One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

• You tried to get round the is/ought and fact/value problems by making the values and therefore fact claims about them, internal to the FSK.

• When challenged you (as above) usually try to universalise that by suggesting that all the apparently empirical bits of science are internal to that FSK.

• Then you end up having to avoid discussing what you have done to the notion of an empirical/rational divide, but I assume Skepdick will argue there is no such divide and you will probably agree. (Will you ever notice that Skepdick is effectively a Logical Positivist by the way?)

• But the ultimate point of all these moves you make is to get around some immediate short term problem. Some guy says you can't get values from facts, you don't waste much time thinking why that is a thing, you just do your usual move and you make everything part of an FSK and call it a win.

The 'is/ought' problem is trivial to Morality.
Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758
This is basically due to Hume's historical ignorance of the latest advance knowledge of the various sciences and others.
I have provided various counters to the is-ought problem to open its can of worms.

As for Fact/Value Distinction, note,
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759

The critical issue here is,
Are there Moral Facts that would make morality objective.

The problem is with Peter Holmes and his likes who are banking on one perspective of 'what is fact' from the LPs and classical analytic perspective. From this bastardized perspective, there are no possible moral facts.

• The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
  https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer

With the above such ideology, thus those [Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin, you?] who are influenced by the above will blindly shut off any suggestion 'moral facts' exist are real.

But there is another realistic perspective to what is fact,i.e.
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
Such realistic facts are conditioned to their specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality.
I am not surprised you questioned the concept of a FSK as conditioning whatever is the fact, presumably when you are influenced by the LPs somehow.

Skepdick don't even claim to be a philosopher nor favor philosophy, thus cannot be a Logical Positivist [a philosophical movement].

But at the end of all of that, you eventually have to work out what it is that you are trying to make, and you should have a little think about whether you are actually making that any more. You were trying to make a framework and system of knowledge because you wanted something better than a framework and system of opinion and belief, were you not?

As stated above, I already have my full-fledged map, model and FSK of Morality-proper.
A Framework and System can be applicable to knowledge, beliefs and opinion, but what counts is whether the FSK is credible or not.
Credibility of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

A FSK for generating ideas via brainstorming would definitely be less credible than the scientific FSK and other credible FSKs.

Ultimately, if I have my mere belief that it is morally wrong to drown kittens. And if you have your knowledge that it is actually in line with the great truths of morality-proper as justified [logically AND philosophically AND scientifically AND whatever else] to drown unwanted kittens that don't belong to somebody else, then there's something you want your knowledge to do that my belief cannot.

Whatever belief you have that you relate to morality is not morality-proper. Note,

Judgments, Decisions, Belief, Opinions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

Whatever is claimed as moral fact must be verified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

Your ultimate problem is that to convert your own beliefs into knowledge, you gave that all away. Your knowledge doesn't do anything that a belief doesn't do equally well. You created a distinction but you forgot to create the difference.

Before you get indignant and hit reply to tell me how ignorant I am and what a bastard logical positivist I must be just because I don't agree with you... It's time for you to take that inventory I've hinted at here. There's a reason why circular arguments do matter, and trying to get out of it by suggesting science is equally circular is not the answer if you are trying to do something other than just win a trivial argument on a tiny little web site where the other guy will just lose interest if you argue long enough anyway. If you want what you are writing to matter in any sense at all, you definitely need to fix the problems rather than calling people retards for telling you about them.

Whatever I claimed as fact, moral or otherwise must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK. It is not something based on wishful thinking.

I have researched into circular arguments and begging the question.
There are many perspectives to the above, e.g. the narrow and the broad views.

Why you insist my arguments are circular or begging the question without full justifications is due to ignorance of the depth of the premises I presented.

I believe all arguments are traceable fundamentally to begging-the-question.
Example the seemingly most valid and sound argument has an element of begging the question,

• P1 All men are mortal.
  P2 Socrates is a man.
  C1 Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

P1 is assumed based on observations and experiences, thus induction.
But P1 is nevertheless a strong induction much more credible than reading tea-leaves.
Since P1 is assumed, thus there is the begging-of-question or circular.

Actually fundamentally all premises are based on induction.
So whatever the conclusion from a deductive argument, it is fundamentally inductive thus open to question.
This is why we need a credible FSK to support whatever is inferred as a fact.

