What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Btw, in your groping around for support you may have wandered into Ordinary Language Philosophy with your ordinary use of the term 'fact' but note,

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143

So now we know what his end game was with that thread where he said he could take down Wittgenstein.
Cute. But Grice, from what I have seen, is entirely in line with Pete's descriptions of factual language claims so I don't see the point?
.

Thanks. I don't know what Grice thinks - but if he makes sound arguments - good onnim. That's all that counts. As opposed to -

"I agree with [this philosopher], who makes this claim or argument. Therefore, I'm right, you're wrong, you're weak, I'm strong."

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, have another go at thinking about these statements:

1 We've invented different ways to describe what we call reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

2 Every truth-claim exists in a descriptive context. But it's not the descriptive context that makes it true.

3 To verify a claim, we have to check it against what we call reality. That gives us the evidence to justify confidence in its truth.

Or, to put it another way, answer these derived questions as simply and briefly as you can:

1 Did or do we invent the reality that we describe in different ways?

2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?

3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?

I have already answered your questions, i.e.

You are so arrogant with your ignorance of the deeper perspectives of entangled-reality.

As I wrote in another post you are stuck with kindergartenish philosophy of 'crude objective reality'.

OK here is another go and hope you get it?

PH: 1 Did or do we invent the reality that we describe in different ways?
We don't invent the reality-in-general like we created an independent table.
However we are the co-creator of an emergent reality of which humans are entangled with.
Note this;

• 1. Newtonian Physics rely on crude objective reality but it still has its use relative to its qualified conditions.
  
  2. Then we have Einstein's revelation of some degree of subjectivity 'the observers' effect' which is much more sophisticated than Newtonian objective reality, thus intersubjectivity.
  
  3. At present we have QM with a higher degree of intersubjective reality with a greater degree of human entanglement.

If you are stuck with crude objective reality [1], then your "we have invented different ways to describe objective reality" would make some limited sense. It appear this the furthest you can grasp of reality.

But when we proceed to realize reality within 2 and 3, the descriptions of reality by humans themselves are part and parcel of a new emergence reality.
From t0, the moment I, you or others type a letter or whatever actions are taken there is instantly a new reality i.e. reality-t1 which is different t0 and so on.
Do you deny there is new-reality-t1 that is different from the previous reality t0 where you and I and others are entangled in?

Many greater thinkers of the past and present have introduced the above of an emergence entangled reality, e.g.'

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

So in a more refined perspective of reality which is more realistic, there is no independent objective reality where we invent different ways to describe it.
Your thinking in 1-3 above is very kindergartenish.

You may counter, what about the moon that existed before there were humans?
In this case there in an element of 'human' hindsight, thus it is still human entangled.

The point is the refined perspective of a human entangled reality has greater potential utilities to mankind's progress than the crude independent objective reality perspective.

PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".

PH: 3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?
As I had claimed whatever is fact, truth and knowledge is conditioned upon a specific FSK or FSR.
The degree of truth of a fact will depend on the credibility of the FSK where the scientific FSK is the standard, i.e. the most credible at present.
Therefore to check or assess the degree of truth of a factual claim we will have to assess the credibility of a FSK in contrast to the best of the scientific FSK as the standard.
Btw, not all scientific claims from the scientific FSK has the same degree of truth, i.e. subject to the methodology and processes used.
What I am referring in the [best-of-the-scientific-FSK in comparison to the best-of-other FSK.

Provide your counter to my response for your points 1, 2 and 3 above.

I believe you are so stuck with the ideology of Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism, i.e. of an independent external reality that you are unable to grasp the principles of an emergent reality that is entangled with the human conditions, i.e. associated fully with QM and partly Einsteinian.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks. I don't know what Grice thinks - but if he makes sound arguments - good onnim. That's all that counts. As opposed to -

"I agree with [this philosopher], who makes this claim or argument. Therefore, I'm right, you're wrong, you're weak, I'm strong."

As I had stated, you don't even know what is your grounding.

Since you are ignorant of your grounding if any, or probably none at all, I am trying to determine for you your grounding.
In this case, I believe your 'grounding' could be linked to the Philosophy of Ordinary Language, which Grice has killed as per that title.

Even if your grounding is the same as Grice' someone would have killed it as well within the overall 'the death of Analyticism'.

In any case, my argument is your grounding is analogical to that of Newton's objective reality in Physics which is relatively kindergartenish to the higher more refined Physics of Einstein and QM.
You need to dig deeper to your groundings if any [likely none at all] to understand where you stand.

My point; it is wiser for you not to be too arrogant with your ignorance especially with your shallow and narrow insistence that there are no objective moral facts.

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks. I don't know what Grice thinks - but if he makes sound arguments - good onnim. That's all that counts. As opposed to -

"I agree with [this philosopher], who makes this claim or argument. Therefore, I'm right, you're wrong, you're weak, I'm strong."

As I had stated, you don't even know what is your grounding.

Since you are ignorant of your grounding if any, or probably none at all, I am trying to determine for you your grounding.
In this case, I believe your 'grounding' could be linked to the Philosophy of Ordinary Language, which Grice has killed as per that title.

Even if your grounding is the same as Grice' someone would have killed it as well within the overall 'the death of Analyticism'.

In any case, my argument is your grounding is analogical to that of Newton's objective reality in Physics which is relatively kindergartenish to the higher more refined Physics of Einstein and QM.
You need to dig deeper to your groundings if any [likely none at all] to understand where you stand.

My point; it is wiser for you not to be too arrogant with your ignorance especially with your shallow and narrow insistence that there are no objective moral facts.

I just begin to suspect that you can't or don't want to address these statements, or answer these questions. Here they are again.

1 We've invented different ways to describe what we call reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

2 Every truth-claim exists in a descriptive context. But it's not the descriptive context that makes it true.

3 To verify a claim, we have to check it against what we call reality. That gives us the evidence to justify confidence in its truth.

Or, to put it another way, answer these derived questions as simply and briefly as you can:

1 Did or do we invent the reality that we describe in different ways?

2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?

3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?

Why not demonstrate the stability and reliability of your philosophical foundation, by answering these questions simply and clearly? Do it right, and you'll educate all of us.

[FlashDangerpants]

PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".

That there pink sentence should be doing time in jail for smuggling offences.
I assume the "realization" is the bit where the science experiments that reference real world physical shit happen?

[FlashDangerpants]

Btw, in your groping around for support you may have wandered into Ordinary Language Philosophy with your ordinary use of the term 'fact' but note,

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143

So now we know what his end game was with that thread where he said he could take down Wittgenstein.
Cute. But Grice, from what I have seen, is entirely in line with Pete's descriptions of factual language claims so I don't see the point?
.

Thanks. I don't know what Grice thinks - but if he makes sound arguments - good onnim. That's all that counts. As opposed to -

"I agree with [this philosopher], who makes this claim or argument. Therefore, I'm right, you're wrong, you're weak, I'm strong."

I've never once seen him address the content of one of these philosophers' stuff. Except the brown table in that Russell book of philosophy for children, the table of snese data not "reality" that may not even exist. He references that one passage really often.

So he has read the first chapter of the least challenging of the books he has ever name dropped. And he has probably read some Kant. Other than that, when asked if he he actually read something, it is usual for him to have downloaded the PDF and organised that into a folder somewhere instead of reading it. But putting stuff into folders and hierarchies is really all he does anyway.

[Peter Holmes]

PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".

That there pink sentence should be doing time in jail for smuggling offences.
I assume the "realization" is the bit where the science experiments that reference real world physical shit happen?

Yay to that. That water is H2O is first an emergence and realisation within the chemistry framework and system of knowledge. An emergence and realisation of what? That something in reality is the case?

I wonder if this wriggling and wriggling, to defend a lost cause, ever feels even ever so slightly ridiculous.

[FlashDangerpants]

PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".

That there pink sentence should be doing time in jail for smuggling offences.
I assume the "realization" is the bit where the science experiments that reference real world physical shit happen?

Yay to that. That water is H2O is first an emergence and realisation within the chemistry framework and system of knowledge. An emergence and realisation of what? That something in reality is the case?

I wonder if this wriggling and wriggling, to defend a lost cause, ever feels even ever so slightly ridiculous.

Check his 3. I can't see anything falsifiable in it. Without that it has as much right comparing itself to science as any literary critical theory does. Without fixing that 2 thing in the way we recommend he has nothing to connect input (such as physical observation of brain states) with a correct outpu (everything after the "therefore") and therefore nothing to determine where mistakes have occurred.

He has constructed a world that you make up as you go along in order to have a science that he makes up as he goes along.
He's still in the exact same sandpit of cat turds I described for him 2 years ago.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks. I don't know what Grice thinks - but if he makes sound arguments - good onnim. That's all that counts. As opposed to -

"I agree with [this philosopher], who makes this claim or argument. Therefore, I'm right, you're wrong, you're weak, I'm strong."

As I had stated, you don't even know what is your grounding.

Since you are ignorant of your grounding if any, or probably none at all, I am trying to determine for you your grounding.
In this case, I believe your 'grounding' could be linked to the Philosophy of Ordinary Language, which Grice has killed as per that title.

Even if your grounding is the same as Grice' someone would have killed it as well within the overall 'the death of Analyticism'.

In any case, my argument is your grounding is analogical to that of Newton's objective reality in Physics which is relatively kindergartenish to the higher more refined Physics of Einstein and QM.
You need to dig deeper to your groundings if any [likely none at all] to understand where you stand.

My point; it is wiser for you not to be too arrogant with your ignorance especially with your shallow and narrow insistence that there are no objective moral facts.

I just begin to suspect that you can't or don't want to address these statements, or answer these questions. Here they are again.

1 We've invented different ways to describe what we call reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

2 Every truth-claim exists in a descriptive context. But it's not the descriptive context that makes it true.

3 To verify a claim, we have to check it against what we call reality. That gives us the evidence to justify confidence in its truth.

Or, to put it another way, answer these derived questions as simply and briefly as you can:

1 Did or do we invent the reality that we describe in different ways?

2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?

3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?

Why not demonstrate the stability and reliability of your philosophical foundation, by answering these questions simply and clearly? Do it right, and you'll educate all of us.

How come you are so blind?

Note my response to your question which I highlighted in blue, i.e. PH1, PH2 and PH3.
viewtopic.php?p=580308#p580308

Provide your counter to my response for your points 1, 2 and 3 above.

I believe you are so stuck with the ideology of Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism, i.e. of an independent external reality that you are unable to grasp the principles of an emergent reality that is entangled with the human conditions, i.e. associated fully with QM and partly Einsteinian.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yay to that. That water is H2O is first an emergence and realisation within the chemistry framework and system of knowledge. An emergence and realisation of what? That something in reality is the case?

I wonder if this wriggling and wriggling, to defend a lost cause, ever feels even ever so slightly ridiculous.

Be mindfulness of your own ignorance before trying to be that arrogant.

PH: That something in reality is the case?
Note this refutation of your 'that is the case' here;
viewtopic.php?p=579574#p579574

Someone once said: "The world is all that is the case."
But, is it?
...
So the next time your friends think something is or isn't the case, consider interjecting with an argument from quantum physics: they're both wrong, and so are you, because even the simple fact of the disagreement itself is just another illusion.
https://amp.interestingengineering.com/ ... ve-reality

What I implied above is, that "Water is H2O" cannot be a standalone scientific fact but rather it has to be entangled with the human conditions, thus the emergence and realization of that entangled reality and thereafter the description of 'what is H20' in words and symbols for communication purposes.

Here is an example and a clue to 'emergence and realization' [Einstein Mask Illusion]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M
You will note there are 'emergence' and 'realization' of two real convex 3D figures.

Anyone who is not informed of the 'background information' will surely proceed to describe the two emergences and realizations as two very real convex 3D figures, figure A and figure B.
As you can see, there is the difference between the emergence & realization of the reality and the description of that reality.
You cannot dispute this? Can you?

Since the above is a common experiment of visual empirical illusion, you have learned that one of the 'real' convex-3D mask [say figure-B] is actually a hollow concave mask.

Nevertheless what you cannot deny is real is, there are the emergence and realization of an illusory convex 3D figure. Thereafter one can describe the illusionary effect.

However, even when a one is aware that figure-B is a hollow concave thing, when the human conditions set upon and entangled with it [at every turn of it] and there is a emergence and realization of convex 3D figure which is cognized as 'real'.
In this situation, there is no way a human can see the hollow mask, but at every turn, there is an instant emergence and realization of a real 3D figure.

This is a solid demonstration of what is emergence and realization within yourself.

What the majority of people don't realize is,
figure A - the 'actual' convex-3D figure also undergo the same [as figure-B] emergence and realization of a convex-3D figure when the human conditions set upon and entangled with it [at every turn of it].
The point is because it is the default process that the majority are ignorant that there is an emergence and realization process going on with figure-A [the actual convex mask].

• This what I have posted and insisting all the time;
  Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
  
  We Are All Hallucinating All The Time
  "In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality."

The difference between the emergence and realization of the real figure A [the actual convex mask] and the real figure B [hollow mask] is a matter of degrees of reality.

Metaphysical /philosophical realists like you insist there is an independent convex-mask and an independent hollow-mask out there regardless of the human conditions.

Point is, whether there is;
1. a convex 3D mask
2. a hollow concave mask
3. a hollow concave mask turned into a convex 3D mask

all the above are emergence and realization in entanglement with the human conditions.

It is the same with the all other real things [water is H2O, etc.], they are all emergences and realizations in entanglement with the human conditions which we subsequently describe for communication purposes.

There is no reality-in-itself, fact-in-itself, all that-is-the-case as you are insisting upon. This is true in one perspective only, i.e. the 'kindergarten' common sense or conventional perspective just as the Newtonian perspective is relative to the QM perspective.

Get it? .

[FlashDangerpants]

He still wants to have it be the case that he is right and Pete is wrong after all that. So it's completely self-destructive.

[Iwannaplato]

He still wants to have it be the case that he is right and Pete is wrong after all that. So it's completely self-destructive.

It might be helpful (geez this is optimisitic) if you and Peter (and you both may well have done this) show him that you understand what he is getting at. Of course you have to wade through contradictions and conflations, but he obviously does not think that you guys realize that our models and ideas about reality are affected by our sensory/nervous systems.

And he seems to conflate this with there not being a reality in itself. IOW I agree with him (to the best of my knowledge) that how we conceive of reality is affected by the way we are embodied, but this does not entail that there is no external reality. And since he constantly makes reference to external reality in itself when he argues that there is no external reality, it's quite confused. He does not seem to realize that Dr. Ramachandran, whose work I am familiar with, is not an idealist or antirealist. He can only draw his conclusions about hallucinations based on his sense of what is objectively real. And so on. VA thinks no one can understand that we have an embodied existence and that this affects how we frame and couch our descriptions of reality. So, showing him that you do might at least give him something more to wriggle around. But then, you've probably done this given the vastness of the dialogue.

And he cannot seem to see that conclusions about epistemology do not all necessarily lead to the same conclusions about ontology.

He needs to undermine all facts so his 'fact' about morals have to be taken as 'facts.' But even if he could demonstrate there is no external reality, this does not make morals into facts. He hangs his hopes on this without realizing that even antirealists will likely have a BIG problem with his moral realism.

