Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:34 pm Normally with these call-out threads you have a quote from the other person making at least vaguely clear what it is they have written that you are disputing.

Show a quote where I am actually one of these realists you are whining about. I doubt you will find one, you have been projecting. Similarly you won't find a quote of me actually saying that there is a definition of "what is fact" nor will you find one of me saying that there is any actual possibility of an adequate definition.

Every time I have explained any of my own positions on such matters, you have always refused to allow that and you assign beliefs to me so that you can tell me a book you have never read says I am a bastard positivist, or that I am on the analytic ash heap of history.

You don't care what I actually think any more than you care what is actually in the books you never read.

• VA's "FS-based fact" is false, (no one in the world agree with it)
  Here is my argument on 'what facts are real'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:14 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:34 pm Normally with these call-out threads you have a quote from the other person making at least vaguely clear what it is they have written that you are disputing.

Show a quote where I am actually one of these realists you are whining about. I doubt you will find one, you have been projecting. Similarly you won't find a quote of me actually saying that there is a definition of "what is fact" nor will you find one of me saying that there is any actual possibility of an adequate definition.

Every time I have explained any of my own positions on such matters, you have always refused to allow that and you assign beliefs to me so that you can tell me a book you have never read says I am a bastard positivist, or that I am on the analytic ash heap of history.

You don't care what I actually think any more than you care what is actually in the books you never read.

It is because your philosophy is groundless [until justified otherwise] that I have problems determining your precise philosophical grounds.

The point of this OP is;
you condemned my FS-based fact [including reality, knowledge, objectivity].
The question is, on what philosophical authority you are relying upon to condemn my position, re FS-grounded-facts?

So, you must produce the following claim and provide arguments plus references;

• VA's "FS-based fact" is false, (no one in the world agree with it)
  Here is my argument on 'what facts are real'.

If you cannot prove [justify] your "what is fact" or things, objects are real, then they are false and illusory.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:14 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:34 pm Normally with these call-out threads you have a quote from the other person making at least vaguely clear what it is they have written that you are disputing.

Show a quote where I am actually one of these realists you are whining about. I doubt you will find one, you have been projecting. Similarly you won't find a quote of me actually saying that there is a definition of "what is fact" nor will you find one of me saying that there is any actual possibility of an adequate definition.

Every time I have explained any of my own positions on such matters, you have always refused to allow that and you assign beliefs to me so that you can tell me a book you have never read says I am a bastard positivist, or that I am on the analytic ash heap of history.

You don't care what I actually think any more than you care what is actually in the books you never read.

It is because your philosophy is groundless [until justified otherwise] that I have problems determining your precise philosophical grounds.

The point of this OP is;
you condemned my FS-based fact [including reality, knowledge, objectivity].
The question is, on what philosophical authority you are relying upon to condemn my position, re FS-grounded-facts?

So, you must produce the following claim and provide arguments plus references;

• VA's "FS-based fact" is false, (no one in the world agree with it)
  Here is my argument on 'what facts are real'.

If you cannot prove [justify] your "what is fact" or things, objects are real, then they are false and illusory.

I'm not competing with you to provide a definition of fact. I have noticed that fact is a very difficult thing to define and that none of the previous attempts to define it have managed to include all the things that are acceptable as facts without importing a bunch of things that are not.

Your thing falls into that category. It is a failed attempt to define what fact means (defining it as the product of these FSK things with nothing else required at all). It is a failed attempt to explain or redefine what objectivity is. It is much worse than any of the other attempts such as JTB. All of those include something important even when they leave out something equally important. Yours does less than that.

No human does agree with your FSK theory. It's shit, and you cannot find anybody to take it seriously at all. I don't need references for that, there just is nobody out there who agrees with your theory becasue no sane person would accept the FSK manufacturing objective facts out of nothing but shared opinions gimmick.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:40 am You are still not providing your grounds in justifying why my version of 'what is fact' is false. That is merely your first-person opinion.

My FS-based fact is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
leverage on: scientific facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science
the whole article on fact alluded to the involvement of a Framework and System.

My FS-based "What is fact" is synonymous with FS-based 'what is real'.

All you keep complaining and babbling is 'no one agreed with me' but you provided no grounds on [if not on fact] what is real, true and objective.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:40 am You are still not providing your grounds in justifying why my version of 'what is fact' is false. That is merely your first-person opinion.

My FS-based fact is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
leverage on: scientific facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science
the whole article on fact alluded to the involvement of a Framework and System.

My FS-based "What is fact" is synonymous with FS-based 'what is real'.

All you keep complaining and babbling is 'no one agreed with me' but you provided no grounds on [if not on fact] what is real, true and objective.

Your version of 'what is fact' is false becasue it creates blatantly stupid facts such as the absurd nonsense that is "morality-proper". A complete mess in which all you do is get a group of men to make a list of things and say this is 4% bad, and that is 12% bad and this other thing is 76% bad. No sane person needs very much explanation for why a system of fact creation that creates "facts" out of that swill is stupid.

Your version of 'what is fact' is false because it creates mutually contradictory facts that cannot both be true at once but according to your arguments... are true at the same time. All you have to do is have two different groups of people doing the above to arrive at completely contradictory "morality-propers", this is a wildly obvious flaw that was shown to you many years ago. Anyobdy but you can see it.

Your FS based fact thing is not similar to any other, and your persistent fantasy that it is will change nothing. You have it backwards, manufacturing "facts" out of just shared opinions is never going to work.

This is why I don't need to provide you with any definition of "what is fact" of my own. I am not competing to do that, I am simply pointing out that your doesn't work.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
‘Moral naturalism’ is a term with a variety of meanings in ethics, but it usually refers to the version of moral realism according to which moral facts are natural facts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:19 am ...