[FlashDangerpants]

• You tried to get round the is/ought and fact/value problems by making the values and therefore fact claims about them, internal to the FSK.

• When challenged you (as above) usually try to universalise that by suggesting that all the apparently empirical bits of science are internal to that FSK.

• Then you end up having to avoid discussing what you have done to the notion of an empirical/rational divide, but I assume Skepdick will argue there is no such divide and you will probably agree. (Will you ever notice that Skepdick is effectively a Logical Positivist by the way?)

• But the ultimate point of all these moves you make is to get around some immediate short term problem. Some guy says you can't get values from facts, you don't waste much time thinking why that is a thing, you just do your usual move and you make everything part of an FSK and call it a win.

The 'is/ought' problem is trivial to Morality.
Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758
This is basically due to Hume's historical ignorance of the latest advance knowledge of the various sciences and others.
I have provided various counters to the is-ought problem to open its can of worms.

As for Fact/Value Distinction, note,
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759

The critical issue here is,
Are there Moral Facts that would make morality objective.

The problem is with Peter Holmes and his likes who are banking on one perspective of 'what is fact' from the LPs and classical analytic perspective. From this bastardized perspective, there are no possible moral facts.

• The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
  https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer

With the above such ideology, thus those [Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin, you?] who are influenced by the above will blindly shut off any suggestion 'moral facts' exist are real.

But there is another realistic perspective to what is fact,i.e.
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
Such realistic facts are conditioned to their specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality.
I am not surprised you questioned the concept of a FSK as conditioning whatever is the fact, presumably when you are influenced by the LPs somehow.

You seem to be blindly assuming that everyone who distinguishes between belief and fact is somehow a Logical Positivist, or some emissary thereof. Which is weird because I'm fairly sure Kant distinguishes between those things too.

Anyway, I am definitely nothing like the LPs, neither is Sculptor. I can see how you got there with Pete but that is down to how he phrases his objections, not the content of them. Not sure about the miniature turtle dude, but I don't think he's a Logical Positivist either.

Try thinking about this in terms of Gilbert Ryle's category-mistake argument instead of LP. And then think about the different ways those people you list are approaching the questions raised here.

Facts and beliefs are different categories of claims. You can differentiate them according to what aspect you choose to look at. Me and Pete in particular have been highlighting different aspects of that. Pete bases his objections on how you confirm them, I base mine mostly on what they do.

In either case, we are both describing a problem that can be resolved to a category-mistake on your part.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ok then. You really do need to stop and ask what objectivity does, and what are facts for, because otherwise you are going to throw out the baby with bathwater.

I don't get your point.

There are various perspectives to what is objectivity.
I am going along with where scientific facts are claimed as objective, i.e. independent of individual's opinions and beliefs but not independent of the scientific FSK which is inevitable involve subjects and their intersubjective consensus.
What is the problem with this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no doubt your project is Kantian. Here's the passage from the Critique of Practical Reason:

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

So Kant 'saw' before him 'the moral law within' him, and connected it 'immediately with the consciousness of [his] existence'.

And 95% of your fictional 'morality framework and system of knowledge' comes from, or is based on, this mystical, irrationalist, intuitionist claptrap. No wonder it's a house of cards.

Hume wasn't always right. But the 'no ought from is' claim has nothing to do with knowledge, or the 18th-century lack of it. It's simply pointing out a disconnection between two kinds of assertion: factual and non-factual - and so how the one can never entail the other. Through all our discussions, you've never once demonstrated such an entailment - and Kant never did - simply because it's impossible. That's all that Hume was pointing out.

It should be embarrassing for you to condemn Kant when you have not read his work thoroughly nor understood [not necessary agree] with his theories.

Hume's interpretations were based on what was known during his time and the philosophical framework of his time. Hume himself admitted his knowledge re passions were limited [..I am trying to gather the references on this].
Are you well verse with all the criticisms levelled at Hume's ideas?
It is obvious Kant had woken up from his dogmatic slumber to counter Hume successfully, else he would not have been recognized by many as the greatest Western philosopher of all times.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• You tried to get round the is/ought and fact/value problems by making the values and therefore fact claims about them, internal to the FSK.

• When challenged you (as above) usually try to universalise that by suggesting that all the apparently empirical bits of science are internal to that FSK.

