FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 12:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 10:05 am
So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a
dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a
fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?
That's a designation really, and a contingent one at that. Astronomers currently sort
objects that
orbit the
sun into multiple categories with
planets being the largest, asteroids the smallest and dwarf planets in between if I am not mistaken. The categorization is a matter of convention, and conventions are not typically thought of as "objective".
What causes Pluto to fall below the current bounds of the conventional definition of a planet would appear to be its
size. The
diameter, circumference, weight, velocity, displacement and whatnot of the object in outer space that we call Pluto are among its objective properties and those are used to determine that if an object which orbits the sun is larger than X but smaller than Y then it is a dwarf planet. The
true size of Pluto is not intersubjective information except in so far as there are other arbitrary conventions for units of measurement etc. The object is the size that it is, and objectively so.
The designation is not the critical issue here.
Before we designate, describe what is known, it must have emerged and realized in tandem with the human conditions.
see:
Reality: There are the Emergence & Realization [of Reality] Processes Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is critical are the contingent conditions, i.e. the human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy [IAU]-FSRK that is further conditioned upon the 3.5 billion years of organic history of evolution and 13.7 billion years of physical history.
These are all the imperative conditions that intersubjectively ground what is designated Pluto as a dwarf planet.
Thus when we assert that it is fact [FSRK-ed] Pluto is a dwarf planet, we cannot ignore all the above necessary conditions.
It is the same for every element
bolded above and others above; they are all imperatively conditioned upon all the above imperative conditions, thus intersubjective, i.e. their objectivity is intersubjectivity.
It there are true size for Pluto?
How can you measure the actual diameter of Pluto when its surface is so irregular all over the planet?
Ultimately what is the true size for Pluto is an
estimation upon intersubjective consensus, thus intersubjectivity, and that in an intersubjective reality.
Btw, what is fact to you is merely a logical and linguistic fact, i.e. it is not a realistic fact.
That is why you can only insist your what is fact is
objectively so; i.e. so empty.
A realistic fact is one that is credible and objective as grounded upon a human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most realistic, credible and objective.
And not, a human-based scientific FSRK is grounded on intersubjectivity, if not how?
Your argument structure is, again, not very good. You are trying to establish that there are intersubjective facts and then via false syllogism assume that all facts are therefore intersubjecive. Be better than that please.
Nope.
I claim ALL facts [reality, truth, knowledge, objectivity] must be conditioned upon a human-based FSRK which is conditioned upon a 13.7 billion years of history.
Because it is human-based, i.e. collective of human subjects, it has to be intersubjective, if not how else?
Therefore ALL facts are intersubjective.
There are no god-eye-view standalone facts as you are alluding to.
Thus the only other most realistic option are FSRK-ed facts.
Your 'what is fact' is based on traditional language-based analytic philosophy which is now 'dead' as I had presented here;
Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868
Analytic Philosophy emerged to counter Kant Copernican Revolution where reality is leveraged upon the human condition.
It was Frege who started it in attempting to bridge the subject with the object, but destroyed by
Russell who was countered by
Wittgenstein who countered himself via
the later Wittgenstein
later if was logical position that failed
the we have Ordinary Language philosophy which also failed.
Up to this point traditional analytic philosophy has failed in its original objective.
If you are shifting into post-analytic [veering toward pragmatism], then you what is fact [mind independent, value free] is not valid anymore. Putnam's no fact-value distinction, Rorty did away with mind-independent facts.