Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:21 am
You ignore the first definition of 'error', which is 'a mistake', choosing to go for the second 'being wrong in conduct or judgement'.
Yes. because it gets to the point quicker. You are welcome to define "mistake" for us also.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:21 am
And you seem to have forgotten my explanation that what we call 'truth' and 'fact' is always within a context, conventional and purposive.
Ah good. You are helping me make my argument for me again. You are necessarily claiming that the "factuality" and "truth-value" of any particular thing you call "truth" and "facts" depends on (less importantly) convention but (more importantly) purpose.
Would you say that there is such a thing as objective purpose? e.g a reference frame/context from which we can assert the "factuality" of things?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:21 am
So if the sky here today is blue, then the assertion 'the sky here today is blue' is a fact (a true factual assertion); and the assertion 'the sky here today is grey' is false, an error or a mistake or wrong - given the way we use those words in this context.
You have gone and ignored your own definition (again).
I can't assert whether the description/assertion "the sky is blue" is 'right' or 'wrong' until you tell me what purpose the definition is meant to serve.
If I am a pilot, and I asked you "what does the sky look like for our flight today?" and you said "it's blue". That is surely the wrong answer?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:21 am
As I also say, there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our (conventional and contextual) linguistic practices - no way to check how accurately or precisely we're describing things. Truth, accuracy, precision, and so on, are not independent (metaphysical) things against which we can measure our practices. And the same applies to mistakes, errors and 'wrongness'.
This is wrong. Purpose is a way of checking. If an airplane is supposed to fly, but it crashes instead. That's clearly an error.
And given the track record of continuous improvement in air travel safety the practice of building safe airplanes sure seems like a measurable science to me.
Surely having 1 airplane tragedy a year is better than having 10 airplane tragedies a year?
Or are you arguing that 1 = 10 ?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 9:21 am
I await your demonstration of the existence of the supposed real moral things, such as the wrongness of murder, that justify the claim that morality is objective.
Failed attempt at shifting the epistemic burden.
I await for your conventual, contextual and purposeful way of checking whether any particular statement is "wrong", "erroneous", "mistaken" or any other English adjective you choose to ascribe to the language I choose to use.