• Then you end up having to avoid discussing what you have done to the notion of an empirical/rational divide, but I assume Skepdick will argue there is no such divide and you will probably agree. (Will you ever notice that Skepdick is effectively a Logical Positivist by the way?)

• But the ultimate point of all these moves you make is to get around some immediate short term problem. Some guy says you can't get values from facts, you don't waste much time thinking why that is a thing, you just do your usual move and you make everything part of an FSK and call it a win.

The 'is/ought' problem is trivial to Morality.
Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758
This is basically due to Hume's historical ignorance of the latest advance knowledge of the various sciences and others.
I have provided various counters to the is-ought problem to open its can of worms.

As for Fact/Value Distinction, note,
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759

The critical issue here is,
Are there Moral Facts that would make morality objective.

The problem is with Peter Holmes and his likes who are banking on one perspective of 'what is fact' from the LPs and classical analytic perspective. From this bastardized perspective, there are no possible moral facts.

• The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
  https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer

With the above such ideology, thus those [Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin, you?] who are influenced by the above will blindly shut off any suggestion 'moral facts' exist are real.

But there is another realistic perspective to what is fact,i.e.
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
Such realistic facts are conditioned to their specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality.
I am not surprised you questioned the concept of a FSK as conditioning whatever is the fact, presumably when you are influenced by the LPs somehow.

You seem to be blindly assuming that everyone who distinguishes between belief and fact is somehow a Logical Positivist, or some emissary thereof. Which is weird because I'm fairly sure Kant distinguishes between those things too.

Anyway, I am definitely nothing like the LPs, neither is Sculptor. I can see how you got there with Pete but that is down to how he phrases his objections, not the content of them. Not sure about the miniature turtle dude, but I don't think he's a Logical Positivist either.

I am not saying you, sculptor and Peter are logical positivists [defunct], rather the idea on 'what is fact' adopted is inherited from the LPs and the classical analytic philosophers.
What stinks of them is the attitude that is carried against those who do not agree with their definition of 'what is fact'.

Try thinking about this in terms of Gilbert Ryle's category-mistake argument instead of LP. And then think about the different ways those people you list are approaching the questions raised here.

Noted

Facts and beliefs are different categories of claims. You can differentiate them according to what aspect you choose to look at. Me and Pete in particular have been highlighting different aspects of that. Pete bases his objections on how you confirm them, I base mine mostly on what they do.

In either case, we are both describing a problem that can be resolved to a category-mistake on your part.

I get back re category-mistake after I have read Ryle's on that.

My perspective [Kantian] is opinions, beliefs and facts [knowledge] exist within a continuum of degrees of verification and justification empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

I have given a demonstration of the above,
e.g.

Opinion.
Einstein had a hunch or abduction regarding some probable hypothesis, that would be an opinion, i.e. an intuition, a guess, conjectures, which is not verified and justified within a credible FSK.
We can then rate the credibility at say 10% given it is Einstein's hunch and it is highly subjective.
If that opinion on elements of physics is from uneducated person, the credibility would be say 0%.

Beliefs
From his hunch and intuition, Einstein then set about verifying proving his hypothesis on paper and after 1000s of times, it turn out to be true. But that truth is only confine to the confidence of Einstein alone and his personal conviction, thus this is a beliefs.
The credibility in this case would be say 50% objective.

Fact/Knowledge
Thereafter Einstein distribute his proofs to various of his peers.
If there a majority of his peers accepted his proofs after rigorous checking and discussions, then Einstein hypothesis is recognized as a theory i.e. knowledge.
In this case, the credibility would be say 75%.

Thereafter when Einstein theory is tested in the field and the results are repeated by his peers, then his community will accept his theory as 'fact' i.e. a fact of physics and science.
In this case, the credibility would be say 90% with room for change in the event of new evidences.

Whatever the category-mistake defined, I believe my above demonstration is more realistic regarding what are opinions, beliefs and facts.
They are applicable to moral "opinion" "beliefs" and facts within a credible moral FSK.

Show me why your definition is more realistic and mine is not?

[Peter Holmes]

There's no doubt your project is Kantian. Here's the passage from the Critique of Practical Reason:

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

So Kant 'saw' before him 'the moral law within' him, and connected it 'immediately with the consciousness of [his] existence'.

And 95% of your fictional 'morality framework and system of knowledge' comes from, or is based on, this mystical, irrationalist, intuitionist claptrap. No wonder it's a house of cards.

Hume wasn't always right. But the 'no ought from is' claim has nothing to do with knowledge, or the 18th-century lack of it. It's simply pointing out a disconnection between two kinds of assertion: factual and non-factual - and so how the one can never entail the other. Through all our discussions, you've never once demonstrated such an entailment - and Kant never did - simply because it's impossible. That's all that Hume was pointing out.

It should be embarrassing for you to condemn Kant when you have not read his work thoroughly nor understood [not necessary agree] with his theories.

Hume's interpretations were based on what was known during his time and the philosophical framework of his time. Hume himself admitted his knowledge re passions were limited [..I am trying to gather the references on this].
Are you well verse with all the criticisms levelled at Hume's ideas?
It is obvious Kant had woken up from his dogmatic slumber to counter Hume successfully.

Kant condemns himself out of his own mouth. He admired and was in awe of 'the moral law within' him, which he saw 'before' him and 'connected' 'immediately with the consciousness of [his] existence'. These are his words. Have you ever read and thought about them?

What moral law? How did it get within him? Does everyone have it 'within them'? Or is it 'within' only the enlightened and rational? What are the elements of this supposed moral law? And on and on.

Now, you're impressed by this mystical claptrap, perhaps unaware of its direct descent from religious dogma about the supposed divine spark put there by an invented god. You've secularised the nonsense by talking about an 'oughtness' programmed into human brains - but it's the same speculative rubbish, for which there's exactly the same empirical evidence: none.

I have read Kant and Hume, and formulated my opinions about their ideas. But the truth-value of their claims would remain the same even if I hadn't.

And I think the logical positivists were wrong to dismiss non-factual assertions as meaningless because unverifiable. But, ironically, you insist on the empirical verification of factual assertions 'within a credible FSK'. And that is logical positivism in a nutshell. You are a positivist. Damn.

[FlashDangerpants]

Facts and beliefs are different categories of claims. You can differentiate them according to what aspect you choose to look at. Me and Pete in particular have been highlighting different aspects of that. Pete bases his objections on how you confirm them, I base mine mostly on what they do.

In either case, we are both describing a problem that can be resolved to a category-mistake on your part.

I get back re category-mistake after I have read Ryle's on that.

Ok

My perspective [Kantian] is opinions, beliefs and facts [knowledge] exist within a continuum of degrees of verification and justification empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

I have given a demonstration of the above,
e.g.

Opinion.
Einstein had a hunch or abduction regarding some probable hypothesis, that would be an opinion, i.e. an intuition, a guess, conjectures, which is not verified and justified within a credible FSK.
We can then rate the credibility at say 10% given it is Einstein's hunch and it is highly subjective.
If that opinion on elements of physics is from uneducated person, the credibility would be say 0%.

Beliefs
From his hunch and intuition, Einstein then set about verifying proving his hypothesis on paper and after 1000s of times, it turn out to be true. But that truth is only confine to the confidence of Einstein alone and his personal conviction, thus this is a beliefs.
The credibility in this case would be say 50% objective.

Fact/Knowledge
Thereafter Einstein distribute his proofs to various of his peers.
If there a majority of his peers accepted his proofs after rigorous checking and discussions, then Einstein hypothesis is recognized as a theory i.e. knowledge.
In this case, the credibility would be say 75%.

Thereafter when Einstein theory is tested in the field and the results are repeated by his peers, then his community will accept his theory as 'fact' i.e. a fact of physics and science.
In this case, the credibility would be say 90% with room for change in the event of new evidences.

Whatever the category-mistake defined, I believe my above demonstration is more realistic regarding what are opinions, beliefs and facts.
They are applicable to moral "opinion" "beliefs" and facts within a credible moral FSK.

Show me why your definition is more realistic and mine is not?

You might need to also finally make up your mind about some other stuff. What you have there is an incredibly traditionalist view, with a strong reliance on verifiability. But you repeatedly pose as a post-analytic new man.

If you read something more modern such as on certainty - which you've referenced several times, but I don't believe you have actually read, you will find this subject treated very differently to that. You'll find it much more in line with what I have been writing for all these years, and which you have hated.

So it's possible that you don't actually want be this modernist with all that "later Wittgenstein" and post-analytic stuff. Which is fine, nobody needs to be that thing. But gotta work out what you actually are.

[Skepdick]

So it's possible that you don't actually want be this modernist with all that "later Wittgenstein" and post-analytic stuff. Which is fine, nobody needs to be that thing. But gotta work out what you actually are.

I am willing to bet money you have no idea what you are.

If you did you would've told us by now.

[Terrapin Station]

What moral law? How did it get within him? Does everyone have it 'within them'? Or is it 'within' only the enlightened and rational? What are the elements of this supposed moral law? And on and on.

Now, you're impressed by this mystical claptrap, perhaps unaware of its direct descent from religious dogma about the supposed divine spark put there by an invented god. You've secularised the nonsense by talking about an 'oughtness' programmed into human brains - but its the same speculative rubbish, for which there's exactly the same empirical evidence: none.

Do you not think that people have moral dispositions due to their brain structure and function (which is as it is via a combo of genetics and environmental factors (including nutrition and all sorts of things))?

[Skepdick]

You've secularised the nonsense by talking about an 'oughtness' programmed into human brains - but its the same speculative rubbish, for which there's exactly the same empirical evidence: none.

Well, you keep denying the charge of nihilism but the only person you are lying to about not being a nihilist is yourself.

Either you can fill in the blank, or you are a nihilist.

You "believe in gravity" because things falling to the ground when dropped is evidence for gravity.
You "believe in morality" because __________ is evidence for morality.

[Terrapin Station]

Anyway, I am definitely nothing like the LPs, neither is Sculptor. I can see how you got there with Pete but that is down to how he phrases his objections, not the content of them. Not sure about the miniature turtle dude, but I don't think he's a Logical Positivist either.

I'm not a positivist in general, and I'm especially not fond of logical positivism.

There isn't really a "stock" school that encapsulates my basic views. It's necessary to simply inquire about them and listen.

[Skepdick]

I'm not a positivist in general, and I'm especially not fond of logical positivism.

There isn't really a "stock" school that encapsulates my basic views. It's necessary to simply inquire about them and listen.

That sure sounds like the school of semantic inferentialism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no doubt your project is Kantian. Here's the passage from the Critique of Practical Reason:

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

So Kant 'saw' before him 'the moral law within' him, and connected it 'immediately with the consciousness of [his] existence'.

And 95% of your fictional 'morality framework and system of knowledge' comes from, or is based on, this mystical, irrationalist, intuitionist claptrap. No wonder it's a house of cards.

Hume wasn't always right. But the 'no ought from is' claim has nothing to do with knowledge, or the 18th-century lack of it. It's simply pointing out a disconnection between two kinds of assertion: factual and non-factual - and so how the one can never entail the other. Through all our discussions, you've never once demonstrated such an entailment - and Kant never did - simply because it's impossible. That's all that Hume was pointing out.

It should be embarrassing for you to condemn Kant when you have not read his work thoroughly nor understood [not necessary agree] with his theories.

Hume's interpretations were based on what was known during his time and the philosophical framework of his time. Hume himself admitted his knowledge re passions were limited [..I am trying to gather the references on this].
Are you well verse with all the criticisms levelled at Hume's ideas?
It is obvious Kant had woken up from his dogmatic slumber to counter Hume successfully.

Kant condemns himself out of his own mouth. He admired and was in awe of 'the moral law within' him, which he saw 'before' him and 'connected' 'immediately with the consciousness of [his] existence'. These are his words. Have you ever read and thought about them?

What moral law? How did it get within him? Does everyone have it 'within them'? Or is it 'within' only the enlightened and rational? What are the elements of this supposed moral law? And on and on.

Now, you're impressed by this mystical claptrap, perhaps unaware of its direct descent from religious dogma about the supposed divine spark put there by an invented god. You've secularised the nonsense by talking about an 'oughtness' programmed into human brains - but its the same speculative rubbish, for which there's exactly the same empirical evidence: none.

I have read Kant and Hume, and formulated my opinions about their ideas. But the truth-value of their claims would remain the same even if I hadn't.

And I think the logical positivists were wrong to dismiss non-factual assertions as meaningless because unverifiable. But, ironically, you insist on the empirical verification of factual assertions 'within a credible FSK'. And that is logical positivism in a nutshell. You are a positivist. Damn.

You are embarrassing yourself by exposing your ignorance.
I am very confident you have not read Kant's work thoroughly, thus no way of even understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant theories.

