There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

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

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:07 am Logic doesn't deal with the truth-value of premises, but only the structure of arguments.
Quick! Change the fucking rules again - he got us all figured out!

Validity of an argument is about its structure.
Soundness of an argument is about the truth of the premises of valid arguments.

"If murder is wrong then it is wrong to murder Peter Holmes" is AT LEAST valid.

If the premise is true, then the argument is sound. Modus Ponens.
If the conclusion is false, then the premise is false also. Modus Tollens.

So you go ahead and tell us. Is it wrong to murder you?

Retard.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:07 am And the dispute is about whether the assertion 'abortion is wrong' even has a truth-value.
It's an assertion. ALL assertions have truth-value given the semantics of any language.

https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Assertion

A narrative communication which by virtue of its meaning is true or false. In a narrower sense, the term assertion in mathematical logic is understood to be a closed formula in a logico-mathematical language which by virtue of the semantics of the language can be classified as true or false.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:52 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:36 am That a program is normally instantiated in a particular way doesn't imply that it's supposed to be or that it ought to be instantiated that way.

Once again that simply amounts to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
What is that?

In any program,
IF X, then Y ought to follow.

Whether Y follows or not is not relevant in this case.
What is of relevant here is that 'oughtness' within the program itself that is a fact.
  • 1. All humans are 'programmed' to live till the inevitable.
    2. To live till the inevitable, ALL humans are programmed to breathe, else they die.
    3. IF 1 then 2 ought to follow.
What is fact is that oughtness to breathe which is an inherent force that is supported by its physical mechanisms.
If someone who is suicidal and decided not to breathe, one cannot deny that fact of 'the oughtness to breathe' exists while he [any human] is alive.

It is the same with moral oughtness as fact within the brain and physical self of the person.

Your claim of argumentum ad populum fallacy is itself fallacious.
Factual premise: the human body works in such-and-such a way.
Conclusion: therefore, the human body ought to work in such-and-such a way.

This argument is invalid, because the premise doesn't entail the conclusion; the conclusion doesn't follow deductively from the premise; it's not the case that in any situation in which the premise is (or is taken to be) true, the conclusion must be (or be taken to be) true.

You don't understand how English speakers use the word 'ought' in this context. Why ought things to do what they're designed or programmed - or what they have evolved - to do? Are they under any obligation to do so? Ought a hammer to bang in a nail?

Things either do or don't do what they're designed or programmed to do. There's no 'oughtness' in any of this. That's a fiction.
I agree with Skepdick's view on your thinking, i.e.
"The Philosophicus Retardicus is still stuck in the kindergarten of appraising arguments."

It is either you are ignorant or desperate to be deceptive.

Note here is how a proper argument should proceed;

Whatever is Fact is specific to a credible FSK.
The moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK.

Scientific FSK:
S1 Scientific facts are verifiable and justifiable from empirical observations
S2The human body is observed in in such-and-such a way as verified and justified
S3 Therefore Scientific Factual premise: the human body works in such-and-such a way.

Based on the above processes of the scientific FSK as verified and justified
S4 ALL humans ought not to kill humans - physical neural referent.

Moral FSK:
M1 Morality-proper is about what ought to be good or ought-not be evil.
M2 ALL humans ought not to kill humans S4 - killing humans is evil
M3 Therefore Moral Factual Premise: All humans ought-not to kill humans.

From above the justified true moral fact 'all humans ought-not to kill humans' which is objective is traceable to its physical neural referent which is more objective.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:29 am Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion even I have presented verifications and justification they are moral facts within a moral FSK.
Your FSK (WETF that is) IS AN OPINION.
I have already explained what is a FSK a "1000" times and have linked two thread to it.
Yes, and we have all seen your opinion. It's just that we all know it is subjective and arbitrary.
One of the most efficient ways to recognize knowledge is to start with self-evident experience but of course that has to be confirmed with independent verification and justification via a credible FSK.
Your FSK is not credible
One may have faith when scientists claimed the fact that lemons are sour but one will depend on less faith and increase one's confidence level if one personally experienced the taste of lemons as sour ceteris paribus
Faith is for priests and other idiots.
The sourness of lemons is subjective. Take care you do not slip up here. LOL
You are very ignorant on the above.
What do you rely on when you accept the truth of scientific facts.
Did you do the experiments yourself to prove the said scientific conclusions?
Faith comes in a degree and continuum with theists exercise faith with the highest degree.

