Your ground is merely what is fact is fact grounded on what we English speakers said it is so!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 2:07 pm1 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 5:44 am"Truth can be understood in relation to biological experience"
possible but that is too loose a statement.
What is truth or fact must be conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] which is fundamentally entangled with the human conditions.
What is scientific truths or facts must be conditioned to the Scientific FSK.
The next question is whether these conditioned truths or facts are credible [in what degrees] or false.
Scientific (& mathematical truths are the most credible at present. Legal facts, economics, social, political, fiscal, sports, etc. are of lesser credibility than scientific facts.
If not then that would be pseudo-science.
Therefore one cannot simply claim a fact or a statement is a true or false without any reference [implicit if not explicit] to its specific FSK.
The problem with Peter Holmes, et. al. is they will not or are unable even to qualify on what FSK or grounds their facts and truths are grounded upon. Their only claim of what is fact is what we English Speakers said 'what a fact is.'
2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. That's how we use the word fact. Suck it up.
It is never an ontological question, that is veering toward the illusory, e.g. the ontological God.3 Whether what we call features of reality actually exist is an ontological question. The claim that they don't incurs a burden of proof, unmet so far, to my knowledge - so the claim is or seems irrational.
The most credible claim of what we call features of reality are scientific facts and they are grounded on a scientific FSK.
Do you dispute this?
Yes what is reality grounded on scientific FSK which is the most credible and that in one perspective is independent of individuals' opinion and belief but it cannot be absolutely independent of the FSK it is grounded upon.4 If what we call reality exists, it exists independently from any way it can be described. The claim that it doesn't incurs a burden of proof, unmet so far, to my knowledge - so the claim is or seems irrational.
5 Mistaking what we say about things (see 1) for the way things are is the original mistake in and of philosophy.
Since FSKs are constructed and sustained by humans, whatever are facts cannot be absolutely independent of any human conditions.
I anticipate you will merely make noises to the above without any rational justifications but merely claim [English speaking] 'I say so!'