Scientific descriptions?? You are merely insulting your own intelligence with this claim.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:23 amI don't. And what makes scientific descriptions credible and reliable is evidence from the reality they describe. Simples.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:45 amYou are not thinking critically at all but merely clinging to your shallow, narrow and dogmatic views of the metaphysical realists' ideology.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:46 am
Nonsense. We describe what we call reality in different ways. But the claim that what we call reality is nothing more than or different from the ways we describe it is ridiculous. And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
Note
Whatever are scientific facts, truths, knowledge & reality are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
Of the best of best, the scientific FKS is the most credible [reliable and trustworthy] as PRESENT.
You just cannot deny the above.
The reality is scientific descriptions are description of scientific facts, truths and knowledge.
What makes the scientific FSK and scientific facts reliable, trustworthy and credible is the fulfilment of its promise that its conclusion are consistent for anyone who do the same experiment.
It is evidence from the experiments and repetitions that is critical not 'evidence from the reality'
As you can see you are talking nonsense in this case!
Tractatus?? that was his kindergarten days but he has progressed with his term 'language games' at the PhD level with his 'On Certainty'.Please don't mangle Wittgenstein's ideas. That quote is from the Tractatus, which he later spent many years reforming, correcting or even repudiating. And you don't understand the significance of language games. (More below.)Even Wittgenstein would agree when he stated what are beliefs & knowledge are conditioned upon the Language Game [framework], the human conditions and the human community. [re On Certainty]
Other than that, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
I had just finished reading and refreshing on W's 'On Certainty' and what I stated is as represented in his 'On Certainty' where the term 'game' is used more than 86 times with Language-Game >65 times.
As far as 'On Certainty' is concern, beliefs & knowledge are conditioned upon the Language Game [framework], the human conditions and the human community.
Show me where I am wrong with 'On Certainty'.
Note Wittgenstein's philosophical views matured with reality analogous like the Newtonian [Tractatus] to Einstein [PI] to QM [On Certainty] view of reality where in his 'On Certainty' he leveraged a lot on the entanglement of the human conditions and the human community.
You are making the initial claim "And it's certainly not what Kant argued", so the onus is on you for your references to show otherwise.Show me where Kant says that reality is how we perceive, know and describe it. He certainly says we can't perceive know and describe reality in any other than the way we do.Kant claimed whatever is reality [empirical realism] is entangled with the human conditions and system, thus the human framework and system.
One can think of an independent reality-in-itself, but to claim and insist there is a "really-real-reality" that is independent of the human conditions is delusional [like you].Show me the references from Kant's works on this claims of yours?And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
It is not my onus to answer, but here is Kant on 'reality',
"Sensation" is obviously a human conditions, thus reality is entangled with the human conditions.As a Category or 'Pure Concept of the Understanding'
Reality is defined as
'that which corresponds to a Sensation-in-general' or that 'the Concept of which points to being (in time)' (CPR A143/B182).
-Caygill
You'll need to read Kant thoroughly to grasp the full meaning of the above.
Note my point re Wittgenstein from his 'On Certainty'.The metaphors are breeding! What makes a description credible is physical (empirical) evidence from the reality that the description describes. No evidence = no credibility. That's why there is no astrological 'FSK'. There's no astrological knowledge. It's all made up.
The only thing that could make it possible is physical (empirical) evidence for the actual existence of moral facts - features of reality. No evidence = no 'FSK', because it means there's nothing to be known.Wrong. You misunderstand why Wittgenstein introduced the idea of language games - which was to emphasise what he called the autonomy of grammar (language) in the many and various contexts in which we use it - including when we describe reality.You cannot insist there is 'no FSK' which is like there is no "language games."
Nah, you are too arrogant with your ignorance.And here's the absurdity of your argument - what's wrong with your principle - in a nutshell. There are no astrological facts, so there's no astrology FSK - framework and system of knowledge. As I've/we've pointed out many times, from the correct observation that what we call facts are context-dependent, you falsely conclude that descriptive contexts create facts. And that's nonsense.All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
What is wrong with this principle?
So in principle the astrologer community do operate within a FSK.
It is a fact that the astrological community has a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or claims of knowledge.
Thus you cannot deny there is no astrology FSK.
The question is whether the astrological FSK is reliable or credible.
Note;
- For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe [size-130]historical facts[/size].
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Surely you are aware 'historical facts' are not very accurate and reliable* BUT nevertheless they are accepted as facts, i.e. historical facts.
* It is well accepted, "History Written by Victors."
I am sure you accept "historical facts" but somehow will impute a certain confidence level to it depending from the specific historical FSK.
If you accept historical facts why the hypocrisy in rejecting moral facts from a credible moral FSK where the majority of its input are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
Thus there are moral facts unless you are a hypocrite.