Why is Physics 'More Objective' than Astrology?

[Skepdick]

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable, and because you conclude that it isn't, you feel justified in summoning some easily attainable but very low quality alternative product. This a great misjudgment on your part.

I think IWP is making a similar mistake.

Trust a dumb philosopher to start with 1 problem and invent 3 more. Of the exact same kind.

Now you gotta tell us what sort of yardstick you are using for evaluating "mistakenness", "quality" and the "greatness of misjudgments" over and above the yardstick for evaluating objectivity.

You are going the wrong way, bozo!

[Iwannaplato]

yes

That is because your 'yes' is grounded on an illusion.

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable, and because you conclude that it isn't, you feel justified in summoning some easily attainable but very low quality alternative product. This a great misjudgment on your part.

I think IWP is making a similar mistake.

I don't think the problem with objectivity is that it is fallible. I think it's not a description of what is actually happening, which are intersubjective conclusions. The processes that get labelled objective are founded on subjective (empirical) experiences - observations - which are batched intersubjectively.

Yes, I think there's a problem if someone says that it was objective to conclude that X was the case...though it turned out to be false. A problem that does not arise when you say that conclusions are intersubjective and we followed methdology X.

But the main thing for me is that it simply is the case the what gets called being objective or an objective process is justified via intersubjectivity.

There's no 'merely' in this. I am not saying it is merely intersubjective. Nor am I denying an external reality or that objects need us to exist, etc.

But when I look at any process called objective or when I see someone told they are or are not being objective, these judgments are justified based on intersubjective experiences and intersubjective criteria and intersubjective processes.

Homo sapian intersubjectivities, ta boot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

yes

That is because your 'yes' is grounded on an illusion.

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable, and because you conclude that it isn't, you feel justified in summoning some easily attainable but very low quality alternative product. This a great misjudgment on your part.

I think IWP is making a similar mistake.

It is an evolutionary default that humans are programmed to believe there is an objective mind-independent external world because it has been adaptive since billions of years ago.

With the emergence of intelligence, self-awareness and reflecting abilities, some humans [philosophical savants] had realized there are cons [dilemmas, illusions, paradoxes, antinomies] associated the primal belief of an absolute independent external world. And the trend is the cons are outweighing the pros.

This is why Kant came up with his Copernican Revolution to introduce something novel [meta-] in contra to the idea of absolute mind-independent reality and things, i.e. a relative human-based embodied FSRK sense of objectivity [thus intersubjectivity].

While the bilions-years-old adapted primordial sense of objectivity [re mind-independence] is relatively useful, it is delusional to insist it is the only sense of objectivity as "in my way or the highway".

... very low quality alternative product

?? you are ignorant on this.

From what I gathered this meta-objectivity, i.e. relative human-based embodied FSRK sense of objectivity [thus intersubjectivity] relatively has greater benefits to humanity than your absolute mind-independent sense of objectivity.
One notable point is the significant exponential contribution of Quantum Mechanics [mainly anti-realist] over those of the p-realists' Einsteinian and Newtonian Physics.

See: Advantages of ANTI-Philosophical_Realism over P-Realism
viewtopic.php?t=41824

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is because your 'yes' is grounded on an illusion.

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable, and because you conclude that it isn't, you feel justified in summoning some easily attainable but very low quality alternative product. This a great misjudgment on your part.

I think IWP is making a similar mistake.

I don't think the problem with objectivity is that it is fallible. I think it's not a description of what is actually happening, which are intersubjective conclusions. The processes that get labelled objective are founded on subjective (empirical) experiences - observations - which are batched intersubjectively.

Yes, I think there's a problem if someone says that it was objective to conclude that X was the case...though it turned out to be false. A problem that does not arise when you say that conclusions are intersubjective and we followed methdology X.

But the main thing for me is that it simply is the case the what gets called being objective or an objective process is justified via intersubjectivity.

There's no 'merely' in this. I am not saying it is merely intersubjective. Nor am I denying an external reality or that objects need us to exist, etc.

But when I look at any process called objective or when I see someone told they are or are not being objective, these judgments are justified based on intersubjective experiences and intersubjective criteria and intersubjective processes.

Homo sapian intersubjectivities, ta boot.

You seem to be ignorant of FDP's [also PH] position as philosophical or metaphysical realists of the analytic philosophy school [ordinary language, not propositional].

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

Note this is an ontological issue not an epistemological one.

P-realist don't give a F for what humans conclude about 'what is fact' whether intersubjective or otherwise.
A p-realist like FDP believes ontologically "the moon existed before there were humans and will continue to exists even after humans are extinct".


Btw, if I am not mistaken you also believe "the moon existed before there were humans and will continue to exists even after humans are extinct"; thus you are a p-realist of the same genre like FDP?

An ANTI-p-realist take an ANTI position against the above belief of absolute mind-independent objectivity; so, the anti-p-realist [Kantian] believe 'ontologically' what is objective in the intersubjective sense of objectivity as conditioned to a specific FSRK [methodology, paradigm, model, perspective].

[FlashDangerpants]

That is because your 'yes' is grounded on an illusion.

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable, and because you conclude that it isn't, you feel justified in summoning some easily attainable but very low quality alternative product. This a great misjudgment on your part.

I think IWP is making a similar mistake.

It is an evolutionary default that humans are programmed to believe there is an objective mind-independent external world because it has been adaptive since billions of years ago.

With the emergence of intelligence, self-awareness and reflecting abilities, some humans [philosophical savants] had realized there are cons [dilemmas, illusions, paradoxes, antinomies] associated the primal belief of an absolute independent external world. And the trend is the cons are outweighing the pros.

