I've pointed out a million times that, if there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then it makes no sense to say that things are phenomena (things-as-they-appear). So Kant's distinction makes no sense - and your distorted view of what constitutes what we call a fact is a mistake.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:12 amFrom what you have been posting, you have not understood Kant's position thoroughly.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:25 pmI understand Kant's argument, and I'm pointing out its absurdity.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:04 am I believe there are some issues on your misunderstanding of Kant's Noumena vs Phenomena, so I have raised a specific thread to iron out the issues.
Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423
If you insist, give me an idea of what you have understood about Kant's complete argument in the CPR re phenomena, appearance, noumena, then thing-in-itself as an illusion.
But you said above: 'it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises'. So you seem confused. The claim 'X is the case' may be inductive. But the claim 'X is consistently observed to be the case' can be a premise or a conclusion in a deduction. Scientists use deductive reasoning all the time, so the fashionable claim that all scientific reasoning is inductive is false.I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths?2 You haven't addressed my point about the impossibility of moral entailment from non-moral premises - because your whole argument for so-called moral facts depends on that entailment.
As above, I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths?And I've explained a million times that your premises - facts about DNA or mirror neurons, and so on - are non-moral, and have no moral significance. You can call them moral facts till you're blue in the face, but they aren't moral facts.You are relying on the concept of morality based on judgments of right and wrong which is obviously subjective and those involved in such views had been off target with "what is morality."
I have already explained a "million" times what is moral fact to me is based on physical referents in the DNA and brain within each individual human.
Your thinking is too narrow in confining morality to judgments by individual[s] of what is right or wrong.
I have argued;
All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Scientific facts are conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Therefore Moral facts exist.
As above, I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths? You insist scientific facts are not credible or false?No, deductive entailment is about the nature of premises and what they can entail. A deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premises. So if the premises make no moral claim, neither can the conclusion.Note it is not impossible for an X entailment from a non-X premises.
For example it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises [intuitions, speculations, empirical observations, hypotheses, etc.] when the latter are processed via the scientific FSK.
It is also possible for legal entailment from non-legal premises when they latter are processed via a legal FSK.
So it is possible for moral entailment from non-moral premises when they latter are processed via a moral FSK.
What are you talking about?(A scientific conclusion can, of course, be deduced from scientific premises arrived at by intuition, speculation, observation, hypothesis, and so on. It's the nature of the premise that matters, not how it's been reached.)
A scientific conclusion is NEVER arrived via deduction!
A scientific conclusion is inferred from induction [induced not deduced] from a scientific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] with its specific conditions.
But the point is, whether an argument is deductive, inductive or abductive - if its premises are non-moral, a moral conclusion can't follow. Your condition 'processed via a credible moral FSK' is uselessly question-begging - as I and others have pointed out a million times.
Just stop and think about the definition you quote above: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.' Strangely, 'conditioned and entangled with their human based FSK' doesn't figure in this generally accepted definition of 'what is fact?' - the one I and most other English-speakers use.Note the 7 propositions I listed from the SEP site are the same as what you have been claiming as 'what is fact' in your posts related to the issue. Do you deny this?
Show me which of the 7 propositions of W's Tratacus you do not disagree with and have never relied on them to support your view of 'what is fact'.
Btw, you are running away from stating the grounds you are relying upon to justify your 'what is fact'.
If you that sure you understood W's latest position, give me an idea of his 'On Certainty' and how that is applicable to your views on 'what is fact' [thus no moral facts].The above points are held by the early-Wittgenstein in his Tractatus which he had abandoned in his very later part of his life.PH wrote:A word can mean only what we use it to mean. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.
I suggest you research or reread Wittgenstein's whole perspective of philosophy from his early stage to his final stage in 'On Certainty'.
Obviously, what is "facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion" are mere illusions.You deny that such things exist, but also appeal to them as the empirical evidence that gives natural science its credibility.
You don't even realize you are clinging to illusions.
I deny your illusory 'facts' butYou deny that what we call facts exist, but also claim that there are moral facts.
Cognitive dissonance?
my "what is fact" is verifiable and justifiable via specific FSK, where the scientific FSK is the standard.
I have linked this a "million" times already and yet you are so blind to it.
Facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK, i.e. [mine]A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You have never countered the above but merely repeat ad nauseum your early-Wittgenstein's nonsense [which W abandoned] of 'what is fact'.Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means [scientific FSK].
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, [Linguistic FSK] and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [astronomical FSK]
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [historical FSK]
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. [but conditioned and entangled with their s human based FSK]