Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:44 am In your case, your LPs influence is that of 'what is fact'
Nope. That usage of "fact" isn't influenced by logical positivism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:44 am In your case, your LPs influence is that of 'what is fact'
Nope. That usage of "fact" isn't influenced by logical positivism.
Again the above exposed your lack of depth and breath in philosophical knowledge.
In 1739, David Hume cast a fork aggressively dividing "relations of ideas" from "matters of fact and real existence", such that all truths are of one type or the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
The then very influential LPs then clung on to Hume's 'matter of fact' dogmatically like there was no tomorrow.
Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning).[1] This theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content.

The logical positivists' initial stance was that a statement is "cognitively meaningful" in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content only if some finite procedure conclusively determines its truth.[19] By this verifiability principle, only statements verifiable either by their analyticity or by empiricism were cognitively meaningful.

After World War II, key tenets of logical positivism, including its atomistic philosophy of science, the verifiability principle, and the fact/value gap, drew escalated criticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Peter Holmes »

To demand empirical verification - 'within a credible FSK' - is to be an empiricist of some kind. And Popperian falsification is every bit as positivist as verification. They're two sides of the same coin.

So to condemn the whole of logical positivism is to condemn empiricism, which is basis of logical positivism. You can't have your your cake and eat it.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:11 am Again the above exposed your lack of depth and breath in philosophical knowledge.
The sense of "fact" that we're using doesn't stem from Hume, either. It predates him. (Clue: try a simple etymology dictionary.)

Not that Hume was a logical positivist, of course, and not that logical positivists use of a particular sense of "fact," parallel to the broader usage in question, implies that it influenced any concurrent or subsequent usage.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:11 am Again the above exposed your lack of depth and breath in philosophical knowledge.
The sense of "fact" that we're using doesn't stem from Hume, either. It predates him. (Clue: try a simple etymology dictionary.)

Not that Hume was a logical positivist, of course, and not that logical positivists use of a particular sense of "fact," parallel to the broader usage in question, implies that it influenced any concurrent or subsequent usage.
Nope!

Note your sense of fact is along the lines of these definition, note,

What is Fact - From various philosophical dictionaries
viewtopic.php?p=506235#p506235
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:02 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:11 am Again the above exposed your lack of depth and breath in philosophical knowledge.
The sense of "fact" that we're using doesn't stem from Hume, either. It predates him. (Clue: try a simple etymology dictionary.)

Not that Hume was a logical positivist, of course, and not that logical positivists use of a particular sense of "fact," parallel to the broader usage in question, implies that it influenced any concurrent or subsequent usage.
Nope!

Note your sense of fact is along the lines of these definition, note,

What is Fact - From various philosophical dictionaries
viewtopic.php?p=506235#p506235
A simple etymology dictionary will tell you re fact that the "Main modern sense of 'thing known to be true' is from 1630s, from notion of 'something that has actually occurred.'"
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:02 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:51 pm
The sense of "fact" that we're using doesn't stem from Hume, either. It predates him. (Clue: try a simple etymology dictionary.)

Not that Hume was a logical positivist, of course, and not that logical positivists use of a particular sense of "fact," parallel to the broader usage in question, implies that it influenced any concurrent or subsequent usage.
Nope!

Note your sense of fact is along the lines of these definition, note,

What is Fact - From various philosophical dictionaries
viewtopic.php?p=506235#p506235
A simple etymology dictionary will tell you re fact that the "Main modern sense of 'thing known to be true' is from 1630s, from notion of 'something that has actually occurred.'"
That was the fact I was insisting upon, i.e.
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
But the muddying is where Peter and you [if I am not mistaken] also insists fact as 'state of affairs' matter of fact, that which is the case, etc.

The latest and to avoid the confusion, I will use the term 'thing' to represent whatever is a part of reality.
The credibility of what is real is this case has to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Historical Background of the Moral-Facts-Deniers

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:22 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:02 am
Nope!

Note your sense of fact is along the lines of these definition, note,

What is Fact - From various philosophical dictionaries
viewtopic.php?p=506235#p506235
A simple etymology dictionary will tell you re fact that the "Main modern sense of 'thing known to be true' is from 1630s, from notion of 'something that has actually occurred.'"
That was the fact I was insisting upon, i.e.
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
But the muddying is where Peter and you [if I am not mistaken] also insists fact as 'state of affairs' matter of fact, that which is the case, etc.

The latest and to avoid the confusion, I will use the term 'thing' to represent whatever is a part of reality.
The credibility of what is real is this case has to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
What does anything you just wrote above have to do with "fact" in the relevant sense predating Hume by at least 100 years?
Post Reply