Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it. Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.

5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.

6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?

Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.

I have challenged your points raised above.

Note 'water is H20' is only valid within a scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported by the semantics FSK.
Whatever is a scientific fact/truth within the scientific FSK is at best merely a 'polished conjecture'.
Therefore the scientific fact/truth 'water is H20' is merely a polished conjecture.
Thus whatever is to be the case based on a scientific fact or truth, it is at best merely a conjecture, i.e. a conditional polished conjecture.

In a claim of moral facts/truths, it is the same with that of scientific facts or truths, i.e. whatever is a moral fact or truth is a best a polished conjecture within the Moral FSK [Framework & System of Knowledge].
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Note your semantics and linguistic FSK you relied upon is not a critical factor in this debate because we all use the same semantics and linguistic standards. It is the same with the logic we use.

What is critical is how robust and credible is the moral FSK that is used.
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:37 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it. Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.

5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.

6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?

Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.

I have challenged your points raised above.

Note 'water is H20' is only valid within a scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported by the semantics FSK.
Whatever is a scientific fact/truth within the scientific FSK is at best merely a 'polished conjecture'.
Therefore the scientific fact/truth 'water is H20' is merely a polished conjecture.
Thus whatever is to be the case based on a scientific fact or truth, it is at best merely a conjecture, i.e. a conditional polished conjecture.

In a claim of moral facts/truths, it is the same with that of scientific facts or truths, i.e. whatever is a moral fact or truth is a best a polished conjecture within the Moral FSK [Framework & System of Knowledge].
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Note your semantics and linguistic FSK you relied upon is not a critical factor in this debate because we all use the same semantics and linguistic standards. It is the same with the logic we use.

What is critical is how robust and credible is the moral FSK that is used.
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:37 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it. Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.

5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.

6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?

Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.

I have challenged your points raised above.

Note 'water is H20' is only valid within a scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported by the semantics FSK.
Whatever is a scientific fact/truth within the scientific FSK is at best merely a 'polished conjecture'.
Therefore the scientific fact/truth 'water is H20' is merely a polished conjecture.
Thus whatever is to be the case based on a scientific fact or truth, it is at best merely a conjecture, i.e. a conditional polished conjecture.

In a claim of moral facts/truths, it is the same with that of scientific facts or truths, i.e. whatever is a moral fact or truth is a best a polished conjecture within the Moral FSK [Framework & System of Knowledge].
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Note your semantics and linguistic FSK you relied upon is not a critical factor in this debate because we all use the same semantics and linguistic standards. It is the same with the logic we use.

What is critical is how robust and credible is the moral FSK that is used.
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Will you provide ANY examples of YOUR so-called "moral fsk"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:37 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it. Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.

5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.

6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?

Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.

I have challenged your points raised above.

Note 'water is H20' is only valid within a scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported by the semantics FSK.
Whatever is a scientific fact/truth within the scientific FSK is at best merely a 'polished conjecture'.
Therefore the scientific fact/truth 'water is H20' is merely a polished conjecture.
Thus whatever is to be the case based on a scientific fact or truth, it is at best merely a conjecture, i.e. a conditional polished conjecture.

In a claim of moral facts/truths, it is the same with that of scientific facts or truths, i.e. whatever is a moral fact or truth is a best a polished conjecture within the Moral FSK [Framework & System of Knowledge].
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Note your semantics and linguistic FSK you relied upon is not a critical factor in this debate because we all use the same semantics and linguistic standards. It is the same with the logic we use.

What is critical is how robust and credible is the moral FSK that is used.
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

That would all depend on whether the 'opinion', itself, ended up being an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, and thus Fact, or NOT.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am 2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

Just out of curiosity are you going to reply to my last reply to you? Or, are you, ONCE AGAIN, going to just ignore all of it, and 'run away', as some are saying here, just like you did the other times?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:56 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am
1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

That would all depend on whether the 'opinion', itself, ended up being an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, and thus Fact, or NOT.

Perhaps you don't understand the function of a conditional premise. The antecedent (the 'if' bit) means 'if it's the case that...', so the consequent follows from what is (conjecturally) the case. So your response misses the point.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am 2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

Just out of curiosity are you going to reply to my last reply to you? Or, are you, ONCE AGAIN, going to just ignore all of it, and 'run away', as some are saying here, just like you did the other times?

Tell you what, if you think that what I say doesn't actually address/answer/refute what you say, then ... I reckon there's no point in continuing this discussion. Perhaps we just don't understand each other, and there's no remedy. But thanks for engaging. Maybe others have profited.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:56 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am
1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

That would all depend on whether the 'opinion', itself, ended up being an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, and thus Fact, or NOT.

Perhaps you don't understand the function of a conditional premise. The antecedent (the 'if' bit) means 'if it's the case that...', so the consequent follows from what is (conjecturally) the case. So your response misses the point.

From what you have said here, you appear to have been able to NOT have MISSED my point ANY FURTHER.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:24 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am 2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

Just out of curiosity are you going to reply to my last reply to you? Or, are you, ONCE AGAIN, going to just ignore all of it, and 'run away', as some are saying here, just like you did the other times?

Tell you what, if you think that what I say doesn't actually address/answer/refute what you say, then ... I reckon there's no point in continuing this discussion.[/quote]

I KNOW that what you have been saying here does NOT actually address NOR refute what I have been saying, and meaning.

If you see NO point in continuing with this discussion, then PLEASE feel absolutely FREE to STOP and/or RUN AWAY. If you are NOT able to back up and support your CLAIMS with IRREFUTABLE Facts NOR able to formulate and provide sound AND valid arguments, then so be it. Just QUIT.

By the way, STARTING a thread, but then QUITING, can REVEAL MORE about what is ACTUALLY True here.

Also, let us NOT FORGET that you have STILL NOT YET provided a 'fact', which is NOT an opinion NOR a view.

Now, I KNOW what I have to say and CLAIM is an IRREFUTABLE Fact, and can be and WILL be backed up AND supported with other IRREFUTABLE Facts. I also KNOW that a sound AND valid argument can be PROVIDED, which WILL express thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here.

But, AGAIN, if you RECKON there is NO point in continuing this discussion, then I am CERTAINLY NOT going to MAKE you SEE nor DO ANY 'thing' DIFFERENTLY.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:24 am Perhaps we just don't understand each other, and there's no remedy.

But I DO understand 'you'. And, the REMEDY is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY indeed.

But one HAS TO BE OPEN and WILLING to CHANGE.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:24 am But thanks for engaging. Maybe others have profited.

Look;

You want to CLAIM that 'facts' exist, which are NOT views NOR opinions. But when it comes to 'morality' you want to CLAIM that there are absolutely NO 'facts' AT ALL.

You want to CLAIM that there are 'objective facts', which again are NOT views NOR opinions. But when it comes to 'morality' you want to CLAIM that there are absolutely NO 'objective facts' AT ALL.

You want to CLAIM that there is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL that can make 'morality' 'objective'.

You also want to CLAIM that; "What we (English speakers) call objectivity means independence from opinion when considering the facts."

I have ALREADY REPLIED to your CLAIMS here by CHALLENGING you AND QUESTIONING you for CLARITY.

You have FAILED to ADDRESS and REFUTE my CHALLENGES and you have FAILED to ANSWER and CLARIFY my QUESTIONS. So, your INABILITY to do these things could be the VERY REASON why you RECKON there is NO point in continuing this discussion. Your INABILITY to back up and support your OWN CLAIMS is also further evidence of WHY you WANT to run away or quit.

And, let us NOT FORGET this has ALL occurred even BEFORE I have even BEGUN to discuss exactly HOW ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE 'objective Truths and Facts' are even FOUND and OBTAINED.

And, let us NOT FORGET that this if I recall correctly is about the third or fourth time I have TRIED to have a discussion about 'objective morality' and you have QUIT or RUN AWAY.

ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that if one wants to make a CLAIM (or START a thread), then it would be much better for them, and inevitably for ALL of us, if that one has the ACTUAL PROOF, which backs up and supports their VIEWS and CLAIMS BEFORE they make the CLAIM or START the THREAD.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:37 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it. Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.

5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.

6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?

Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.

I have challenged your points raised above.

Note 'water is H20' is only valid within a scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported by the semantics FSK.
Whatever is a scientific fact/truth within the scientific FSK is at best merely a 'polished conjecture'.
Therefore the scientific fact/truth 'water is H20' is merely a polished conjecture.
Thus whatever is to be the case based on a scientific fact or truth, it is at best merely a conjecture, i.e. a conditional polished conjecture.

