Incommensurability & Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe that PH et. al. always cannot understand my ideas on morality is due to the concept of Incommensurability.

Typically, the concept of Incommensurability is used within the Philosophy of Science.

Commensurability is a concept in the philosophy of science whereby scientific theories are said to be "commensurable" if scientists can discuss the theories using a shared nomenclature that allows direct comparison of them to determine which one is more valid or useful.
On the other hand, theories are incommensurable if they are embedded in starkly contrasting conceptual frameworks whose languages do not overlap sufficiently to permit scientists to directly compare the theories or to cite empirical evidence favoring one theory over the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensur ... f_science)

Realist and anti-realist philosophies of science

Eric Oberheim and Paul Hoyningen-Huene argue that realist and anti-realist philosophies of science are also incommensurable, thus scientific theories themselves may be meta-incommensurable.

PH et. al. rely upon a realist [philosophical] which assumes mind-independence of reality and thing [noumenon],
while in my case of ANTI-realism, I reject the above assumption and rely purely on empirical evidences and its rational inferences within and NEVER beyond experience.
Since realism and anti-realism are incommensurable, PH et. al. with their dogmatic stance simply do not understand [not necessary agree with] the anti-realism perspective.

The concept of Incommensurability was made popular by Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

For Feyerabend, Incommensurability within different Framework and Systems of Science emerged from the following;

• 1.. The interpretation of observations is implicitly influenced by theoretical assumptions. It is therefore impossible to describe or evaluate observations independently of theory.
  2.. Paradigms often have different assumptions about which intellectual and operational scientific methods result in valid scientific knowledge.
  3.. Paradigms can be based on different assumptions regarding the structure of their domain, which makes it impossible to compare them in a meaningful way.

The adoption of a new theory includes and is dependent upon the adoption of new terms.
Thus, scientists are using different terms within their specific paradigm when talking about different theories.

Incommensurability [originally from Mathematics] is not restricted to Science but extend to all fields of knowledge on an inter- and intra- basis, e.g. in the current contention within Morality & Ethics.

• ChatGpt:
  Yes, the concept of "incommensurability" can be applied to non-scientific fields as well. Incommensurability generally refers to the idea that some things cannot be meaningfully compared or measured using a common standard.

In this case, Morality & Ethics can be deliberated within a paradigm [aka FSR-FSK] with its stipulated constitutions, principles, terms, processes, etc.
If science can be objective [intersubjectively] within its specific paradigm [FSK], so Morality can also be objective [intersubjectively] within its specific paradigm.

Why PH et. al. cannot understand my stance of Morality and Ethics is due to Incommensurability arising from the different paradigms we rely upon.
The problem is PH et. al. [dogmatic with realism - semantic] do not seem the understand the effect of "Incommensurability" will have on his assertions and conclusions.

The point is PH et. al.'s FSR-FSK basis of ethics relied upon realism which I had proven is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

My point is PH et. al. should be aware [don't think they do at present] and take into consideration the concept of Incommensurability when discussing Morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an indication how an FSR-FSK impute reality on whatever is described.

Distinction between scientific (real) questions and metaphysical (pseudo-)questions
For Carnap, questions such as “Are electrons real?” and “Can you prove electrons are real?” were not legitimate questions, nor did they contain any great philosophical or metaphysical truths.
Rather, they were meaningless "pseudo-questions without cognitive content,” asked from outside a language framework of science.

Inside this framework, entities such as electrons or sound waves, and relations such as mass and force not only exist and have meaning but are "useful" to the scientists who work with them.
To accommodate such internal questions in a way that would justify their theoretical content empirically – and to do so while maintaining a distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions
– Carnap set out to develop a systematized way to consolidate theory and empirical observation in a meaningful language formula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_sentence

The point is,
there are no real electrons unless conditioned upon the Science-Chemistry FSR-FSK.
It is the same with, there is no real 'water is H20' unless conditioned upon a specific human based Science-Chemistry FSR-FSK.

The philosophical claim that science is discovering and approximating its truth closer and closer to something that is mind-independent out there [i.e. metaphysical truth] is refuted by the Incommensurability concept.
There is a fallacy of equivocation here.

[Atla]

I believe that PH et. al. always cannot understand my ideas on morality is due to the concept of Incommensurability.

Typically, the concept of Incommensurability is used within the Philosophy of Science.

Commensurability is a concept in the philosophy of science whereby scientific theories are said to be "commensurable" if scientists can discuss the theories using a shared nomenclature that allows direct comparison of them to determine which one is more valid or useful.
On the other hand, theories are incommensurable if they are embedded in starkly contrasting conceptual frameworks whose languages do not overlap sufficiently to permit scientists to directly compare the theories or to cite empirical evidence favoring one theory over the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensur ... f_science)

Realist and anti-realist philosophies of science

Eric Oberheim and Paul Hoyningen-Huene argue that realist and anti-realist philosophies of science are also incommensurable, thus scientific theories themselves may be meta-incommensurable.

PH et. al. rely upon a realist [philosophical] which assumes mind-independence of reality and thing [noumenon],
while in my case of ANTI-realism, I reject the above assumption and rely purely on empirical evidences and its rational inferences within and NEVER beyond experience.
Since realism and anti-realism are incommensurable, PH et. al. with their dogmatic stance simply do not understand [not necessary agree with] the anti-realism perspective.

The concept of Incommensurability was made popular by Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

For Feyerabend, Incommensurability within different Framework and Systems of Science emerged from the following;

• 1.. The interpretation of observations is implicitly influenced by theoretical assumptions. It is therefore impossible to describe or evaluate observations independently of theory.
  2.. Paradigms often have different assumptions about which intellectual and operational scientific methods result in valid scientific knowledge.
  3.. Paradigms can be based on different assumptions regarding the structure of their domain, which makes it impossible to compare them in a meaningful way.

The adoption of a new theory includes and is dependent upon the adoption of new terms.
Thus, scientists are using different terms within their specific paradigm when talking about different theories.

Incommensurability [originally from Mathematics] is not restricted to Science but extend to all fields of knowledge on an inter- and intra- basis, e.g. in the current contention within Morality & Ethics.

• ChatGpt:
  Yes, the concept of "incommensurability" can be applied to non-scientific fields as well. Incommensurability generally refers to the idea that some things cannot be meaningfully compared or measured using a common standard.

In this case, Morality & Ethics can be deliberated within a paradigm [aka FSR-FSK] with its stipulated constitutions, principles, terms, processes, etc.
If science can be objective [intersubjectively] within its specific paradigm [FSK], so Morality can also be objective [intersubjectively] within its specific paradigm.

Why PH et. al. cannot understand my stance of Morality and Ethics is due to Incommensurability arising from the different paradigms we rely upon.
The problem is PH et. al. [dogmatic with realism - semantic] do not seem the understand the effect of "Incommensurability" will have on his assertions and conclusions.

The point is PH et. al.'s FSR-FSK basis of ethics relied upon realism which I had proven is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

My point is PH et. al. should be aware [don't think they do at present] and take into consideration the concept of Incommensurability when discussing Morality.

On the contrary, many realists reject anti-realism not because they can't imagine it but because they can. Yet another dishonest, childish, desperate attempt by VA.