 100% certainty?

I don't think you are claiming your 'what is fact' with 100% certainty because all humans including you are fallible, i.e. not an OMNI-whatever God.
Now, if you do not claim your 'what is fact' with 100% certainty, then, you are inputting elements of subjectivity, i.e. mind-independence in your claim.
As such, whatever you claim cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
In this case, your 'what is fact' as that which is real beyond human opinions cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Your 'what is fact' is that feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which are independent of subject[s]' opinion, beliefs, or judgments, cannot be credible especially when you are unable to provide proofs for your positive claim.

There is no 100% certainty.
There is no 100% uncertainty.

Both of those amount to pathologies in thought. They are both dogmatic positions. This is clearly explained in Probability Theory (The Logic of science/scientists).
https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

At the crossroad of those two extremes you also have 50% certainty/uncertainty. This too is a pathology.
In the limit it amounts to infinite analysis. Infinite suspension of judgment. Total paralysis of reason.

This is the tale of Buridan's ass.

You can't move off the line without some bias, any bias!
And if you are wrong about it - counter-bias yourself the other way!

The problem becomes systemic bias. When everyone in a society biases themselves in the same way; even though there's now sufficient evidence for the systemic bias to be swayed the other way.

Such as the claim that the burden of proof lies on the positive claimant. This is just an arbitrary choice!
That's how legal prossecutions work. That's NOT how scientific reasoning works.

Both positive and negative claims carry a proof-burden. You attack the one which carries a lower proof-burden!

Society is a self-correcting, self-organizing system. Our biases swing left to right, but they converge/self-correct over time.

The biases of philosophy don't seem to function this way. In fact, Philosophy is attempting to adopt as many pathologies as possible.
And maybe that's a good thing to help us remember the difference between being absolutely wrong (a Philosopher) and being a lesser evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization