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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Whenever I discussed 'Moral Facts' with Peter Holmes [PH] et. al. he would insist there are no moral facts and condemned my claim that there are moral facts.

The problem is PH's definition of 'what is fact' as a 'matter of fact' [Analytic] is based on the views inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and the classical analytic philosophers.
From this bastardized perspective of what is fact, PH insist there are no moral facts.

BUT, the point is MY definition of 'what is fact' is not the same as PH's fact as 'matter of fact' [A].
My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.

see my version of what is fact.
What is a Fact?
There are Moral Facts

In the more modern philosophy it is argued there are no 'matter of fact [A]'.

Here is my arguments why there are no matter-of-fact in the Analytical Philosophical sense,
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:10 pm 'Joe killed Pete' is a factual assertion with a truth-value: (classically) true or false. There is a fact of the matter.
'Humans are programmed not to kill humans' is a factual assertion with a truth-value: (classically) true or false. There is a fact of the matter.
'No human ought to kill humans' is NOT a factual assertion with a truth-value. It expresses an opinion with which we can agree or disagree. There is no fact of the matter.
It really is very, very simple.
In the first there is 'No Fact of the Matter' in the real sense and 'matter of fact' is a term favored by the bastardized philosophers of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophy.

See:
No Fact of the Matter
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713659756

Rorty referenced Quine re 'matter of fact'.
  • See Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W. V. Quine, ed. Donald Davidson and Jaakko Hintikka (Dordrecht, 1 969), p. 303, where Quine says:
    Consider . . . the totality of truths of nature, known and unknown, observable and unobservable, past and future.
    The point about indeterminacy of translation is that it withstands even all this truth, the whole truth about nature.
    This is what I mean by saying that, where indeterminacy of translation applies, there is no real question of right choice; there is no fact of the matter even to within the acknowledged under-determination of a theory of nature.
    Rorty- Mirror of Nature pg. 194
Here is another counter against No Fact-of-the-Matter [A],
  • On What it Takes for There to Be No Fact of the Matter
    JODY AZZOUNI & OTAVIO ´ BUENO
    We’re not sure which philosopher should be credited with the first what we’ll call non-factualist claim. But one of the most famous (and influential) early claims of this sort, one of there being no fact of the matter—and you’ll know about this one, because of its fame and influence—is Quine’s indeterminacy of translation thesis.
As I had stated you are stuck within a dogmatic silo [with the bastardized philosophers of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophy.] and is ignorant the world had moved on with a greater range of modern knowledge.

................................
Whatever is fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK with its inbuilt truth-value.
What is a moral fact is conditioned upon the moral FSK with its inbuilt truth-value.

The problem is you are stuck with the bastardized version of "what is fact" adopted from the logical positivists [not defunct] and classical analytical philosophy.

I have repeated a "million" times, the moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK, thus if you deny the moral FSK you are only your way to deny the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
There are no 'matter of fact' [Analytic] as argued by classical analytic philosophers.

Views?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:58 am BUT, the point is MY definition of 'what is fact' is not the same as PH's fact as 'matter of fact' [A].
My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.

...
I have repeated a "million" times, the moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK, thus if you deny the moral FSK you are only your way to deny the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
You have a problem there, PH may very well hold some antique view of what makes for a fact, but his view has a significant advantage over yours in that it covers crucial aspects of the fact-distinction language game which are absent in your, let's call that "definition".

Pete's version of what is a fact includes a method of resolving disputes by looking at evidence, which is essential to that language game. Yours doesn't, you just have a disposable FSK that can be ditched for a more convenient one any time. Sure you have an is-ought argument to make your FSK the source of truth, but as we already discussed, that argument explicitly depends upon the FSK, rendering it worthlessly circular.

You angrily deny that you have any need to show why Henry is factually mistaken when he asserts it is morally correct to kill criminals, but Henry just has his own FSK and he has as much right to it as you have to yours.

You can't compare any of that bullshit to the methods of science. The scientific "FSK" resolves competing factual claims by inspecting what Pete is quite justified in referring to under any reasonable set of linguistic norms as matters of fact.
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:58 am My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.
There is no "FSK" under which any normative (including any sort of ought, prescriptive, moral edict, etc.) is verifiable in any sense:

-----unless we're simply talking descriptively about normatives that people happen to hold-----

without essentially appealing to a fallacy such as an argumentum ad populum or an argument from authority.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:58 am BUT, the point is MY definition of 'what is fact' is not the same as PH's fact as 'matter of fact' [A].
My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.

...
I have repeated a "million" times, the moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK, thus if you deny the moral FSK you are only your way to deny the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
You have a problem there, PH may very well hold some antique view of what makes for a fact, but his view has a significant advantage over yours in that it covers crucial aspects of the fact-distinction language game which are absent in your, let's call that "definition".

Pete's version of what is a fact includes a method of resolving disputes by looking at evidence, which is essential to that language game. Yours doesn't, you just have a disposable FSK that can be ditched for a more convenient one any time. Sure you have an is-ought argument to make your FSK the source of truth, but as we already discussed, that argument explicitly depends upon the FSK, rendering it worthlessly circular.

You angrily deny that you have any need to show why Henry is factually mistaken when he asserts it is morally correct to kill criminals, but Henry just has his own FSK and he has as much right to it as you have to yours.

You can't compare any of that bullshit to the methods of science. The scientific "FSK" resolves competing factual claims by inspecting what Pete is quite justified in referring to under any reasonable set of linguistic norms as matters of fact.
All agreed. But I use standard current dictionary definitions of what we call facts, objectivity and subjectivity. Nothing antique about them. And what is out-of-date is the early-mid-twentieth century relativism and anti-realism that excites VA.
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 »

And more generally, verification of anything that's the case doesn't hinge on languages or "frameworks and structures of knowledge" period. That's confusing judgments about language per se with recognition of what's the case in the world via a simple check of what's the case (by observing whatever it is).
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:52 pm Pete's version of what is a fact includes a method of resolving disputes by looking at evidence, which is essential to that language game.
How exactly do you use evidence to resolve disputes over definitions?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:21 pm All agreed. But I use standard current dictionary definitions of what we call facts, objectivity and subjectivity. Nothing antique about them. And what is out-of-date is the early-mid-twentieth century relativism and anti-realism that excites VA.
Not gonna lie, I was perfectly happy to throw you under that bus rather than trawl back through hundreds of pages of the dire shite that fills this forum to work out if he had you on some technicality there.

I just want to prod this annoying little man to get him to analyse the subject according to what facts do rather than what they are made out of. In the manner of an actual modern philosopher, which he inexplicably seems to think he wants to be.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:19 am I just want to prod this annoying little man to get him to analyse the subject according to what facts do rather than what they are made out of.
You always seem to mix up "what facts do" with "what facts ought to do".

Apparently facts ought to be that which resolves disagreements/conflict and yet, somehow, the facts always seem to support both interlocutors' versions.

Only if we had a fact that could resolve disagreements about different versions of the facts, eh? Your "understanding" of the flaws of your own idea has... gaps.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:58 am My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.
There is no "FSK" under which any normative (including any sort of ought, prescriptive, moral edict, etc.) is verifiable in any sense:

-----unless we're simply talking descriptively about normatives that people happen to hold-----

without essentially appealing to a fallacy such as an argumentum ad populum or an argument from authority.
Why not,

Within any legal FSK, whatever is enacted ought to be complied by all citizens.

Within a moral FSK, whatever is a justified ought is a moral standard as a moral guide only, not to be imposed upon any individuals.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:58 am BUT, the point is MY definition of 'what is fact' is not the same as PH's fact as 'matter of fact' [A].
My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.

...
I have repeated a "million" times, the moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK, thus if you deny the moral FSK you are only your way to deny the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
You have a problem there, PH may very well hold some antique view of what makes for a fact, but his view has a significant advantage over yours in that it covers crucial aspects of the fact-distinction language game which are absent in your, let's call that "definition".

Pete's version of what is a fact includes a method of resolving disputes by looking at evidence, which is essential to that language game. Yours doesn't, you just have a disposable FSK that can be ditched for a more convenient one any time. Sure you have an is-ought argument to make your FSK the source of truth, but as we already discussed, that argument explicitly depends upon the FSK, rendering it worthlessly circular.
Pete's version of what is fact is conditioned to merely to words and definitions primarily.

If Pete's version is primarily focused on evidence, that would be a scientific fact.
The issue with Pete's version is about its ideological arrogance inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers that any view NOT in line with whatever the deem is true is meaningless and nonsense.
Note Ayer's view, whatever is morality is by default meaningless and nonsense, period!

Note in contrast to Rorty's to keep the conversation open.

I have replied to you in another post [will have to find it] what I claimed is not circular.
You angrily deny that you have any need to show why Henry is factually mistaken when he asserts it is morally correct to kill criminals, but Henry just has his own FSK and he has as much right to it as you have to yours.
Angry?? you are one who is emotional at most times, that is why you are on my ignore list.
My foundation is Buddhism-proper which enable practices to develop equanimity is all circumstances no matter how disturbing it is. It would be very stupid to get angry over the above sort of things.

It would appear Henry's version is his own FSK but his views are compatible to the Moral Intuitionism FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
You can't compare any of that bullshit to the methods of science. The scientific "FSK" resolves competing factual claims by inspecting what Pete is quite justified in referring to under any reasonable set of linguistic norms as matters of fact.
Why not?
The moral FSK has the most of the features of the scientific FSK like;
In addition, the major inputs into the moral FSK are from scientific facts.