[Peter Holmes]

No, have another go at thinking about these statements:

1 We've invented different ways to describe what we call reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

2 Every truth-claim exists in a descriptive context. But it's not the descriptive context that makes it true.

3 To verify a claim, we have to check it against what we call reality. That gives us the evidence to justify confidence in its truth.

Or, to put it another way, answer these derived questions as simply and briefly as you can:

1 Did or do we invent the reality that we describe in different ways?

2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?

3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?

I have already answered your questions, i.e.

You are so arrogant with your ignorance of the deeper perspectives of entangled-reality.

As I wrote in another post you are stuck with kindergartenish philosophy of 'crude objective reality'.

OK here is another go and hope you get it?

PH: 1 Did or do we invent the reality that we describe in different ways?
We don't invent the reality-in-general like we created an independent table.
However we are the co-creator of an emergent reality of which humans are entangled with.
Note this;

• 1. Newtonian Physics rely on crude objective reality but it still has its use relative to its qualified conditions.
  
  2. Then we have Einstein's revelation of some degree of subjectivity 'the observers' effect' which is much more sophisticated than Newtonian objective reality, thus intersubjectivity.
  
  3. At present we have QM with a higher degree of intersubjective reality with a greater degree of human entanglement.

If you are stuck with crude objective reality [1], then your "we have invented different ways to describe objective reality" would make some limited sense. It appear this the furthest you can grasp of reality.

But when we proceed to realize reality within 2 and 3, the descriptions of reality by humans themselves are part and parcel of a new emergence reality.
From t0, the moment I, you or others type a letter or whatever actions are taken there is instantly a new reality i.e. reality-t1 which is different t0 and so on.
Do you deny there is new-reality-t1 that is different from the previous reality t0 where you and I and others are entangled in?

Many greater thinkers of the past and present have introduced the above of an emergence entangled reality, e.g.'

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

So in a more refined perspective of reality which is more realistic, there is no independent objective reality where we invent different ways to describe it.
Your thinking in 1-3 above is very kindergartenish.

You may counter, what about the moon that existed before there were humans?
In this case there in an element of 'human' hindsight, thus it is still human entangled.

The point is the refined perspective of a human entangled reality has greater potential utilities to mankind's progress than the crude independent objective reality perspective.

So your answer is: we didn't and don't create the reality - the 'reality-in-general' - that we describe in different ways. So you are, at least, a methodological realist. Congratulations, and welcome back to reality.

But then you also say we co-create the reality with which we're 'entangled'. Questions:

1 Is that co-created reality different from the reality that we didn't and don't create? And how are they related? (This is patent, contradictory nonsense.)

2 If we co-create the reality we're in, who or what is the other co-creator of that reality? Or is there more than one other co-creator? And if this supposed creation of reality is real - not just a woo-woo metaphor - exactly how does it occur? What is the causal mechanism, and what is the evidence for its occurrence?

Answer: none whatsoever. In other words, this bollocks about creation or co-creation of reality is as credible as supernaturalist creation stories. Your appeal to relativity or quantum mechanical superposition and entanglement is in the long line of false analogies. And anyway, if facts aren't what we say they are, then the claim that there are moral facts is ridiculous.

PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".

More bollocks that deflects from answering the question. The answer to my question is: no, the truth of a factual assertion does not depend simply on its descriptive context. For example, the truth of the chemistry assertion 'water is H2O' does not depend simply on its being a chemistry assertion. And you know this damn well, but you mindlessly repeat your dogma about facts being 'conditioned upon a specific FSK'.

PH: 3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?
As I had claimed whatever is fact, truth and knowledge is conditioned upon a specific FSK or FSR.
The degree of truth of a fact will depend on the credibility of the FSK where the scientific FSK is the standard, i.e. the most credible at present.
Therefore to check or assess the degree of truth of a factual claim we will have to assess the credibility of a FSK in contrast to the best of the scientific FSK as the standard.
Btw, not all scientific claims from the scientific FSK has the same degree of truth, i.e. subject to the methodology and processes used.
What I am referring in the [best-of-the-scientific-FSK in comparison to the best-of-other FSK.

