Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
This argument is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. And the first premise happens to be false, but that's a separate issue. Stripped down, the claim is that Logik doesn't use these signs in a standard way.
Yes.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
This is false. Deductive validity simply means that, in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true; the premises entail the conclusion; the conclusion follows from the premises. Universality is not a requirement.
This is a mistake. What is a requirement for a valid argument is that it is
impossible (not just improbable) for the premise to be true, but the conclusion to be false.
And yet, this is exactly what happens when you assume "humans use signs in standard way", but "Logik doesn't use signs in a standard way".
Either I am not human, or the argument is invalid.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
I've never claimed we have universal truths, so this is a straw man.
You don't have to claim it. If you are USING deduction then you are ASSUMING your axiom/proposition to be universally true.
If you are NOT assuming your axiom/proposition to be universally true then you are necessarily using induction.
Deduction is unreliable with non-universals.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
The rules I follow are the rules I learned for the use of these words. I use the words 'fact', 'opinion/judgement/belief', 'objectivity' (and 'truth') in standard ways, such as are explained in dictionaries.
Dictionaries are recursive and descriptive. Not prescriptive.
But dictionaries merely describe usage, and usage can and does vary and change sometimes. And, to my knowledge, lexicographers are never prescriptivists.
Which puts you in a predicament. If they are not prescriptivist then you can't use the definition to make any deductions.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
1 If facts are opinions, then there are no facts, but only opinions.
2 If there are no facts, then objectivity is impossible.
3 If objectivity is impossible, then morality can't be objective.
I think 3 follows from 1 and 2, and that this refutes your argument for moral objectivity. Your premises, as it were, defeat your conclusion. The only way you can defend moral objectivity is if you accept the distinction between facts and opinions - which is what you explicitly reject.
No, Peter. If 1 and 2 are true then you need to clarify the subjective criteria you are using for asserting "factuality" and "objectivity". You need to narrate your expectations and communicate to us what would meet your criteria.
You defined facts "accurate descriptions of reality". How do you conceptualise and assert "accuracy"?. On an on we go until we both agree than man is the measure of all things.
Once you and I have established a standard for "facts" and "objectivity" that we can BOTH agree to, then we can see if a standard for morality cab be established.
But here is the thing. Observe that the problem ALWAYS boils down to rules, criteria and standards.
So WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of
RULES which make something a "fact" vs "fiction"
And then WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of
RULES which makes something "objective" vs "subjective"
And then WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of
RULES which makes something "moral' vs "immoral".
We define the rules!
If we could agree on the rules and standards of reasoning, if we could agree on the rules and standards for using language then why can't we agree to rules and standards of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour? e.g morality.
WITHIN the system that WE have created the rules are objective! By subjective consensus.