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 »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:04 pm Thank you. Please tell me the names of our two most successful scientific theories just so I know.
Quantum Field Theory (small scale) and General Relativity (large scale).

The pursuit towards unifying them and resolving their contradictory nature is Quantum gravity

The trouble with quantization is that it necessarily leads to rounding errors. You take something continuous and you chunk it up into categories (so our brains can understand it). Take light and quantize it into "colors". The question of "how many colors are there?" seems entirely out of place. There are as many colors as the number of categories we choose to quantize light into.

In simple English. Quantization necessarily and irrecoverably destroys information.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12393
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 11:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:33 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:31 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:

But credibility does not guarantee truth. Nobody knows what human nature is.

The narratives people tell about dogs, rabbits,and other species are frames of knowledge not eternal truths. Some frames of knowledge are more reasonable than others but none is eternally true.
There are no absolute eternal truths and the desperation for them is due to some psychological aberrations culminating in all the terrors and violent acts that certain theistic religions and political groups had committed throughout the history of mankind and will commit in the future.

As I had stated, scientific facts, truth and knowledge are the most credible and is the standard bearer for all other truths BUT yet scientific truths are at best polished conjectures conditioned upon the consensus of humans within the scientific framework and system.

I posted this somewhere; What is of most concern and counts with 'truths' are the acceptable criteria of credibility that science claims and can provide to ensure scientific knowledge are credible to generate utilities for the progress of humanity [which it has done so] along with the awareness of its limitations and potential negatives.
I agree.
So is not so-called 'human nature' much less credible than say natural selection, or movements of heavenly bodies?
Whatever claims are to be rated "credible", the confidence level the community and the individual have of it will have to be dependent on the credibility of the FSK and its sub-FSKs.

Obviously there is a difference in confidence level of say truth claims of 'human nature,' natural selection, or movements of heavenly bodies were presented from the Scientific FSK in comparison to those from the Catholic Church on the above subjects.

Whilst whatever claims from the scientific FSK generate some reasonable level of confidence level, one should take note of the processes involved, e.g. the evidences obtained, the sample size, etc.
Thus when science [astronomy FSK] claims the Big Bang is true and the universe is 13.8 billion years old, that is an inference but not based on direct observations, so the confidence level would be much lower than say "Water is H2O" as claimed by the Chemistry FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12393
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:51 am

A key problem with you thinking is that you conflate doctrine with evidence. You do not seem to have to capacity to make distinctions of fact and opinion.
Your pronouncements are purely doctrinaire and lack evidentiality.
I will be very interested if you give examples so that I can improve if what you claim of me is true.
All your pronuncements about moral "facts" are purely doctrinaire, and not evident.
If you start there you might make headway.
Perhaps you would like to start with an example?
I've made the claim,
the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.

I have already provide the relevant justifications for the above a "1000" times.

One crude evidence of the above fact is self-evident, i.e.
that moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' exists within you, i.e. that is why you don't go about killing humans.

I'll take for granted you are a normal person.
Now, why don't YOU prove me wrong and get out to kill some humans?
Tell me your plans, say you will kill some people in a massage parlor on such a such a day and if News report confirm that, I will consider doubting my thesis.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12393
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:47 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:54 pm
I am a magnanimous overlord so I will grant points for effort on the putdown thing.

The only note is that you should leave that sort of ironic self-sabotage to the pros, I will cheerfully ruin my own argument that way because I don't really care. But you have real difficulty working out what it is that makes an action right or wrong, and using the self-burn putdown thing to show us that you are smuggling an assumption in that matter seems like more than you wanted to do there.
You did not address or counter this point;
You didn't answer the question. What actually makes an action good or bad? You've been dodging the same question from Pete as well.
All the questions Pete and you posed are kindergartenish questions [like 1+1 =?] which I will have no problem answering.
Where you think I have not answered them, that is your problem re formulation of the question or bad communication.

Re what is evil [bad] I have already answered that a "1000" times.
Here is one more time,
  • viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
    Morality is basically 'how humans ought to act morally' within the moral Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

    Morally [& ethically] means doing what is good and avoiding what is evil.
    The focus of what is Good is not committing evil naturally and spontaneously.
    What is 'good' is this case of morality is 'not-evil.'

    Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

    Every act of evil must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

    What is Well-Being?
    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983
The focus of morality is not on what is good but more to avoiding what is evil.

The focus on what is good is normally related to virtues which is preferable treated as distinct from what is morality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12393
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:27 pm It is very hard to say what "human nature" is.
It's very hard to say what anything IS.

Because the entire notion of "is-ness" is Philosophical horseshit.

From the 1st person perspective the question is: What am I, really?
From the 3rd person perspective the question is: What are you, really?

Both of those questions are meaningless. The person asking them has no clue what they are asking!
it is less hard to say what natural selection is than it is to say what human nature is. It is also easier to define the nature of some wild animal species than to define what is characterised by its own adaptability i.e. so-called human nature.

Is "is-ness" adequately described by set theory?
The point is, "is-ness" cannot be by itself, it must always be predicated.
To predicate credibly we have to rely on a credible FSK.

E.g. Water "is" H20 - implied that being conditioned within the Chemistry FSK.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Obviously there is a difference in confidence level of say truth claims of 'human nature,' natural selection, or movements of heavenly bodies were presented from the Scientific FSK in comparison to those from the Catholic Church on the above subjects.

Whilst whatever claims from the scientific FSK generate some reasonable level of confidence level, one should take note of the processes involved, e.g. the evidences obtained, the sample size, etc.
Thus when science [astronomy FSK] claims the Big Bang is true and the universe is 13.8 billion years old, that is an inference but not based on direct observations, so the confidence level would be much lower than say "Water is H2O" as claimed by the Chemistry FSK.
If there is a difference in credibility status between truth claims then the credibility of truth claims relates to truth claims not to some standard x such as 'all humans are programmed to not kill each other'.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:11 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:04 pm Thank you. Please tell me the names of our two most successful scientific theories just so I know.
Quantum Field Theory (small scale) and General Relativity (large scale).

The pursuit towards unifying them and resolving their contradictory nature is Quantum gravity

The trouble with quantization is that it necessarily leads to rounding errors. You take something continuous and you chunk it up into categories (so our brains can understand it). Take light and quantize it into "colors". The question of "how many colors are there?" seems entirely out of place. There are as many colors as the number of categories we choose to quantize light into.

In simple English. Quantization necessarily and irrecoverably destroys information.
When you say "something continuous" do you mean relational?
Quantisation is depicted as Urizen, William Blake's Ancient of Days, who wields a pair of compasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urizen#/m ... Museum.jpg
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:17 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:35 am
I will be very interested if you give examples so that I can improve if what you claim of me is true.
All your pronuncements about moral "facts" are purely doctrinaire, and not evident.
If you start there you might make headway.
Perhaps you would like to start with an example?
I've made the claim,
the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.

I have already provide the relevant justifications for the above a "1000" times.

One crude evidence of the above fact is self-evident, i.e.
that moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' exists within you, i.e. that is why you don't go about killing humans.

I'll take for granted you are a normal person.
Now, why don't YOU prove me wrong and get out to kill some humans?
Tell me your plans, say you will kill some people in a massage parlor on such a such a day and if News report confirm that, I will consider doubting my thesis.
So there is no 'matter of fact'. But 'the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.'

There are no facts, and there are moral facts.

I want to both have my cake and eat it. And who's to say I can't do both?
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: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:17 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:35 am
I will be very interested if you give examples so that I can improve if what you claim of me is true.
All your pronuncements about moral "facts" are purely doctrinaire, and not evident.
If you start there you might make headway.
Perhaps you would like to start with an example?
I've made the claim,
the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.
QED
That is PURE doctrinaire.

I have already provide the relevant justifications for the above a "1000" times.
You can justify the opinion as much as you like. That does not make it a fact.
It is clearly evident that this is NOT an opinion shared by humans throughout history. Killing is as much a part of the human moral experience as any thing else.

One crude evidence of the above fact is self-evident, i.e.
that moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' exists within you, i.e. that is why you don't go about killing humans.
People, do, in fact go around killing people: murder, mayhem, revenge, legal executions, warfare- legal and illegal.