More deflecting flak. The answer to my question, as you damn well know, is that we have to check a factual contextual truth-claim against the reality that, as you agree, we didn't and don't invent. And that's what makes a descriptive context more or less credible in the first place.

You have nothing but spurious, easily falsified claims and refuted arguments. But hey - just Trumpet them often enough, and, hey presto, you've convinced yourself.

[FlashDangerpants]

He still wants to have it be the case that he is right and Pete is wrong after all that. So it's completely self-destructive.

It might be helpful (geez this is optimisitic) if you and Peter (and you both may well have done this) show him that you understand what he is getting at. Of course you have to wade through contradictions and conflations, but he obviously does not think that you guys realize that our models and ideas about reality are affected by our sensory/nervous systems.

And he seems to conflate this with there not being a reality in itself. IOW I agree with him (to the best of my knowledge) that how we conceive of reality is affected by the way we are embodied, but this does not entail that there is no external reality. And since he constantly makes reference to external reality in itself when he argues that there is no external reality, it's quite confused. He does not seem to realize that Dr. Ramachandran, whose work I am familiar with, is not an idealist or antirealist. He can only draw his conclusions about hallucinations based on his sense of what is objectively real. And so on. VA thinks no one can understand that we have an embodied existence and that this affects how we frame and couch our descriptions of reality. So, showing him that you do might at least give him something more to wriggle around. But then, you've probably done this given the vastness of the dialogue.

And he cannot seem to see that conclusions about epistemology do not all necessarily lead to the same conclusions about ontology.

He needs to undermine all facts so his 'fact' about morals have to be taken as 'facts.' But even if he could demonstrate there is no external reality, this does not make morals into facts. He hangs his hopes on this without realizing that even antirealists will likely have a BIG problem with his moral realism.

We do sort of understand, but there is a fundamental problem here which is that VA is working in reverse from the conclusion he wants to the support that would enable that conclusion. A common failing we are all guilty of I admit, but this is a spectacular case.

If you understand the thing he is mentioning, but don't agree that it has the outcomes he requires in support of his unrealistic conclusions, he refuses to agree that you understand at all. There's no way for instance to cummincate to him that realism vs antirealism hasn't been an important debate since WWII, and that nothing much rides on the position you take. He only adopted antirealism as an ineffective strategy to get around some problems with his real concern.... which is the scientific justification of the eradication of Islam.

[Iwannaplato]

We do sort of understand, but there is a fundamental problem here which is that VA is working in reverse from the conclusion he wants to the support that would enable that conclusion. A common failing we are all guilty of I admit, but this is a spectacular case.

If you understand the thing he is mentioning, but don't agree that it has the outcomes he requires in support of his unrealistic conclusions, he refuses to agree that you understand at all.

I know. And he has a hard time carefully responding to objections. So, one tends to get repetition from him.

There's no way for instance to cummincate to him that realism vs antirealism hasn't been an important debate since WWII,

Though this is primarily a problem with his arrogance/condescension. I kinda like fringe positions, they're interesting. If he could manage to consider that many people here have considered various positions he has (and likely read better versions of them) AND be open to the possibiity that he is make leaps in his arguments that he does not notice and also that imlications of his position are often problematic for other parts of his postions, it could be an interesting discussion. I am truly not optimistic, but hey, I tossed in a thought.

and that nothing much rides on the position you take. He only adopted antirealism as an ineffective strategy to get around some problems with his real concern.... which is the scientific justification of the eradication of Islam.

Why would one need an anti-realism strategy against Islam? Doesn't realism present enough possibilities? Doesn't his whole FSK position actually give Muslims more swing room? Of course he will say that science argues against some of their positions, but against things like theism he invokes some very poor non-scientific arguments.