What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, but I was referring to supernatural intervention .

I have no useful conception for the word 'supernatural'. Especially not when used with the word 'intervention'.
If the effects of any 'intervention' can be detected there is nothing 'supernatural' about it.

To a scientist 'supernatural' means exactly the same thing as 'undetectable'.

[surreptitious57]

All models are wrong because no matter their accuracy they are simply representations of reality
A representation of something is not and cannot ever be the same as the actual thing in question

Why must a representation of reality be wrong ? What is the ( fantasy ) standard of rightness ?

The most accurate models of reality are scientific but science is an inductive discipline so no scientific theory can ever be absolutely true
A model is only as good as the evidence supporting it but new evidence may falsify it and this is why theories cannot be regarded as facts

Newtonian gravity is a scientific theory that stood for over two centuries before it was falsified by General Relativity
And General Relativity is not an absolute theory either because of its famous incompatibility with Quantum Mechanics

For a theory to be absolutely true would require proof not evidence but proof is the remit of deductive systems such as mathematics
So all scientific theories are therefore approximations of physical reality even if they are very accurate as they will always be flawed

Science does not investigate physical reality only observable phenomena but I sometimes use the terms interchangeably for reasons of simplicity

[surreptitious57]

Hypothetically if all models of reality past and future were known and final would the knower know objective reality

No because experience of reality would still be subjective as that is how a knower would interpret it even if knowledge was absolute
For having absolute knowledge of reality and interpreting it uniquely through sense perception and brain processing are not the same

[Peter Holmes]

Your misunderstanding is evident. What we're talking about has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

Yeah. That's why I reject your taxonomy. Because you can't decouple a representation (DESCRIPTION!) of reality from the UTILITY of that representation/description.

You've gone and categorized the world without any criteria for consideration as to WHY you've categorized the world that way. How do you decide if one taxonomy is better or worse than another taxonomy?

We;re talking about the possibility of the objective representation of reality - not moral judgements about behaviour. Gross category error.

OK, wiseass. What medium would you express this 'representation of reality'.

Conceptual? Linguistic? Mathematical? Computational? Mechanical?

If your representation of reality results in your extinction - your representation is objectively immoral. As far as the wellbeing of your species is concerned.

So how and WHY did you decide to categorize "representation of reality" separately from "moral judgments about reality"?

And the claim that all we have is degrees of wrongness makes no sense at all. Wrongness relative to what?

Wrongness relative to the premature death of every single human. Present and future. Colloquially: extinction.

Sorry, but the poverty of your reasoning is patent and must surely embarrass you. Why not back up and try a different tack?

I am sorry to disappoint you, but this mode of reasoning has persevered for millenia. Because it works. It has worked and will continue to work this way with or without your approval. Those who think like you go extinct sooner than those who think like me...

Which is precisely how natural selection wants it

Bullshit. You say all models are wrong - and you call that a 'mode of reasoning'? And you've made no case for a dissolution of the fact-value barrier. Once again, the only conclusion is that you don't know what you're talking about - but you've latched on to some cool-sounding slogans that make you feel like you do. Good on you.

[TimeSeeker]

Bullshit. You say all models are wrong - and you call that a 'mode of reasoning'?

Yes. I do. As does every scientist.

Every single positive statement you make about reality is contingent. And I'll keep on demonstrating it over and over till you get the point.

And you've made no case for a dissolution of the fact-value barrier

Neither have you, and yet here you are cutting up the universe into IMAGINARY categories. Every category you INVENT is a value judgment - an ought.

So go right ahead and tell us how you have dissolved the barrier. Or do you only recognize the 'barrier' when it suits you ?

Once again, the only conclusion is that you don't know what you're talking about

That's because you are a dumb philosopher who doesn't know the difference between talking and doing.
https://fs.blog/2016/11/green-lumber-fallacy/

In my field of work (systems engineering) there are selection pressures against bullshitting. It is difficult to hide overt, systemic failure behind fancy-sounding rhetoric.

I wish I could say the same about philosophy...

[surreptitious57]

I was referring to supernatural intervention

There is no such thing as supernatural intervention as any phenomena that can be observed is physical not supernatural
And any phenomena that cannot be observed cannot actually be regarded as phenomena as this would require evidence

[Peter Holmes]

Bullshit. You say all models are wrong - and you call that a 'mode of reasoning'?