Peter's version of 'matters of fact' is that of the classical analytic philosophy and I provide counters to it in the OP.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:26 pm And more generally, verification of anything that's the case doesn't hinge on languages or "frameworks and structures of knowledge" period. That's confusing judgments about language per se with recognition of what's the case in the world via a simple check of what's the case (by observing whatever it is).
You don't seem to get my point re Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality.
[note, not structure]

Where 'that is the case' = fact,

the point is whatever is 'fact' is always conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].
No fact can standalone without being qualified [implied or explicitly] to its specific FSK.
This mean all facts must be verified and justified within its respective FSK.

If a fact is based on language, then it is merely a linguistic fact and nothing else.

Whatever is a scientific fact cannot be verified and justified within a legal FSK and vice-versa.
Whatever is a facts of Physics cannot be verified and justified within a Biology FSK and vice-versa.

Observation is merely a requirement within empirically-based FSK.
Those FSKs that depend on logical and reasoning may not need direct observations.
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:30 am Within any legal FSK, whatever is enacted ought to be complied by all citizens.
That's an opinion that people can have. It's in no way verifiable.
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:08 am the point is whatever is 'fact' is always conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].
No fact can standalone without being qualified [implied or explicitly] to its specific FSK.
This mean all facts must be verified and justified within its respective FSK.
Which is simply an endorsement of argumentum ad populums and/or arguments from authority.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:56 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:58 am BUT, the point is MY definition of 'what is fact' is not the same as PH's fact as 'matter of fact' [A].
My definition of what is fact is dependent of what is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Example, scientific facts, economic facts, social facts, legal facts, historical facts, etc.

...
I have repeated a "million" times, the moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK, thus if you deny the moral FSK you are only your way to deny the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
You have a problem there, PH may very well hold some antique view of what makes for a fact, but his view has a significant advantage over yours in that it covers crucial aspects of the fact-distinction language game which are absent in your, let's call that "definition".

Pete's version of what is a fact includes a method of resolving disputes by looking at evidence, which is essential to that language game. Yours doesn't, you just have a disposable FSK that can be ditched for a more convenient one any time. Sure you have an is-ought argument to make your FSK the source of truth, but as we already discussed, that argument explicitly depends upon the FSK, rendering it worthlessly circular.
Pete's version of what is fact is conditioned to merely to words and definitions primarily.

If Pete's version is primarily focused on evidence, that would be a scientific fact.
The issue with Pete's version is about its ideological arrogance inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers that any view NOT in line with whatever the deem is true is meaningless and nonsense.
Note Ayer's view, whatever is morality is by default meaningless and nonsense, period!

Note in contrast to Rorty's to keep the conversation open.

I have replied to you in another post [will have to find it] what I claimed is not circular.
You angrily deny that you have any need to show why Henry is factually mistaken when he asserts it is morally correct to kill criminals, but Henry just has his own FSK and he has as much right to it as you have to yours.
Angry?? you are one who is emotional at most times, that is why you are on my ignore list.
My foundation is Buddhism-proper which enable practices to develop equanimity is all circumstances no matter how disturbing it is. It would be very stupid to get angry over the above sort of things.

It would appear Henry's version is his own FSK but his views are compatible to the Moral Intuitionism FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
Is it a fact that Henry is wrong when he says that it is morally appropriate to kill lots of people or is it not?

When your "FSK" gives you the fact that nobody should ever prevent anyone from breathing, and his "FSK" gives him a contradictory fact, is one of these mutually exclusive fact claims definitively incorrect?

How could you provide a satisfactory answer that doesn't derive is from ought, and if your is from ought argument depends on the "FSK" that it is supposed to defend, how is that not a circular dependency?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:56 am
You can't compare any of that bullshit to the methods of science. The scientific "FSK" resolves competing factual claims by inspecting what Pete is quite justified in referring to under any reasonable set of linguistic norms as matters of fact.
Why not?
The moral FSK has the most of the features of the scientific FSK like;
In addition, the major inputs into the moral FSK are from scientific facts.

Peter's version of 'matters of fact' is that of the classical analytic philosophy and I provide counters to it in the OP.
Your thing requires an oblique argument against the very notion of objectivity to exist.
Your claims of verifiability aren't working out very well.
Ethical neutrality means nothing much.
Systematic Explorations could describe almost any activity including the picking of one's nose.
It's redundant to offer both precision and accuracy anyway. But you offer little of either.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:30 am Within any legal FSK, whatever is enacted ought to be complied by all citizens.
That's an opinion that people can have. It's in no way verifiable.
Within laws enacted by an authority [the legal FSK], all members are obligated i.e. ought to comply with the laws or else they will be punished accordingly.

If you are a US citizen you have [ought] to comply with the federal laws.
Regardless of whosoever opinion of any US citizen, the laws are enforceable, thus the 'ought_ness' to comply.
This "ought_ness" is an institutional fact, see Searle.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/FARBER/atria.html

Note the legal FSK of the USA hinges and is conditioned by the US Constitution and later enacted policies.

Point is ALL FSK must be hinged on and be conditioned by its constitution and policies [principles]. This is applicable to the moral FSK. I have not discussed the constitution and policies [principles] of the moral FSK in detail yet.
Post Reply