This is why Kant came up with his Copernican Revolution to introduce something novel [meta-] in contra to the idea of absolute mind-independent reality and things, i.e. a relative human-based embodied FSRK sense of objectivity [thus intersubjectivity].

While the bilions-years-old adapted primordial sense of objectivity [re mind-independence] is relatively useful, it is delusional to insist it is the only sense of objectivity as "in my way or the highway".

You still seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable.

... very low quality alternative product

?? you are ignorant on this.

From what I gathered this meta-objectivity, i.e. relative human-based embodied FSRK sense of objectivity [thus intersubjectivity] relatively has greater benefits to humanity than your absolute mind-independent sense of objectivity.
One notable point is the significant exponential contribution of Quantum Mechanics [mainly anti-realist] over those of the p-realists' Einsteinian and Newtonian Physics.

See: Advantages of ANTI-Philosophical_Realism over P-Realism
viewtopic.php?t=41824

You are fooling yourself that you can get all the benefits of actual objectivity with none of the costs by just making "objective" mean something new. You are a shoplifter.

I gave you a description of an objectivity that isn't inherently relativistic, you sneak in an alternative that is, but then pretend you can use FSK things to magic the relativism away. Then you want to use that to make a "morality-proper" FSK thing and pretend you aren't doing moral relativism with it. You are shoplifting from yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You still seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable.

I have never claimed whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable.

You are fooling yourself that you can get all the benefits of actual objectivity with none of the costs by just making "objective" mean something new. You are a shoplifter.

I gave you a description of an objectivity that isn't inherently relativistic, you sneak in an alternative that is, but then pretend you can use FSK things to magic the relativism away. Then you want to use that to make a "morality-proper" FSK thing and pretend you aren't doing moral relativism with it. You are shoplifting from yourself.

I claim what is objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK.
So, being conditioned, such objectivity is obviously relative and not absolutely mind-independent.

Thus it does follow that the moral-proper FSK is relative in some perspective, but it is not the moral-relativism that is dealt within meta-ethics.

Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist for short.

Descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1] Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[2]

Even in some perspective my morality-proper FSK is relative and intersubjective, its principle is based on Moral Objectivity [as defined], i.e. there are objective moral principles.

You overlooked the nuances and perspectives.

[FlashDangerpants]

Even in some perspective my morality-proper FSK is relative and intersubjective, its principle is based on Moral Objectivity [as defined], i.e. there are objective moral principles.

You overlooked the nuances and perspectives.

You have overlooked all nuance since you started this thing.

With my version of objectivity, if you have an objective moral fact, that is then an actual fact and to say that it is untrue is an error.

With your version of objectivity, some "objective" moral fact is just an expression of some FSK thing derived dictum, and to say it is wrong is not an error of fact, but just the expression of a dictum from some competing FSK thing.

And the only way to resolve which fact claim is "true" is to make a little table saying which FSK thing you currently favour, but that depends upon some imaginary FSK ranking thing that anyone can make up their own version of, because you don't allow for any method at all to tether facts to reality in any way. With you it's FSK things all the way down.





So it is relativism all the way down as well.

[Skepdick]

So it is relativism all the way down as well.

You have notions of up and down?!? Good stuff! You can recover a total ordering.

You can rank your relativism from bottom-most to top-post. How do you not know these things? It is the basic premise of the bubble sort algorithm.

Dumb. Fucking. Philosopher.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Even in some perspective my morality-proper FSK is relative and intersubjective, its principle is based on Moral Objectivity [as defined], i.e. there are objective moral principles.

You overlooked the nuances and perspectives.

You have overlooked all nuance since you started this thing.


With my version of objectivity, if you have an objective moral fact, that is then an actual fact and to say that it is untrue is an error.

There are two senses of 'what is fact' and I have argued your version is grounded on an illusion as demonstrated in the following threads;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

With your version of objectivity, some "objective" moral fact is just an expression of some FSK thing derived dictum, and to say it is wrong is not an error of fact, but just the expression of a dictum from some competing FSK thing.

And the only way to resolve which fact claim is "true" is to make a little table saying which FSK thing you currently favour, but that depends upon some imaginary FSK ranking thing that anyone can make up their own version of, because you don't allow for any method at all to tether facts to reality in any way. With you it's FSK things all the way down.
So it is relativism all the way down as well.

My version is the same as how scientific facts are objective as per the FSK sense.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

There is no way to establish the authority of any scientific facts other than to conditioned it within the scientific method and its Framework and System.
Why is 'water is H20'? because the science-chemistry FSRK said so, not because any scientist or you said so.

In any case, the most the science FSK [for some not all] is to ASSUME an objective external reality.
In addition, all scientific facts at most are merely polished conjectures which are vulnerable to dispose if contra evidence are available.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no way to establish the authority of any scientific facts other than to ...

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no way to establish the authority of any scientific facts other than to ...

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable

You think this is an ace card.

I already stated I do not claim,
"it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable"
if it does not answer your point, you need to explain more clearly and plainly instead of being cryptic.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no way to establish the authority of any scientific facts other than to ...

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable

You think this is an ace card.

I already stated I do not claim,
"it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable"
if it does not answer your point, you need to explain more clearly and plainly instead of being cryptic.

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 yourt 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.

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.

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.

[Atla]

I claim what is objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK.

Now all it needs is a 'proper' at the end, and we have a HBEFSRKP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable

You think this is an ace card.

I already stated I do not claim,
"it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable"
if it does not answer your point, you need to explain more clearly and plainly instead of being cryptic.

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.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Etymology of 'Fact': PH's Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40067
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
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
PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40071

On the Question of Chemistry:
"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844
'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39822

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.

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.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

You think this is an ace card.

I already stated I do not claim,
"it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable"
if it does not answer your point, you need to explain more clearly and plainly instead of being cryptic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.