I'll take for granted you are a normal person.
"Normal" - what a can of worms that is!!
I do not regard YOU as normal. Because normal people know the difference between suggestions, opinions and doctrines.
Now, why don't YOU prove me wrong and get out to kill some humans?
I have no need to kill to prove you wrong. "Normal" people (so called) kill people all the time.
Of the tens of thousands of soldiers engaged in warfare the world over - how many of them do you consider the be abnormal?
Tell me your plans, say you will kill some people in a massage parlor on such a such a day and if News report confirm that, I will consider doubting my thesis.
Being silly does not advance your claim.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6284
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:47 am
You did not address or counter this point;
You didn't answer the question. What actually makes an action good or bad? You've been dodging the same question from Pete as well.
All the questions Pete and you posed are kindergartenish questions [like 1+1 =?] which I will have no problem answering.
Ok, what have you got that isn't circular? Seriously, you look inside your FSK to define right wrong good and evil. Then you pretend that was science.

All you are offering is an article of faith that DNA contains a description of right and wrong, and that the holy interpretation of DNA that you offer us is the path to righteousness. So what are you offering on behalf of your FSK that doesn't need to be interpreted via the FSK that you are selling?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12393
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:17 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:24 pm

All your pronuncements about moral "facts" are purely doctrinaire, and not evident.
If you start there you might make headway.
Perhaps you would like to start with an example?
I've made the claim,
the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.

I have already provide the relevant justifications for the above a "1000" times.

One crude evidence of the above fact is self-evident, i.e.
that moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' exists within you, i.e. that is why you don't go about killing humans.

I'll take for granted you are a normal person.
Now, why don't YOU prove me wrong and get out to kill some humans?
Tell me your plans, say you will kill some people in a massage parlor on such a such a day and if News report confirm that, I will consider doubting my thesis.
So there is no 'matter of fact'. But 'the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.'

There are no facts, and there are moral facts.

I want to both have my cake and eat it. And who's to say I can't do both?
There is no 'matter of fact' as your definition of fact as adopted from the LPs and the classical analytic philosophers which is linguistically driven and representational. I have provided counters from various sources, e.g. Rorty and others.

However what are facts [called them 'matter of fact' feature of reality, referent etc.]
are only specific facts as verified and justified to their specific FSK.

As such there are moral facts that are verified and justified to the moral FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12393
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:17 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:24 pm

All your pronuncements about moral "facts" are purely doctrinaire, and not evident.
If you start there you might make headway.
Perhaps you would like to start with an example?
I've made the claim,
the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.
QED
That is PURE doctrinaire.

I have already provide the relevant justifications for the above a "1000" times.
You can justify the opinion as much as you like. That does not make it a fact.
It is clearly evident that this is NOT an opinion shared by humans throughout history. Killing is as much a part of the human moral experience as any thing else.

One crude evidence of the above fact is self-evident, i.e.
that moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' exists within you, i.e. that is why you don't go about killing humans.
People, do, in fact go around killing people: murder, mayhem, revenge, legal executions, warfare- legal and illegal.

I'll take for granted you are a normal person.
"Normal" - what a can of worms that is!!
I do not regard YOU as normal. Because normal people know the difference between suggestions, opinions and doctrines.
Now, why don't YOU prove me wrong and get out to kill some humans?
I have no need to kill to prove you wrong. "Normal" people (so called) kill people all the time.
Of the tens of thousands of soldiers engaged in warfare the world over - how many of them do you consider the be abnormal?
Tell me your plans, say you will kill some people in a massage parlor on such a such a day and if News report confirm that, I will consider doubting my thesis.
Being silly does not advance your claim.
It is most ignorant & stupid [relative to this forum] to insist we cannot verify and justify an opinion.

Note most scientific facts started as opinions [conjectures] upon a hunch, then converted into a hypothesis and when the hypothesis is verified and justified scientifically, then that original opinion is a polished-conjecture.

One of the most assuring process to a theory and knowledge is self-experience so that it is personally self-evident.
Why don't you go out and kill some people in a massage parlor or anywhere?
WHY???

Hey, you need to go back to the proper philosophical kindergarten school and start again.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12393
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:16 pm
You didn't answer the question. What actually makes an action good or bad? You've been dodging the same question from Pete as well.
All the questions Pete and you posed are kindergartenish questions [like 1+1 =?] which I will have no problem answering.
Ok, what have you got that isn't circular? Seriously, you look inside your FSK to define right wrong good and evil. Then you pretend that was science.

