FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:21 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:34 am
You can't tell the difference
between there being a fact of the world and
a statement of a fact about the world.
Pete drew your attention to this deficit in your reasoning years ago.
What makes a claim in chemistry actually true or false is a matter of the chemical composition and behaviour of real world molecules etc.
What makes a claim within the field of chemistry as a science credible is the manner and degree to which we can demonstrate correspondence between the chemist's claim and the behaviour of real world things. What Astrology lacks is any of that latter stuff.
I countered Pete's in the following threads but Pete did not give any satisfactory responses but mostly handwaving-off responses.
The threads are still open for him to counter what I have presented therein:
My general principle is this;
whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
That was just a list of threads where you have asserted something for the umpteenth time for which you have consistently failed to address criticism. You aren't impressing anyone with them. The general principle you are referencing is exactly the one I am criticising in this thread, you aren't answering the problems by just saying the same problematic things over and over again.
The general principle is that of philosophical_realism [mind-indepent] vs ANTI_philosophical-realism [not mind-independent].
However, for any complex issue it is best to deal with it from as many angles as possible.
The point was, you stated Pete explained to me, but I did not agree with his illusory claims without valid arguments and justifications.
The general point is this,
What is fact, reality and objectivity is claimed in two major senses?
1. The human-based FSRK sense which is realistic
2. The mind-independent sense [p-realism] which is illusory.
Your claim is based on 2 in direct opposite to my FSRK sense, but you have not provided any argument nor justifications to support your claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:21 am
On scientific claims and credibility:
I have asked Pete this and receive no response:
- 1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "Water is H20" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "water is H20" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].
You talk about chemistry facts of science but you did not take into account the above.
I already did take account of the above when I wrote:
"You can't tell the difference
between there being a fact of the world and
a statement of a fact about the world."
Nothing more is really needed for that point.
What??
Where is your justification for "there being a fact of the world"
on what authority are you claiming that?
on your personal opinion, beliefs and judgment?
I believe your claim re 'what if fact' is grounded within Analytic Philosophy.
But the traditional analytic philosophy with ordinary language philosophy is dead!
Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868
Can you explain in simple terms
It is a fact, 'water is H20' based on your claims?
On what authority can you confirm the truths of your claim?
First define 'what is fact'.
Note my position in counter to your claims is not plucked from the air but rather on the giant shoulder of Kant - one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:21 am
There is a well known difficulty in bridging the gap between what we say about the world and the world itself. You however wildly overinterpret the outcomes of this issue, which are actually not very important at all. You take the unattainablilty of perfect knowledge of a notional world that lies beyond sensory perception and turn it into a fantasy that justifies an explosion of FSK imagininings repackaged as proto-factoids on the say so of anyone who cares to make up an FSK.
"the world-in-itself" is a very contentious issue because it is clung upon by philosophical realists due to an evolutionary default [instinct].
This had led to all sort of dilemma, paradoxes, antinomies and even the acts of evils in order to defend this dogmatic idea which is illusory.
My use of a FSRK is merely to confine reality and knowledge to what is experienced and possible to be experienced to the extend as far as empirical evidence can support my claim reinforced with rationality and critical thinking.
Like the pyrrhonian skeptics I stop
speculating beyond what is evident or possible to be evidenced.
What is wrong with this?
You and p-realists are driven by an inherent primal drive [subliminally] to speculate about something objective and mind independent
beyond what is experienced and possible-to-be-experienced [where the most credible and objective justification is by the human-based science FSRK.]
You are no different from the theists who speculate on a god that is beyond the empirical.
You are unaware you are entangled within a psychological net as Hume had alluded to re his problem of causation.
Are you familiar with the end of that Hume book, specifically the bit about the game of billiards? I am making much the same poitnm as that when I say things like.... "
You however wildly overinterpret the outcomes of this issue, which are actually not very important at all.". Again, you missed the actual point I was making. Which was that.
I have researched into Hume extensively, but it is impossible for me [average person] to have knowledge of Hume on one's finger tip.
However, I am certain Hume's "constant conjunction, custom and habits" re causation allude to a psychological basis.
I am very interested, give me some details about the game of billards and preferably reference.
All the pretentious nonsense about primal drives and inherent fears is the result of you trying to massively inflate the impact of the nothing question about the reality of an external world.
There is nothing pretentious about primal drives and inherent fears within nature.
It is undeniable there is the human factor and human nature in all the above.
I have researched enough to understand how human nature is infused and embedded into the human realization of reality.
We just cannot ignored this fact just because of ignorance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:21 am
But in your imagininngs, you are in charge of the FSK game and you are the one who says what is credible. And that's the only reason you play the game at all. To have your own little sandpit where all the rules are made by you and anyone who questions them is a kindergartner, as if the kid playing in the sandpit isn't a kindi too.
What don't you ask ChatGpt [with reservations] whether the claim of FSK is reasonable or not re my claim;
"whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective."
That can give you ideas for sources other than your sort of analytic philosophy re ordinary language.
Note;
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
By now, there is nothing within analytic philosophy for you to bridge the reality gap between the human factor and what is supposedly the mind-independent external objective world out there.
If you resort to post-analytic philosophy in the world of Rorty et al, you are veering into pragmatism and no mind-independent world.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.
There is no need to bridge any imagined gap between humans and a supposed mind-independent world, the whole question is junk. That's what Rorty is telling you in Ch1 of the mirror, it's what Wittgenstein is telling you in On Certainty.
You claimed there is a difference between 'what is fact' and 'statement of fact'.
What is fact as PH is claiming [presumably same with you] is independent of the subject's opinion, beliefs and judgement, thus independent of subject's mind, so that is mind-independent.
If you agree with Rorty [mirror] and the very-latter-Wittgenstein [on-Certainty], there there is no ultimate difference between what is fact and statement of fact since both are grounded on the subject and his mind.
So far as I know, nothing I've written is in conflict with Grice on any subject I know him for such as implicature, but feel free to update my "database" with the proceeds of your learning if there's something I've overlooked. So I don't see any need for me to abandon ordinary language reasoning for any of this discussion.
Not on my finger tips at present. Will get back to this point later.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:21 am
As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.
Be real. I saw you write
"Don't fuck around when you are wrong and infected with Aids." the other day, I don't fall for your pearl clutching antics. You will make up an excuse to be terribly offended at me when you next need to. The last time was when you had no other way out after blatantly bullshitting about your Kantian know how versus that of Oxford philosopher Simon Blackburn, and you were getting completely toasted because of your own clumsy overconfidence. That's all going to happen again.
The above is not my default but that was a response [tit for tat] to an attack by the other side.
My position is, when heavily reflecting and focusing deeply on philosophical issues there is no room and no time in those parts of the brain/mind for personal attacks.
The only critiques I initiated is to point out to my interlocutors their shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking so they can hopefully change at their discretion.
I still maintain my stance re the Simon Blackburn claim. Did you toast it with your justifications? No, rather it is just you are not happy with my explanation, in addition this is small issue, if I am not mistaken, I claimed Simon Blackburn misunderstood Kant re Ethics??