Yes. I do. As does every scientist.

Every single positive statement you make about reality is contingent. And I'll keep on demonstrating it over and over till you get the point.

And you've made no case for a dissolution of the fact-value barrier

Neither have you, and yet here you are cutting up the universe into IMAGINARY categories. Every category you INVENT is a value judgment - an ought.

So go right ahead and tell us how you have dissolved the barrier. Or do you only recognize the 'barrier' when it suits you ?

Once again, the only conclusion is that you don't know what you're talking about

That's because you are a dumb philosopher who doesn't know the difference between talking and doing.
https://fs.blog/2016/11/green-lumber-fallacy/

In my field of work (systems engineering) there are selection pressures against bullshitting. It is difficult to hide overt, systemic failure behind fancy-sounding rhetoric.

I wish I could say the same about philosophy...

Let's take a look at the genius of your argument.

1 A model of a thing is 'wrong' because it isn't the thing of which it's a model. All those plastic baby dolls? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Fancy you idiots thinking they're 'right'.

2 A model is 'wrong' because it isn't a precise, accurate, complete, perfect representation of the thing of which it's a model. But no model can have those properties anyway, because, well, it's a model - right?

3 A linguistic model of a thing - a description of that thing - is as 'wrong' as any other kind of model - because it just isn't the thing of which it's a description. To nail it: a description is 'wrong' because it isn't the thing it describes.

4 A factual assertion is wrong, because it isn't the thing it asserts. This includes the assertion 'all models are wrong', which must also be 'wrong'.

5 The factual assertion 'all models are wrong but some are useful' is also 'wrong'.

Confronted with thinking of this calibre, I have no choice but to concede. I've been wrong all along.

[TimeSeeker]

Confronted with thinking of this calibre, I have no choice but to concede. I've been wrong all along.

Welcome to epistemology. Where you and I don’t get to decide whether we are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

We get to find out. Empirically.

How conveniently you ignored my argument about your continued (yet unacknowledged) crossing of the is-ought gap

[Peter Holmes]

Confronted with thinking of this calibre, I have no choice but to concede. I've been wrong all along.

Welcome to epistemology.

What - you mean the branch of philosophy - all of which you despise?

I assume you're unembarrassed by my description of your utterly ridiculous argument.

Move on, everyone. Nothing to see here.

[TimeSeeker]

What - you mean the branch of philosophy - all of which you despise?

No, I mean epistemology. Applied science. Where you and I don’t get to decide whether we are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. We get to find out. Empirically. Reality is the objective arbiter.

Philosophers know nothing about knowledge.

I assume you're unembarrassed by my description of your utterly ridiculous argument.

You continue to use pejoratives like 'ridiculous' without being transparent about your objective standards for non-riduculousness.
That sounds like an appeal to authority, and yet - no authority is to be found in sight...

Move on, everyone. Nothing to see here.

[Peter Holmes]

What - you mean the branch of philosophy - all of which you despise?

No, I mean epistemology. Applied science. Where you and I don’t get to decide whether we are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. We get to find out. Empirically.

Philosophers know nothing about knowledge.

I assume you're unembarrassed by my description of your utterly ridiculous argument.

You continue to use pejoratives like 'ridiculous' without being transparent about your objective standards for non-riduculousness.
That sounds like an appeal to authority, and yet - no authority is to be found in sight...

Move on, everyone. Nothing to see here.

Blimey. So you think epistemology - the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge - is 'Applied science'. Whoa.

And you identify epistemology/Applied science with empiricism - a foundationalist theory of knowledge. Whoa.

And you think we can be 'right' and 'wrong', but that all models are wrong, and there are no such things as objectivity, facts and truth. Whoa.

And I've shown you why your anti-objectivist argument is contradictory and ridiculous - worthy of ridicule. And you've made no case for moral objectivism which is what my OP was about. Tough stuff, but just suck it up. Back to the drawing board.

And you've been abusing me fairly consistently for ages. As I remember, I'm a fucking hypocrite, and so on. I apologise if I've stooped to that in the way I've addressed you. My bad.

[TimeSeeker]

Blimey. So you think epistemology - the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge - is 'Applied science'. Whoa.

No. The actual manifestation of knowledge in reality is inseparable from system dynamics - the ontology of knowledge is not static. Knowledge is constantly acquired/updating/refreshed/corrected based on real-world feedback. Knowledge is a continuously-evolving system!

And so I have no idea why you think you can 'deal' with knowledge in philosophy when you don't even understand system dynamics.
For to understand system dynamics you need Mathematics/calculus You also need to accept the 'metaphysical illusion' of time...

I understand system dynamics. So I think I have a better claim to epistemology than philosophers.

And you identify epistemology/Applied science with empiricism - a foundationalist theory of knowledge. Whoa.

No. I approximately identify epistemology with Bayesian networks and machine learning - Mathematical models. Which is the OPPOSITE of foundationalism.
So you are strawmanning me. You can go and read the paper called "Elephants don't play chess".

And you think we can be 'right' and 'wrong', but that all models are wrong, and there are no such things as objectivity, facts and truth. Whoa.

False dichotomy. We can be LESS wrong. On the CONTINUUM of "right" and "wrong". Stop thinking in boxes/categories...

And I've shown you why your anti-objectivist argument is contradictory and ridiculous - worthy of ridicule. And you've made no case for moral objectivism which is what my OP was about. Tough stuff, but just suck it up. Back to the drawing board.

It's contradictory in English. In Mathematics it's just an algorithm. If you want me to present you with a "convincing argument" you need to be transparent about the evidence YOU EXPECT that would CONVINCE YOU.

The burden of proof is on me. The threshold of sufficient evidence is on you.

You know - so that you can't keep shifting the goal posts as I provide you with an avalanche of evidence

In your failure to be open and transparent about where your own uncertainty lies you demonstrate your lack of intellectual honesty.

And you've been abusing me fairly consistently for ages. As I remember, I'm a fucking hypocrite, and so on. I apologise if I've stooped to that in the way I've addressed you. My bad.

Of course. I "abuse" all philosophers. You are the 21st century theists. You do far more harm to the notions of 'truth' and 'knowledge' than good.

It's no different to atheists "abusing" theists

I simply insist on higher standards for 'truth' and 'knowledge' than you do.

[Belinda]

Hypothetically if all models of reality past and future were known and final would the knower know objective reality

No because experience of reality would still be subjective as that is how a knower would interpret it even if knowledge was absolute
For having absolute knowledge of reality and interpreting it uniquely through sense perception and brain processing are not the same

But "all models of reality" includes the knower's insight into her own subjective world."All models of reality" also includes medieval ideas of a supernatural deity who intervenes in history.

Regarding your disregard of ontology, TimeSeeker, I will have to remain disappointed that you cannot or will not think outside of your conception of yourself as a scientist. I would not have thought that a scientist must inevitably also be a positivist.

[Belinda]

Hypothetically if all models of reality past and future were known and final would the knower know objective reality

No because experience of reality would still be subjective as that is how a knower would interpret it even if knowledge was absolute
For having absolute knowledge of reality and interpreting it uniquely through sense perception and brain processing are not the same

Surreptitious , please see my reply to TimeSeeker.

[TimeSeeker]

Regarding your disregard of ontology, TimeSeeker, I will have to remain disappointed that you cannot or will not think outside of your conception of yourself as a scientist. I would not have thought that a scientist must inevitably also be a positivist.

I don't disregard it. I think it is misguided.

120 years ago the fundamental building blocks (e.g the 'ontology of matter') were protons, electrons and neutrons.
In 2018 the ontology of matter is quarks, leptons and electrons. Is THAT the ontological bottom then or is there another layer of abstraction?

How would we ever tell if there is another layer? For one can ALWAYS ask an ontological question: What is the ontological nature of a quark? What is ontological nature of the things that make up quarks? What is the ontological nature of the things that make up the things that make up quarks?

This is directly related to the halting problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) in Computer Science. How will we KNOW if/when we discover the "True Ontology', the 'True Bottom' of reality?

Simply: how do you look for something you have no conception of and how will you recognize that you have found it?!? You know - so that you can stop looking for it.

The current conception of ontology is Turtles all the way down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down