Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 10:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 8:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:20 am
Your theory of frameworks doesn't do the work that you think it does.
Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth - and therefore what we call facts.
But 'what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true' is that its truth-value is independent from opinion, given the way we use the signs involved in that context. So what we call truth is very explicitly not a matter of intersubjectve consensus - of collective opinion.
You are still very blind on the truth.
I agree the truth-value of a fact is independent from an individual's opinion and beliefs.
But that objective fact [whilst independent in one phase] and even the referent-of-that-fact cannot ultimately be totally independent from the collective's involvement via emergence and confirmed by intersubjective consensus.
You are claiming for a 'fact' and 'truth' that are not qualified to any Framework, but you are ignorant you are grounding your 'fact' and 'truth' on some kind of Framework [i.e. Philosophical Realism and linguistics] which ultimately are not realistic but only produce illusions.
You got dig deeply to understand how you are caught in this deep hole and conundrum you are ignorant of.
Pay attention. I said 'Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth - and therefore what we call facts.' What you call 'within a framework' is what I call 'within a descriptive context'. We're agreeing here - please don't misrepresent what I say.
Your mistake is in saying that, because facts are always within a descriptive context - a 'framework' - then any descriptive context can produce facts - so what you call a moral framework can produce facts. And that generalised conclusion is patently false.
"You" pay attention!
OK, I can reconcile with 'descriptive context' but I insist 'Framework of Knowledge' is more critical and relevant.
Yes, any defined 'Framework of Knowledge' can produce facts
However there is a degree to the confidence level on the facts produced by each specific Framework of Knowledge.
I believe the most credible Framework of Knowledge at present is the Scientific Framework with produces scientific facts and truths.
Say, if we give a general rating on veracity to the Scientific Framework with its defined features of 100 as a standard, we can relative gauge the rating of other Frameworks of Knowledge.
For example, in astrology, human personality has twelve types according to birth date. So, given your claim, it's a fact that all Librans are indecisive, and so on. I assume you agree that's nonsense.
If the Scientific Framework is rated at 100, then based on the defined feature of the Astrological Framework, we will rate its knowledge at a consolation of 0.1/100.
It is the same for the divine 'fact' by theists, e.g. "God exists as real," personally I would rate that at 0/100.
A beauty contest organization is also a specific Framework of knowledge.
You cannot deny it is a fact and objective, Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is the current Miss Universe 2019. I would rate such a fact at 50/100.
Depending on the credibility of the legal framework of say the USA, we could rate legal facts from USA at 70-80/100.
We can rate all other Framework of Knowledge based on what features of justification and verification for the specific Framework of Knowledge against the Scientific Framework's features of relying on justification, verification, testing of empirical evidences, assured repeatability of results, falsifiability, peer reviews and other essential features.
So, what's the difference between a descriptive context (a 'framework') that can produce facts, and one that can't? It can only be the evidence for the factual claims within that descriptive context. So, in a given context, with given criteria, a stick is 1m long - and you agree that 'the truth-value of a fact is independent from an individual's opinion and beliefs.'
Because the stick is a feature of reality, the assertion 'the stick is 1m long' is true, regardless of opinion, given the context and criteria of the claim.
I don't prefer "descriptive context" but I prefer a Framework of Knowledge where there is a constitution at its core, principles, processes, rules, assumptions, etc. that define the feature of a specific framework of knowledge.
As long as there is defined 'framework of knowledge' it will produce facts.
In the case of 'a stick is 1m long' that is a fact derived from a standardization of measurement Framework of knowledge.
There is no way that fact can stand alone by itself without reference to a specific Framework.
In that specific framework of metric measurement, there is an assumed standard of 'what is 1m'
Are you ignorant of this intersubjective process that establishes your so called 'fact' and truth-value, the stick is 1m long.
(Commonwealth spelling) or meter (American spelling) (from the French unit mètre, from the Greek noun μέτρον, "measure") is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). The SI unit symbol is m. The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by monochromatic light in a vacuum in
1/299 792 458 of a second.
was originally defined in 1793
as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle, so the Earth's circumference is approximately 40000 km.
, the metre
was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889).
, the metre
was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86.
The current definition [metre] was adopted in 1983
and slightly updated in 2019
Yes, your stick is 1 meter long is independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion, but it is not independent of the collective opinion of those subjects who set and agree to what one meter is to be as the STANDARD METER.
Therefore what you think is an objective fact with truth-value independent of individuals opinions and belief, is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective with the consensus of subjects.
Now, back to what you call the 'moral framework'. What feature of reality can possibly confirm the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong', in the way that the stick confirms the assertion 'the stick is 1m long'?
Is the moral wrongness of slavery a feature of reality?
Is the indecisiveness of Librans a feature of reality?
As I said, your theory of frameworks doesn't establish the factual nature of moral assertions. Back to the drawing board.
Your assertion of the 'fact' -'the stick is 1m long' is fundamentally very subjective and based on the opinions of a group of people without justifications at all
What feature of reality can possibly confirm the assertion 'the stick is 1m long'.
Note 'the stick is 1foot long' speculated to be based on the length of the foot of a person in authority, a king.
There is this story:
Probably the most common story of government setting standards of measurement is the story of King Henry I of England, who ruled England from 1100 to 1135. The standard for the "foot" was supposed to have been made by measuring the King's foot.
Maybe it was a speculation, but the fundamental point is, what is a foot lenght is based on a very subjective origin that is made objective intersubjectively.
But my moral fact 'slavery is wrong' is justified from empirical evidence from various source of knowledge, e.g. anthropology, psychology, philosophical reasoning, etc.
This moral fact 'slavery is wrong' can be tested by asking everyone one on earth whether they would voluntarily want be a chattel slave, i.e. owned by another human or humans.
Hope you understand how your ignorance is exposed in the above?
The moral relativism [or moral skepticism] you are banking on could possibly exterminate the human species in the future in the hands of humans.
This is ridiculous. I've never advocated moral relativism or skepticism. My argument is against moral objectivism.
I am against Moral Realism in the sense of Plato's universals that exists independent of the human conditions and those pseudo-moral realism from theists.
My proposals are based on empirical-moral-realism i.e. objective moral facts that are justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning, thus independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion but not independent of the collective subjects involved.
Btw, your objection to moral objectivism or moral realism is based on the principles of Philosophical Realism.
Those moral realists or moral objectivists are also relying on Philosophical Realism.
Thus you are kicking your own back when you condemns moral realism or moral objectivism.