All you are offering is an article of faith that DNA contains a description of right and wrong, and that the holy interpretation of DNA that you offer us is the path to righteousness. So what are you offering on behalf of your FSK that doesn't need to be interpreted via the FSK that you are selling?
Prosecutors and a jury do not look inside the legal FSK to convict a murderer. Scientists don't look into the scientific FSK for scientific facts.

A FSK is a Framework and System of Knowledge or reality[FSR].
Do you understand how Framework & System work?
One has to comply with all the requirements of the FSK to enable the targeted fact to be justified.

You are creating your own statements.
I do not prefer and did not use the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.

Based on empirical evidences, all humans are 'programmed' with an inherent oughtness of 'not to kill humans'.
As I claim this is very self-evident and can be verified from evidences in the general public.
This scientific 'oughtness' which is an 'is' is input within the moral Framework & System that justify the moral fact 'no human ought to kill human'.

I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

What is most ultimate and critical is whether the understanding and recognition of this inherent fact will contribute positively to humanity or not. I believe and very confident it does.
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: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:17 am
I've made the claim,
the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists as real and is objective.
QED
That is PURE doctrinaire.

I have already provide the relevant justifications for the above a "1000" times.
You can justify the opinion as much as you like. That does not make it a fact.
It is clearly evident that this is NOT an opinion shared by humans throughout history. Killing is as much a part of the human moral experience as any thing else.

One crude evidence of the above fact is self-evident, i.e.
that moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' exists within you, i.e. that is why you don't go about killing humans.
People, do, in fact go around killing people: murder, mayhem, revenge, legal executions, warfare- legal and illegal.

I'll take for granted you are a normal person.
"Normal" - what a can of worms that is!!
I do not regard YOU as normal. Because normal people know the difference between suggestions, opinions and doctrines.
Now, why don't YOU prove me wrong and get out to kill some humans?
I have no need to kill to prove you wrong. "Normal" people (so called) kill people all the time.
Of the tens of thousands of soldiers engaged in warfare the world over - how many of them do you consider the be abnormal?
Tell me your plans, say you will kill some people in a massage parlor on such a such a day and if News report confirm that, I will consider doubting my thesis.
Being silly does not advance your claim.
It is most ignorant & stupid [relative to this forum] to insist we cannot verify and justify an opinion.
It is always stupid to portray an opinon as objective fact, as you do.

Note most scientific facts started as opinions [conjectures] upon a hunch, then converted into a hypothesis and when the hypothesis is verified and justified scientifically, then that original opinion is a polished-conjecture.
There is a big difference between an hypothesis which requires testing and your opinions. Hypotheses are taked as not "factual" until proven. Your opions as so far expressed and not capable of the most basic forms of scientific falsifyability or epirical verification. They are not even in the right kinds of category of ideas.

One of the most assuring process to a theory and knowledge is self-experience so that it is personally self-evident.
That's what ALL flat earthers say. ANd surely it is alsi self evident that the earth is the centre of the universe.
Why don't you go out and kill some people in a massage parlor or anywhere?
WHY???
Why do people do that. WHY????? WHY???
Hey, you need to go back to the proper philosophical kindergarten school and start again.
You always fall down on insults, when you are flummoxed.
As you answer you know you are failing in your arguments. Rather than tell others to go back to school, you are just projecting as you know you lack critical self awareness, and deep down you know you are wrong.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:15 am When you say "something continuous" do you mean relational?
No. Continuous is contrasted/juxtaposed with discrete.

Any particular color is discrete (categorical) once we chunk up the light spectrum into "red", "blue" and "green".
The color spectrum as a whole is continuous. There's infinitely many shades of red, blue or green.

Of course, humans are not sensitive enough to detect them all - there comes a point where our measurement equipment can't tell the difference.
Belinda wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:15 am Quantisation is depicted as Urizen, William Blake's Ancient of Days, who wields a pair of compasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urizen#/m ... Museum.jpg
That is a beautiful and an accurate metaphor.
Post Reply