Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:07 am
For continuity, I'm reposting here a comment on yet another of VA's OPs.
Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word
fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.
And this clearly shows that we use the word
fact in two completely different ways. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth-value; it just is or was the case. But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.
The point is that these different uses of the word
fact allow for equivocation, which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.
It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways. And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim. So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.
But VA forgets the other use of the word
fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.
(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)
So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word
fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.
Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.
I should add that, from incomprehension or pig-headedness, VA will ignore this explanation, and make little or no attempt to rebut it. I live without hope.
I am not a coward like you.
You still have not answered my question;
Are scientific facts, truths or knowledge objective, i.e. independent of individual[s] opinions, beliefs or judgments?
PH: I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.
I have already addressed this many times.
I have already stated there is no such things as
'
a feature of reality - by itself
b]that is or was the case[/b] - by itself
independent of individual[s] opinions, beliefs or judgments?
This is what I stated, your above is based on the ideology of Philosophical Realism;
Philosophical Realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views ....
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
You cannot deny your definition of what is fact, i.e. '
a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' fit into the above.
Yes? if No, why and how?
If the above is your ideology, of course there are no objective moral facts in that sense because you are referring to objective moral facts from a God claimed by theists and platonists' ideals and universals.
In addition you fact i.e. '
a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' are ultimately flawed as countered by QM, i.e. there is no facts of independent objective reality out there.
The only realistic view of 'what is a fact' is what I have arguing for, i.e.
FSK Conditioned Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39405
Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.
What wrong with, there are sexual assertions, so there are sexual facts.
As claimed,
whatever is fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK.
Scientific facts from a scientific FSK,
Sexual Facts from a scientific-biological-sexuality FSK.
So, moral facts from a credible moral FSK
without exceptions;
astrological facts from astrological FSK.
The principle is, how credible facts are depend on the degree of credibility of the specific FSK,
At present the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible, thus the standard bearer to evaluate the credibility of all other FSKs on a continuum of credibility and reliability.
From the FSK perspective there are 'astrological facts' but since the astrological FSK is way off the credibility of the scientific FSK, the astrological facts have relatively low credibility and reliability, say 10/100 which typically would not be typically recognized as facts.
I have argued the above points before where there are half-truths along a continuum of truths.
Your OP "What could make morality objective?" exposed your biasness and unbalanced thinking from an unbalanced mind.