In a claim of moral facts/truths, it is the same with that of scientific facts or truths, i.e. whatever is a moral fact or truth is a best a polished conjecture within the Moral FSK [Framework & System of Knowledge].
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Note your semantics and linguistic FSK you relied upon is not a critical factor in this debate because we all use the same semantics and linguistic standards. It is the same with the logic we use.

What is critical is how robust and credible is the moral FSK that is used.
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

There you go again with your rhetoric as usual.

1. Scientific facts are polished opinions/conjectures conditioned upon the scientific framework [FSK] which is the most credible FSK [beside the Mathematical] we have at present. Note this conditioning factor via the scientific FSK rather than merely 'polished opinions' from some uncredible FSK e.g. pseudo-science, creationists' cosmological claims and the likes.

Thus scientific facts as polished conjectures /opinions [in general with exceptions] are most credible and most useful to humanity relative to other facts-as-polished-conjectures.
Do you deny this fact that "scientific facts are the most credible polished conjectures /opinions" we have at present?

2. Just as scientific facts are polished conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
based on the same principles, it can be followed that moral facts as conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the moral FSK.

The question here is how credible is my proposed Moral FSK.
I've claim [in previous posts] my proposed Moral FSK is of a near-equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK because it relied upon scientific facts plus philosophical reasoning.

Note in this thread and elsewhere, I have demonstrated moral facts as conditioned upon a moral FSK do exist objectively. I am not going into the details again hereon.

Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:49 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:37 am
I have challenged your points raised above.

Note 'water is H20' is only valid within a scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported by the semantics FSK.
Whatever is a scientific fact/truth within the scientific FSK is at best merely a 'polished conjecture'.
Therefore the scientific fact/truth 'water is H20' is merely a polished conjecture.
Thus whatever is to be the case based on a scientific fact or truth, it is at best merely a conjecture, i.e. a conditional polished conjecture.

In a claim of moral facts/truths, it is the same with that of scientific facts or truths, i.e. whatever is a moral fact or truth is a best a polished conjecture within the Moral FSK [Framework & System of Knowledge].
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

Note your semantics and linguistic FSK you relied upon is not a critical factor in this debate because we all use the same semantics and linguistic standards. It is the same with the logic we use.

What is critical is how robust and credible is the moral FSK that is used.
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.

1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

There you go again with your rhetoric as usual.

1. Scientific facts are polished opinions/conjectures conditioned upon the scientific framework [FSK] which is the most credible FSK [beside the Mathematical] we have at present. Note this conditioning factor via the scientific FSK rather than merely 'polished opinions' from some uncredible FSK e.g. pseudo-science, creationists' cosmological claims and the likes.

Thus scientific facts as polished conjectures /opinions [in general with exceptions] are most credible and most useful to humanity relative to other facts-as-polished-conjectures.
Do you deny this fact that "scientific facts are the most credible polished conjectures /opinions" we have at present?

2. Just as scientific facts are polished conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
based on the same principles, it can be followed that moral facts as conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the moral FSK.

The question here is how credible is my proposed Moral FSK.
I've claim [in previous posts] my proposed Moral FSK is of a near-equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK because it relied upon scientific facts plus philosophical reasoning.

Note in this thread and elsewhere, I have demonstrated moral facts as conditioned upon a moral FSK do exist objectively. I am not going into the details again hereon.

Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

You could not explain it better than that , VA. Peter's intransigence regarding moral facts, whether or not he is aware of it, is caused by his unceasing hankering for God.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 11:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:49 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am
1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

There you go again with your rhetoric as usual.

1. Scientific facts are polished opinions/conjectures conditioned upon the scientific framework [FSK] which is the most credible FSK [beside the Mathematical] we have at present. Note this conditioning factor via the scientific FSK rather than merely 'polished opinions' from some uncredible FSK e.g. pseudo-science, creationists' cosmological claims and the likes.

Thus scientific facts as polished conjectures /opinions [in general with exceptions] are most credible and most useful to humanity relative to other facts-as-polished-conjectures.
Do you deny this fact that "scientific facts are the most credible polished conjectures /opinions" we have at present?