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:19 am ...

Don't try to gaslight me. You claim your morality-proper thing creates moral facts because it is an FSK thing. This isn't conflation.

Nobody in the world has ever agreed with your FSK stuff. Not once, not ever. You never have and never will be able to tell somebody your FSK theory and have them agree with you once they know what it contains.

"Moral Empirical Realism: Justifying Moral Objectivity through Human-Centered Frameworks"
________________________________________
CONTENT:
Introduction
Moral realism asserts the existence of objective moral truths, while moral anti-realism denies such universality, often claiming moral norms are purely subjective. Within the framework of Moral Empirical Realism (M-ER), this discussion explores the justification of moral objectivity through a human-centered framework and system (FS), grounding moral truths in relatively mind-independent realities conditioned upon human experience. By addressing objections and refining the framework, we aim to demonstrate the viability of M-ER in bridging the gap between moral realism and empirical justification.
________________________________________
Core Framework: The Basis of Moral Empirical Realism
1. Oughtnotness as a Foundational Concept
2. Relatively Mind-Independent Realities
3. Verification through Scientific FS
4. Transmutation of Scientific realities to Moral Realities within a moral FS.
________________________________________
Key Objections and Responses
1. Dependence on Human-Centered Framework
2. Pathological or Cultural Exceptions
3. The Is-Ought Problem
4. Intuition and Consensus as Subjective
5. Circular Reasoning
6. Moral Pluralism and Conflicting Frameworks
7. Reductionism of Morality
8. Overemphasis on Survival and Flourishing
9. Difficulty in Scaling Across Species
10. Potential for Moral Relativism
________________________________________
Refinements for a Robust Framework
1. Neuroethical Foundations: Use neuroscience to identify the biological basis of moral reasoning.
2. Cross-Cultural Validation: Analyze moral norms globally to identify universal principles.
3. Algorithmic Simulations: Test moral principles through computational models.
4. Meta-Frameworks: Synthesize insights from multiple ethical theories to build an adaptable system.
5. Adaptive Universality: Establish universally applicable moral norms that adapt to cultural contexts.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Moral Empirical Realism offers a compelling pathway to justify moral objectivity within a human-centered framework. By grounding moral truths in relatively mind-independent realities validated through empirical methods, M-ER balances universality and adaptability. Addressing objections with interdisciplinary insights and iterative refinements, M-ER positions itself as a practical and philosophically tenable approach to moral realism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:14 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:34 pm Normally with these call-out threads you have a quote from the other person making at least vaguely clear what it is they have written that you are disputing.

Show a quote where I am actually one of these realists you are whining about. I doubt you will find one, you have been projecting. Similarly you won't find a quote of me actually saying that there is a definition of "what is fact" nor will you find one of me saying that there is any actual possibility of an adequate definition.

Every time I have explained any of my own positions on such matters, you have always refused to allow that and you assign beliefs to me so that you can tell me a book you have never read says I am a bastard positivist, or that I am on the analytic ash heap of history.

You don't care what I actually think any more than you care what is actually in the books you never read.

It is because your philosophy is groundless [until justified otherwise] that I have problems determining your precise philosophical grounds.

The point of this OP is;
you condemned my FS-based fact [including reality, knowledge, objectivity].
The question is, on what philosophical authority you are relying upon to condemn my position, re FS-grounded-facts?

So, you must produce the following claim and provide arguments plus references;

• VA's "FS-based fact" is false, (no one in the world agree with it)
  Here is my argument on 'what facts are real'.

If you cannot prove [justify] your "what is fact" or things, objects are real, then they are false and illusory.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 8:04 am I don't know why you did a whole call-out thread to annoy me and then started talking to yourself via AI again.
Nothing has changed. You never did care what other people write anyway, which is why you can't read philosophy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:14 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:34 pm Normally with these call-out threads you have a quote from the other person making at least vaguely clear what it is they have written that you are disputing.

Show a quote where I am actually one of these realists you are whining about. I doubt you will find one, you have been projecting. Similarly you won't find a quote of me actually saying that there is a definition of "what is fact" nor will you find one of me saying that there is any actual possibility of an adequate definition.

Every time I have explained any of my own positions on such matters, you have always refused to allow that and you assign beliefs to me so that you can tell me a book you have never read says I am a bastard positivist, or that I am on the analytic ash heap of history.

You don't care what I actually think any more than you care what is actually in the books you never read.

It is because your philosophy is groundless [until justified otherwise] that I have problems determining your precise philosophical grounds.

The point of this OP is;
you condemned my FS-based fact [including reality, knowledge, objectivity].
The question is, on what philosophical authority you are relying upon to condemn my position, re FS-grounded-facts?

So, you must produce the following claim and provide arguments plus references;

• VA's "FS-based fact" is false, (no one in the world agree with it)
  Here is my argument on 'what facts are real'.

If you cannot prove [justify] your "what is fact" or things, objects are real, then they are false and illusory.

I'm not competing with you to provide a definition of fact. I have noticed that fact is a very difficult thing to define and that none of the previous attempts to define it have managed to include all the things that are acceptable as facts without importing a bunch of things that are not.

Your thing falls into that category. It is a failed attempt to define what fact means (defining it as the product of these FSK things with nothing else required at all). It is a failed attempt to explain or redefine what objectivity is. It is much worse than any of the other attempts such as JTB. All of those include something important even when they leave out something equally important. Yours does less than that.

No human does agree with your FSK theory. It's shit, and you cannot find anybody to take it seriously at all. I don't need references for that, there just is nobody out there who agrees with your theory because no sane person would accept the FSK manufacturing objective facts out of nothing but shared opinions gimmick.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 5:16 am My principle is this:
Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge, exist, objective, is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subjects] Framework and System [FS].