The sourness of lemons is subjective to an individual but it objective as a scientific fact based on intersubjectivity and intersubjective consensus of scientists within the scientific FSK.

Don't insult your own intelligence, see the objectivity of what is sourness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste#Sourness
Taste is subjective. If you don't know that then you do not understand the meaning of the word.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:48 am
Your FSK (WETF that is) IS AN OPINION.
I have already explained what is a FSK a "1000" times and have linked two thread to it.
Yes, and we have all seen your opinion. It's just that we all know it is subjective and arbitrary.
Your FSK is not credible
Faith is for priests and other idiots.
The sourness of lemons is subjective. Take care you do not slip up here. LOL
You are very ignorant on the above.
What do you rely on when you accept the truth of scientific facts.
Did you do the experiments yourself to prove the said scientific conclusions?
Faith comes in a degree and continuum with theists exercise faith with the highest degree.

The sourness of lemons is subjective to an individual but it objective as a scientific fact based on intersubjectivity and intersubjective consensus of scientists within the scientific FSK.

Don't insult your own intelligence, see the objectivity of what is sourness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste#Sourness
Taste is subjective. If you don't know that then you do not understand the meaning of the word.
And insofar as something like sourness is objective it's not because of something intersubjective (which only amounts to agreement/cooperation, after all), at least not beyond it being a convention that we're going to count objective properties x, y and z (for example, certain sorts of molecules) as "sour." Those objective properties either obtain or not independently of anyone's opinions or beliefs, and certainly independently of anyone agreeing or cooperating about them. The objective part is that they obtain independently of opinions and beliefs.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:38 am
I have already explained what is a FSK a "1000" times and have linked two thread to it.
Yes, and we have all seen your opinion. It's just that we all know it is subjective and arbitrary.



You are very ignorant on the above.
What do you rely on when you accept the truth of scientific facts.
Did you do the experiments yourself to prove the said scientific conclusions?
Faith comes in a degree and continuum with theists exercise faith with the highest degree.

The sourness of lemons is subjective to an individual but it objective as a scientific fact based on intersubjectivity and intersubjective consensus of scientists within the scientific FSK.

Don't insult your own intelligence, see the objectivity of what is sourness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste#Sourness
Taste is subjective. If you don't know that then you do not understand the meaning of the word.
And insofar as something like sourness is objective it's not because of something intersubjective (which only amounts to agreement/cooperation, after all), at least not beyond it being a convention that we're going to count objective properties x, y and z (for example, certain sorts of molecules) as "sour." Those objective properties either obtain or not independently of anyone's opinions or beliefs, and certainly independently of anyone agreeing or cooperating about them. The objective part is that they obtain independently of opinions and beliefs.
It's interesting he tries to offer sourness in support of his moral claims.
We all know that tow people can taste the same lemon and not agree about how sour it is. Science might be able to quantify it, but really - sourness of 34.78 does not help.
But how far is that from the simplest moral question?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:37 pm And insofar as something like sourness is objective it's not because of something intersubjective (which only amounts to agreement/cooperation, after all), at least not beyond it being a convention that we're going to count objective properties x, y and z (for example, certain sorts of molecules) as "sour." Those objective properties either obtain or not independently of anyone's opinions or beliefs, and certainly independently of anyone agreeing or cooperating about them. The objective part is that they obtain independently of opinions and beliefs.
"sourness" is an emergent property resulting from the interaction between your taste buds and the food you are eating.

Molecules and tastebuds are necessary but not sufficient for "sourness".

If you lack the tastebuds or the neural circuitry necessary for the experience that which is "objectively sour" isn't...

Nothing could ever "obtain" independently of opinions and beliefs, because only humans can assert THAT something "obtains".
Try as you might to disassociate yourself from your concepts they just keep refusing to transcend.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:42 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:23 pm
Yes, and we have all seen your opinion. It's just that we all know it is subjective and arbitrary.