I also believe you have not read Hume's Treatise and Inquiry as well and more so understand the chapter and sections related to Morality.

If you have read, show me the statements where he admitted his limit and ignorance of the further knowledge of passions and emotions [.. I have read them but have to search for them again].

It is most likely you have only came across bits and pieces of quotes from Kant and Hume from secondary or other sources.

Here is are more details from Kant on the above quote;

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them:
1. the starry heavens above and
2. the Moral Law within.
I have not to search for them and conjecture them as though they were veiled in darkness or were in the Transcendent region beyond my horizon;
I see them before me and connect them directly with the Consciousness of my Existence.

The former [starry heavens] begins from the place I occupy in the External World of Sense, and enlarges my connection therein to an unbounded extent with worlds upon worlds and systems of systems, and moreover into limitless times of their periodic motion, its beginning and continuance.

The second [Moral Law within] begins from my invisible self, my Personality, and exhibits me in a World which has true infinity,
but which is traceable only by the Understanding,
and with which I discern that I am not in a merely contingent but in a Universal and Necessary Connection, as I am also thereby with all those visible worlds.

The former [starry heavens] view of a countless multitude of worlds annihilates as it were my importance as an animal creature, which after it has been for a short time provided with vital power, one knows not how, must again give back the matter of which it was formed to the planet it inhabits (a mere speck in the universe).

The second [Moral Law within], on the contrary, infinitely elevates my worth as an Intelligence by my Personality,
in which the Moral Law reveals to me a life independent of Animality and even of the Whole Sensible World,
at least so far as may be inferred from the destination assigned to my Existence by this Law,
a destination not restricted to Conditions and limits of this life, but reaching into the Infinite.

Kant: Critique of Practical Reason, Second Part - Conclusion, trans, Abbot pg 260

You condemned the above as mystical, irrationalist, .... claptrap based on your ignorance, LP attitude, shallow & narrow thinking, and dogmatism.

What wrong with Kant's view,
"the former [starry heavens] begins from the place I occupy in the External World of Sense"
The above show Kant believed in the External World and it is verified and justified by Science.

Also what is wrong with,
the second [Moral Law within] begins from my invisible self, my Personality, ..
this is based on his intuition supported by critical reasoning.

I had argued there is Moral Intuitionism which is not so reliable and credible but most of what is intuited and rationalized secularly is in alignment with the moral law within, e.g. no killing of humans, no enslavement of humans, no evil acts upon humans, and the likes.

One crucial point is Kant asserted the moral laws [oughts] are from within oneself, thus not free floating Platonic universal moral laws and God commanded moral laws external to the person.
Thus what Kant claimed is, moral laws are fundamentally subjective [via the subject internally] but objective within the collective generic humans as adapted from evolution, i.e. "programmed".

Kant with his critical thinking reinforces his intuitions based on experience but unfortunately for Kant and Hume in the 1700s there were no advance neurosciences, neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology, biology cognitive science to validate his intuitions. If Kant had access to these modern knowledge he would have incorporated them into his arguments.

Kant provided a solid reasoned & critical Moral Framework and System in the 1700s and it is the advance knowledge that justified and verified the moral facts within a credible moral FSK that Kant intuited.

What is so wrong with verification, justification as in Science at present where scientific facts/truths/knowledge are recognized humbly as polished conjectures.

The serious problem with the logical positivists is their ideology and worship of Science as the God of Knowledge [i.e. Scientism] and insist that is the only way to knowing reality. In addition they also worship language, reference, meanings, the linguistic matter of fact, state of affairs and the likes as their sub-gods.
Anyone not complying to their above views are condemned as mystical, woo woo, claptrap, meaningless, nonsensical and all sort of pejorative terms as what you have been doing.

Directing the pejoratives at yourself, you are very mystical and delusional when you cling to the fact-in-itself as really real.
There are no Fact-In-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

[Veritas Aequitas]

Facts and beliefs are different categories of claims. You can differentiate them according to what aspect you choose to look at. Me and Pete in particular have been highlighting different aspects of that. Pete bases his objections on how you confirm them, I base mine mostly on what they do.

In either case, we are both describing a problem that can be resolved to a category-mistake on your part.

I get back re category-mistake after I have read Ryle's on that.