2. Just as scientific facts are polished conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
based on the same principles, it can be followed that moral facts as conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the moral FSK.

The question here is how credible is my proposed Moral FSK.
I've claim [in previous posts] my proposed Moral FSK is of a near-equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK because it relied upon scientific facts plus philosophical reasoning.

Note in this thread and elsewhere, I have demonstrated moral facts as conditioned upon a moral FSK do exist objectively. I am not going into the details again hereon.

Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

You could not explain it better than that , VA. Peter's intransigence regarding moral facts, whether or not he is aware of it, is caused by his unceasing hankering for God.

Fwa. Busted.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:49 am
Do you deny this fact that "scientific facts are the most credible polished conjectures /opinions" we have at present?

No, I don't deny it. If facts are, as you say, polished opinions, then scientific facts are arguably the most polished we produce.

2. Just as scientific facts are polished conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
based on the same principles, it can be followed that moral facts as conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the moral FSK.

This is where you go wrong. Your argument is this: facts are polished opinions; therefore polished moral opinions are (or can be) facts.

To generalise, this means: all As are B; therefore all Bs are (or can be) A. And this is a fallacy, if B is a predicate or property of A. 'All houses are dwellings; therefore all dwellings are (or can be) houses.'

So your argument is invalid - leaving aside its unsoundness: what we call facts are not what we call opinions, polished or not. Words can mean only what we use them to mean, and we clearly distinguish between what we call facts and what we call opinions.

Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

This is worse than irrelevant in this context - it's intellectually reprehensible.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 11:47 am You could not explain it better than that , VA.

But it's total shit. VA's entire "moral FSK" is nothing but the autistic listing of things and then rating them out of 100 badness units, and calling that a scientific measuring event. Comparing his own scheme to science is lunacy, why are you encouraging him to make an idiot of himself?

You do understand that just as he imagines his FSK measures good and bad, he genuinely thinks that Miss World counts as a scientific measure of beauty, right? Is that the kind of silliness you want to tag along with?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 11:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:49 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am
1 If what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses, then the fact that what we call facts are polished opinions/guesses is merely a polished opinion/guess. (In short, the claim that facts are opinions detonates itself.)

2 If scientific facts are opinions, it doesn't follow that moral facts exist. There is no logical connection between the two claims. It is a non sequitur: 'facts are opinions; therefore, moral opinions are facts'.

There you go again with your rhetoric as usual.

1. Scientific facts are polished opinions/conjectures conditioned upon the scientific framework [FSK] which is the most credible FSK [beside the Mathematical] we have at present. Note this conditioning factor via the scientific FSK rather than merely 'polished opinions' from some uncredible FSK e.g. pseudo-science, creationists' cosmological claims and the likes.

Thus scientific facts as polished conjectures /opinions [in general with exceptions] are most credible and most useful to humanity relative to other facts-as-polished-conjectures.
Do you deny this fact that "scientific facts are the most credible polished conjectures /opinions" we have at present?

2. Just as scientific facts are polished conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
based on the same principles, it can be followed that moral facts as conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the moral FSK.

The question here is how credible is my proposed Moral FSK.
I've claim [in previous posts] my proposed Moral FSK is of a near-equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK because it relied upon scientific facts plus philosophical reasoning.

Note in this thread and elsewhere, I have demonstrated moral facts as conditioned upon a moral FSK do exist objectively. I am not going into the details again hereon.

Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

You could not explain it better than that , VA. Peter's intransigence regarding moral facts, whether or not he is aware of it, is caused by his unceasing hankering for God.

Not exactly 'God' but God-like things, i.e. things absolutely independent of the human conditions as in Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:49 am
Do you deny this fact that "scientific facts are the most credible polished conjectures /opinions" we have at present?

No, I don't deny it.
If facts are, as you say, polished opinions, then scientific facts are arguably the most polished we produce.

Noted your acceptance.

Scientific facts as polished via the scientific FSK is the most polished opinions [say 80/100 grade].

Note I am claiming the following;
Moral facts as polished via the Moral FSK is the more reasonable polished opinions [say 70/100 grade].

See the point?
What you are blinded and missed out is the FSK factor.