Taste is subjective. If you don't know that then you do not understand the meaning of the word.
And insofar as something like sourness is objective it's not because of something intersubjective (which only amounts to agreement/cooperation, after all), at least not beyond it being a convention that we're going to count objective properties x, y and z (for example, certain sorts of molecules) as "sour." Those objective properties either obtain or not independently of anyone's opinions or beliefs, and certainly independently of anyone agreeing or cooperating about them. The objective part is that they obtain independently of opinions and beliefs.
It's interesting he tries to offer sourness in support of his moral claims.
We all know that tow people can taste the same lemon and not agree about how sour it is. Science might be able to quantify it, but really - sourness of 34.78 does not help.
But how far is that from the simplest moral question?
Basically he's trying to argue that everything, including science, amounts to the consensus theory of truth, where there's also a sketchy hint of ontological idealism to his comments (while ignoring that that implies that we can't actually observe other people to determine a consensus). But then he doesn't seem to realize that that creates an even more enormous hurdle for people who don't accept that the sciences work via consensus/intersubjectivity rather than via observations of an extramental world.

It also ends up being an example of preaching to the choir, because people who in general adopt some blurry view between idealism and the consensus theory of truth aren't the people who are arguing that ethics isn't objective in the first place.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:48 pm Basically he's trying to argue that everything, including science, amounts to the consensus theory of truth.
And you are trying to argue that this is objectively red independent of any consensus theory and in the absence of normative semantics.

I thought the symbol-grounding problem was covered in Philosophy 101.
red.png
red.png (9.26 KiB) Viewed 1730 times
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:48 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:42 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:37 pm
And insofar as something like sourness is objective it's not because of something intersubjective (which only amounts to agreement/cooperation, after all), at least not beyond it being a convention that we're going to count objective properties x, y and z (for example, certain sorts of molecules) as "sour." Those objective properties either obtain or not independently of anyone's opinions or beliefs, and certainly independently of anyone agreeing or cooperating about them. The objective part is that they obtain independently of opinions and beliefs.
It's interesting he tries to offer sourness in support of his moral claims.
We all know that tow people can taste the same lemon and not agree about how sour it is. Science might be able to quantify it, but really - sourness of 34.78 does not help.
But how far is that from the simplest moral question?
Basically he's trying to argue that everything, including science, amounts to the consensus theory of truth, where there's also a sketchy hint of ontological idealism to his comments (while ignoring that that implies that we can't actually observe other people to determine a consensus). But then he doesn't seem to realize that that creates an even more enormous hurdle for people who don't accept that the sciences work via consensus/intersubjectivity rather than via observations of an extramental world.

It also ends up being an example of preaching to the choir, because people who in general adopt some blurry view between idealism and the consensus theory of truth aren't the people who are arguing that ethics isn't objective in the first place.
Indeed. There is no helping some people.
I'm sure he will be happy with his snap-dog S. dick
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:42 pm Indeed. There is no helping some people.
Medice, cura te ipsum!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Peter Holmes »

The assertion 'vanilla is the best flavour' doesn't have truth-value. Nothing in reality can verify or falsify it, so it isn't a factual assertion at all. It expresses an opinion, and there are no subjective facts. Features of reality either do or don't exist. And 'being the best flavour' doesn't.

The word 'proposition' doesn't distinguish between factual assertions with truth-value, and non-factual assertions with no truth-value. And the word 'assertion', used as a synonym for 'proposition', also therefore fails to make the distinction. That moral assertions are not truth-apt is a basic tenet of moral non-cognitivism, which is the rational position, given the incoherence of the expression 'moral fact'.

And no, logic doesn't deal with the truth-value of premises. That's other people's business, such as natural scientists'. Soundness does refer to the truth of premises, so if premises have no truth-value - as moral assertions don't - soundness is out of the question, though validity isn't.

The argument 'murder is wrong; therefore murdering the dick-troll is wrong' is obviously valid, but also trivial. And phrased as a hypothetical - 'if murder is wrong, then murdering the dick-troll is wrong' - it remains trivial.

To repeat: the dispute is about whether a moral assertion, such as 'abortion is wrong' has truth-value; whether the wrongness of abortion is a feature of reality that does or doesn't exist; whether the assertion 'abortion is wrong' could be falsified if something in reality were different. And these claims are idiotic.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:48 am
Your FSK (WETF that is) IS AN OPINION.
I have already explained what is a FSK a "1000" times and have linked two thread to it.
Yes, and we have all seen your opinion. It's just that we all know it is subjective and arbitrary.
Your FSK is not credible
Faith is for priests and other idiots.
The sourness of lemons is subjective. Take care you do not slip up here. LOL
You are very ignorant on the above.
What do you rely on when you accept the truth of scientific facts.
Did you do the experiments yourself to prove the said scientific conclusions?
Faith comes in a degree and continuum with theists exercise faith with the highest degree.

