Hume Not Consistent with his No OUGHT from IS

[Skepdick]

I have a problem with the epistemological aspect of that. There are many unknown facts, such as the exact composition of a planet 5 billion light years away that we have no knowledge of. I prefer saying that facts are simply states of affairs. Epistemology need not apply. After all, there were plenty of facts before there were any creatures around to know anything.

I have a problem with you having a problem with this.

How can anyone say anything about the state of affairs, if nobody knows anything about the state of affairs?

[Terrapin Station]

I have a problem with the epistemological aspect of that. There are many unknown facts, such as the exact composition of a planet 5 billion light years away that we have no knowledge of. I prefer saying that facts are simply states of affairs. Epistemology need not apply. After all, there were plenty of facts before there were any creatures around to know anything.

I have a problem with you having a problem with this.

How can anyone say anything about the state of affairs, if nobody knows anything about the state of affairs?

Indirect evidence, induction and so on. Also, we continually bear this out as we discover things.

[Skepdick]

Indirect evidence, induction and so on. Also, we continually bear this out as we discover things.

When you talk about "we" there is no such thing as "indirect evidence".

It's direct to SOMEBODY in your tribe. They know about it. It's only indirect to you.

When you talk about induction, you know about the base case from which you are extrapolating. When discovery happens SOMEBODY discovers.

It's practically impossible to utter any facts if haven't know any. And the only way to acquire such knowledge is to learn it.

Directly or indirectly.

[Terrapin Station]

When you talk about "we" there is no such thing as "indirect evidence".

Sure there is. We observe a perturbation in an orbit, say. That's indirect evidence, for multiple people, that there is another as of yet unobserved body involved.

[Skepdick]

Sure there is. We observe a perturbation in an orbit, say.

We who? You seem to be anthropomorphising observation onto collectives. Only individuals observe.

That's indirect evidence, for multiple people, that there is another as of yet unobserved body involved.

It's direct evidence for at least one. The one who actually observed it.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure there is. We observe a perturbation in an orbit, say.

We who? You seem to be anthropomorphising observation onto collectives. Only individuals observe.

Astronomers, for example. It's not just one person who'll observe this. Many will.

[Skepdick]

Astronomers, for example. It's not just one person who'll observe this. Many will.

And every person who does observe it will observe it directly.

Astronomer or janitor.

[Terrapin Station]

Astronomers, for example. It's not just one person who'll observe this. Many will.

And every person who does observe it will observe it directly.

No one will observe the UNOBSERVED BODY directly. That's just the point. You deduce it from what you do observe. That's the whole gist of indirect evidence, lol.

[Skepdick]

No one will observe the UNOBSERVED BODY directly.

Then how will anybody know it's a BODY?

That's just the point. You deduce it from what you do observe. That's the whole gist of indirect evidence, lol.

So you don't know it's a BODY. You know that something is producing the evidence you are DIRECTLY observing.

And you've synthesized a hypothesis. From direct evidence (which for some reason, you are calling "indirect").

[Terrapin Station]

No one will observe the UNOBSERVED BODY directly.

Then how will anybody know it's a BODY?

That's just the point. You deduce it from what you do observe. That's the whole gist of indirect evidence, lol.

So you don't know it's a BODY. You know that something is producing the evidence you are DIRECTLY observing.

And you've synthesized a hypothesis. From direct evidence (which for some reason, you are calling "indirect").

You know it via indirect evidence--via deductions based on inductive knowledge, etc.

[Skepdick]

You know it via indirect evidence--via deductions based on inductive knowledge, etc.

There is no such thing as "indirect evidence".

ALL evidence is direct to the observer. There's nothing "indirect" about the perturbations being observed.

[Terrapin Station]

You know it via indirect evidence--via deductions based on inductive knowledge, etc.

There is no such thing as "indirect evidence".

LOL

[Skepdick]

LOL

That's exactly how I feel about "objectivity" as "mind independence".

But I wonder why you quoted only half of my post.

Are you designing the context you want to laugh at ?

[Terrapin Station]

That's exactly how I feel about "objectivity" as "mind independence".

Cool story, bro.

[Skepdick]

You know it via indirect evidence--via deductions based on inductive knowledge, etc.

By the way, it seems to me you are conceding the point re: epistemology applying after all..

Epistemology need not apply. After all, there were plenty of facts before there were any creatures around to know anything.

Seeming as you are conceptualising "facts" as things external to the mind I'd really love it if you can show me an actual fact.

You know... the mind-independent kind.

Maybe you can make sense of all the equivocation you've piled up. State of affairs, facts, referents...