2. Just as scientific facts are polished conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
based on the same principles, it can be followed that moral facts as conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the moral FSK.

This is where you go wrong. Your argument is this: facts are polished opinions; therefore polished moral opinions are (or can be) facts.

To generalise, this means: all As are B; therefore all Bs are (or can be) A.
And this is a fallacy, if B is a predicate or property of A. 'All houses are dwellings; therefore all dwellings are (or can be) houses.'

So your argument is invalid - leaving aside its unsoundness: what we call facts are not what we call opinions, polished or not. Words can mean only what we use them to mean, and we clearly distinguish between what we call facts and what we call opinions.

You are being rhetorical here and deliberate ignore the critical factor, i.e. the FSK grounding. Note the proper argument,

1. All opinions [conjectures] polished via a credible FSK are facts.
2. Opinions [scientific] are polished via a credible scientific FSK
3. Therefore all scientific facts are polished opinions via a credible scientific FSK.

So for moral opinions;

1. All opinions [conjectures] polished via a credible FSK are facts.
2. Opinions [moral] are polished via a credible moral FSK
3. Therefore all moral facts are polished opinions via a credible moral FSK.

There is nothing wrong with the syllogism above.
The only question you can raised [as mentioned earlier] is whether the moral FSK as claim is credible or not.
I have already explain why the scientific FSK is credible [90/100] and had demonstrated the moral FSK I proposed is of near-credibility [80/100] to that of the scientific FSK.

Re your claims of 'facts' it is what Belinda has insinuated, i.e. you are chasing God-like illusions which are impossible to be real.
As I had explained this is a common and default psychological issue from a cognitive dissonance driven by the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Point is you are totally ignorant about this fact about yourself as a human being.

Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

This is worse than irrelevant in this context - it's intellectually reprehensible.

Your views above exposed your intellectual bankruptcy.

The survey was carried out by philpapers.org/ managed by David Chalmers.
If the survey is "intellectually reprehensible" the community of philosophers from https://philpapers.org would have raised a hell of a condemnation of the results, but there is no such thing.
So in contrast, your views above ["it's intellectually reprehensible"] exposed your intellectual bankruptcy.

PhilPapers is a comprehensive index and bibliography of philosophy maintained by the community of philosophers. We monitor all sources of research content in philosophy, including journals, books, open access archives, and personal pages maintained by academics. We also host the largest open access archive in philosophy. Our index currently contains 2,630,900 entries categorized in 5,723 categories. PhilPapers has over 290,000 registered users.
https://philpapers.org/

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:00 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 11:47 am You could not explain it better than that , VA.

You do understand that just as he imagines his FSK measures good and bad, he genuinely thinks that Miss World counts as a scientific measure of beauty, right? Is that the kind of silliness you want to tag along with?

Rhetoric & Strawman as usual.

I have NEVER claimed the fact that "the current Miss World [2019] is Toni-Ann Singh of Jamaica" is a scientific fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World

A scientific fact can only be a fact which is derived from the scientific FSK.

Rather "the current Miss World [2019] is Toni-Ann Singh of Jamaica" is a fact conditioned upon the Miss-World-FSK which is not the Scientific FSK. Therefore whatever fact from Miss-World-FSK cannot be scientific. Get it?

The Miss-World fact is definitely not as credible as a scientific fact, but it is nevertheless a fact accepted by many especially by those who benefitted from it, e.g. the contestants, the sponsors, the charities, governments, greater portion of the public and others.
Those who are anti-beauty-contest activists & others will not accept Miss-World results as a fact.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:49 am Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

The survey further states:

61% of those who voted yes to "Meta-ethics: moral realism", also voted yes to "Abstract objects: Platonism".
24% of those who voted no to "Meta-ethics: moral realism", voted yes to "Abstract objects: Platonism".

30% of those who voted yes to "Meta-ethics: moral realism", also voted yes to "God: theism".
8% of those who voted no to "Meta-ethics: moral realism", voted yes to "God: theism".

We can therefore conclude that about half of the moral realists believe in God and/or real abstract objects. We can theorize that both of these beliefs typically stem from an inherent existential crysis of the human psyche. So about half the time, moral realism enables this existential crysis. For example VA's clinging to imaginary moral facts seems to be his way of soothing his severe existential crysis.

Views?