The sourness of lemons is subjective to an individual but it objective as a scientific fact based on intersubjectivity and intersubjective consensus of scientists within the scientific FSK.

Don't insult your own intelligence, see the objectivity of what is sourness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste#Sourness
Taste is subjective. If you don't know that then you do not understand the meaning of the word.
Don't insult your intelligence by insisting on the above views.
There are elements of subjectivity in 'taste' but fundamentally taste is a matter of objectivity to that will support the progress of humanity.

See this from Harvard and note there are many similar views;
A taste of science: Making the subjective objective in the California wine world
Steven Shapin
Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Abstract
This article is about the relationship between the categories of the subjective and the objective in the late 20th-century California wine world, about attempts to transform ‘soft’ subjective judgments into ‘hard’ objective descriptions and evaluations, and about the role of both sensory science and chemistry in such attempts. It focuses on research done at the University of California, Davis, from about the 1950s to the 1980s by the enologist Maynard Amerine, his co-workers, and successors. It suggests ways in which these materials might prompt attention to the role of subjective judgment and the marketplace in other forms of late modern science.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes,
criterion
/krʌɪˈtɪərɪən/
noun
a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.
"they award a green label to products that meet certain environmental criteria"
Similar:
basis
point of reference
standard
norm
yardstick
benchmark
touchstone
test
formula
measure
gauge
scale
barometer
indicator
litmus test
specification
guide
guideline
guiding principle
principle
rule
law
canon
convention
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Whether abortion is right or wrong is subject to a criterion or several criteria.

Ethicists study criteria that apply to questions that are considered to be 'moral' questions. A woman has the same rights as a man over her body is one criterion and you can see criteria themselves may be subject to higher order criteria.
What are culturally taken to be 'matters of fact' are also subject to criteria which in this scientific age are "is it falsifiable?" and "Is there evidence?"
What are culturally accepted as 'aesthetic ' questions are subject to aesthetic criteria such as "Is the symbolism new or derivative?"?" or " Has it classical proportions?"?"
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:06 pm Peter Holmes,
criterion
/krʌɪˈtɪərɪən/
noun
a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.
"they award a green label to products that meet certain environmental criteria"
Similar:
basis
point of reference
standard
norm
yardstick
benchmark
touchstone
test
formula
measure
gauge
scale
barometer
indicator
litmus test
specification
guide
guideline
guiding principle
principle
rule
law
canon
convention
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Whether abortion is right or wrong is subject to a criterion or several criteria.

Ethicists study criteria that apply to questions that are considered to be 'moral' questions. A woman has the same rights as a man over her body is one criterion and you can see criteria themselves may be subject to higher order criteria.
What are culturally taken to be 'matters of fact' are also subject to criteria which in this scientific age are "is it falsifiable?" and "Is there evidence?"
What are culturally accepted as 'aesthetic ' questions are subject to aesthetic criteria such as "Is the symbolism new or derivative?"?" or " Has it classical proportions?"?"
Every substitute for criterion in your list is as much a matter of choice as a criterion. There is no objective (factual) criterion by which to assess the morality of abortion - or anything else. And the same goes for aesthetic judgements. This is why moral and aesthetic assertions aren't factual. Consistency with a criterion, such as a moral goal or a standard of beauty, isn't a sufficient condition.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belinda wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:06 pm Peter Holmes,
criterion
/krʌɪˈtɪərɪən/
noun
a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.
"they award a green label to products that meet certain environmental criteria"
Similar:
basis
point of reference
standard
norm
yardstick
benchmark
touchstone
test
formula
measure
gauge
scale
barometer
indicator
litmus test
specification
guide
guideline
guiding principle
principle
rule
law
canon
convention
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Whether abortion is right or wrong is subject to a criterion or several criteria.

Ethicists study criteria that apply to questions that are considered to be 'moral' questions. A woman has the same rights as a man over her body is one criterion and you can see criteria themselves may be subject to higher order criteria.
What are culturally taken to be 'matters of fact' are also subject to criteria which in this scientific age are "is it falsifiable?" and "Is there evidence?"
What are culturally accepted as 'aesthetic ' questions are subject to aesthetic criteria such as "Is the symbolism new or derivative?"?" or " Has it classical proportions?"?"
You're arguing an argumentum ad populum. Convention, cultural acceptance, etc. doesn't make something the case (aside from it being a fact that it's a convention or that it's culturally accepted).
Post Reply