Ok

My perspective [Kantian] is opinions, beliefs and facts [knowledge] exist within a continuum of degrees of verification and justification empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

I have given a demonstration of the above,
e.g.

Opinion.
Einstein had a hunch or abduction regarding some probable hypothesis, that would be an opinion, i.e. an intuition, a guess, conjectures, which is not verified and justified within a credible FSK.
We can then rate the credibility at say 10% given it is Einstein's hunch and it is highly subjective.
If that opinion on elements of physics is from uneducated person, the credibility would be say 0%.

Beliefs
From his hunch and intuition, Einstein then set about verifying proving his hypothesis on paper and after 1000s of times, it turn out to be true. But that truth is only confine to the confidence of Einstein alone and his personal conviction, thus this is a beliefs.
The credibility in this case would be say 50% objective.

Fact/Knowledge
Thereafter Einstein distribute his proofs to various of his peers.
If there a majority of his peers accepted his proofs after rigorous checking and discussions, then Einstein hypothesis is recognized as a theory i.e. knowledge.
In this case, the credibility would be say 75%.

Thereafter when Einstein theory is tested in the field and the results are repeated by his peers, then his community will accept his theory as 'fact' i.e. a fact of physics and science.
In this case, the credibility would be say 90% with room for change in the event of new evidences.

Whatever the category-mistake defined, I believe my above demonstration is more realistic regarding what are opinions, beliefs and facts.
They are applicable to moral "opinion" "beliefs" and facts within a credible moral FSK.

Show me why your definition is more realistic and mine is not?

You might need to also finally make up your mind about some other stuff. What you have there is an incredibly traditionalist view, with a strong reliance on verifiability. But you repeatedly pose as a post-analytic new man.

If you read something more modern such as on certainty - which you've referenced several times, but I don't believe you have actually read, you will find this subject treated very differently to that. You'll find it much more in line with what I have been writing for all these years, and which you have hated.

So it's possible that you don't actually want be this modernist with all that "later Wittgenstein" and post-analytic stuff. Which is fine, nobody needs to be that thing. But gotta work out what you actually are.

What I have with the above on a continuum basis is in line with what is more realistic and very useful with reference to claims of knowledge of reality.
I believe Kant came up with it after taking into account all the various contentious views on the matter.
Where can it go wrong?

I am still reading Rorty's Mirror of Nature where he, as with others, condemned 'verification' and justification, but that is only with reference to the logical positivist's sense and those of the classical analytic philosophy.

If you were to note, I often used the phrase 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' with the greatest weight to be placed on 'philosophically' i.e. relying on the utmost of rational and critical thinking, and to prevent dogmatism.

I believe analysis, verification and justification are very critical [my career is focus on being analytical and fine details] but we must recognize it has having limits and thus do not treat it like God. My peers often warned me of 'paralysis by analysis'.

On this with philosophy, I am with Russell, i.e.

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather
for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions
enlarge our conception of what is possible,
enrich our intellectual imagination and
diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
.. Problem of Philosophy.

I have read Wittgenstein "On Certainty" many times and in depth albeit some time ago.

Generally my default [as anti-realist] is that reality is conditioned upon the 'human factor' individually and collectively. Because humans are by nature fallible, how can I ever bank on 'certainty'.

[FlashDangerpants]

"In my opinion all X are Y" and "It is certain that all X are Y" are superficially similar statements from different language games. Your continuum deal just ignores that and pretends that the only meaningful difference is some number you made up for the amount of belief involved. If you have ever read On Certainty and come to any conclusion that Wittgenstein agrees with what are writing, you did not understand it.

Your career focus on fine detail and being analytical hasn't been as good as you think it has. You seem to have some plan to publish, right? You will get anihilated if you don't start learning more from counter arguments than you have been so far. It would be so bad I might actually feel sorry for you.

You don't need to worry about paralysis by analysis and I have concerns about those peers who tell you otherwise. You do need to worry about this rut you are in where you cannot understand what other people are writing because you are too infatuated with what you have already written.

The 'verification and justification empirically and philosophically' thing you tack onto your arguments never fits there, it's just a phrase you use to avoid thinking about whether some claim you've made is true/false by definition or by observation so you try to make it both to make sure it can never be false.

Only very old fashioned philosophers think that realism and antirealism is an important, useful or even meaningful question. The fact that you are still doing it suggests that you should just stop pretending to this modernism thing, it isn't to your taste.