PH: 'What is Fact' is Confirmed by Science

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH et. al. claimed there are no objective moral facts but only moral opinions, beliefs and judgments which are subjective, therefore morality cannot be objective.
To PH, 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, states of affairs or just-is that is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgments. [F]

When pressed to prove the existence of such facts [Fs], PH invokes "science" as proving the existence of these 'independent' facts.
But science per se do not claim the certainty of any independent facts.
There are two perspectives to science, i.e.
1. Scientific realism
2. Scientific antirealism

PH is referring to scientific realism, but scientific realism merely assumes as a convenience there is an external reality out there to be discovered.
There is no way, science can ever confirm there is something independently real beyond what science can confirm within its Framework and System based on empirical evidences.
As Popper had asserted, whatever science can confirmed is merely polished conjectures.

Similarly scientific antirealism will also acknowledge whatever science confirms, they are also polished conjectures as qualified to the science Framework and System.

These polished conjectures can be taken as facts but must be qualified as scientific facts and contingent to a human-based scientific Framework and System.

Since scientific facts are contingent,
PH claims that science confirms his absolute independent fact [feature of reality] cannot be valid.

Therefore PH's 'what is fact' cannot be real but rather is illusory.

Another point is,
PH confines his what is fact to science, i.e. scientific facts only,
now, what about other types of facts, e.g. astrological, financial, historical, linguistic, legal, and other non-scientific facts.
How can PH account for all the non-scientific facts?

PH's what is fact is illusory and outdated.

The most realistic 'what is fact is this'

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1]
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. [within the scientific FSERC]
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact [within the linguistic FSERC], and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact[within the astronomical FSERC].
Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts[within the historical FSERC].

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As above, what are realistic facts is they must always be contingent upon a human-based FSERC - there is no other ways.

FSERC-facts are objective as independent of the subject's [or a loose group of subjects] beliefs, knowledge and opinion, but contingent upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. intersubjective.
Because FSERC-facts are contingent upon a collective-of-subjects [humans] they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Therefore. PH et. al. claim that 'what is fact' as a feature of reality that is the case, states of affairs or just-is that is independent of the subject's opinions, beliefs and judgments, is untenable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

So here's your argument: for philosophy to be serious, it must be objective - it must deal with facts.

The only facts that philosophy deals with are facts about the ways we do or could use certain abstract nouns, such as knowledge (epistemology), goodness (ethics and morality), being or existence (metaphysics).

Logic deals with language, so it's not an exclusively philosophical concern. But, of course, there are loads of other abstract nouns that can be grist to the mill: truth, identity, beauty, mind, consciousness, and so on.

The reason why philosophy has got precisely nowhere since it began - we're still arguing about the supposed things supposedly named by these abstract nouns - is because they're not things that may or may not exist, and that can be described objectively if they do. They're fictions or myths. Or Platonic forms.

Famously, to paraphrase: western philosophy has been an extended commentary on Plato. That nails it. We've been hamstering in the wheel that Plato set a-spinning.

No good dismissing Platonic forms, if we then continuing arguing about what knowledge and goodness really are.

The term 'philosophy' is now a very loose term.
What you are hinging on is the bastardized form of philosophy.

The origin definition of philosophy is actually inherent in all humans, i.e. the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking.

Whatever of reality we are dealing with must be confined within its relevant framework and system, regardless of whether it is a concrete or abstract noun.
These Framework and System will have varying degrees of credibility and objectivity which can be assessed based on a set of criteria, of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard [100/100].

So when we assess the Platonic FSK, it would be 10/100 in contrast to the gold standard due to the lack of reliance on empirical evidences.

Thus, whatever is claimed as reality, facts, knowledge or objective it has to have its specific human-based FSK and from there it can be contrasted with the gold standard.

Therefore, from the above, every thing will be covered and its credibility and objective can be assessed and rated.

Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating is your personal opinion.