IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

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: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The No IS from Ought [NOFI] claim is the same as the Flat-Earth Claim in the following perspective;
  • Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbit Earth.
    Wiki
The Geocentric Claim is so obvious which is based on empirical evidence;
  • Two observations supported the idea that Earth was the center of the Universe:

    First, from anywhere on Earth, the Sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the Moon and the planets have their own motions, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. The stars appeared to be fixed on a celestial sphere rotating once each day about an axis through the geographic poles of Earth.[2]
    Second, Earth seems to be unmoving from the perspective of an earthbound observer; it feels solid, stable, and stationary.
    -wiki
I am sure during those times the Geocentric Claim was the accepted norm, it would be madness for anyone to claim otherwise.

But then it took extra empirical evidence, effort, intelligence, rationality to get to the truth that the more realistic fact is that of the Heliocentric claim, i.e.
that it is the Earth that is orbiting around the Sun.

When the truth of the Heliocentric claim was made, Copernicus was heavily condemned and denounced in the worst manner.

And Galileo
  • In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture",[148] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
    wiki
................
The same event and condemnation of the Heliocentric claim is the same with the dogmatic grasp of the "No IS from Ought" [NOFI] claim.
This NOFI is very obvious from a short-sighted view based on the equivocation fallacy.
Those who disagree with the NOFI claim is regarded as stupid, mad, do not understand this or that, and that someday the 'penny will drop for them'.

But the point those who disagree with the NOFI claim view it as short-sighted despite the obvious. It is not they are blind nor ignorant of the NOFI claim but rather like the Heleocentrists, those who counter the NOFI are ignorant of the existence of moral facts just a Hume was ignorant of such moral facts. This is where Hume acknowledged his ignorance [inevitable during his time in the 1700s]
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.

The first kind [sensation] arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.

Treatise: Book I, Part I, SECTION II.: Division of the Subject
Note the above implied Hume was ignorant of the matter of fact of sensations related to moral issues where he merely assign them to unknown causes.

My point;
Those who are stuck with Hume NOFI are ignorant of the inherent moral potentials as programmed within all humans.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

You forgot to include an argument with your rant.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 7:01 am The No IS from Ought [NOFI] claim is the same as the Flat-Earth Claim in the following perspective;
  • Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbit Earth.
    Wiki
The Geocentric Claim is so obvious which is based on empirical evidence;
  • Two observations supported the idea that Earth was the center of the Universe:

    First, from anywhere on Earth, the Sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the Moon and the planets have their own motions, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. The stars appeared to be fixed on a celestial sphere rotating once each day about an axis through the geographic poles of Earth.[2]
    Second, Earth seems to be unmoving from the perspective of an earthbound observer; it feels solid, stable, and stationary.
    -wiki
I am sure during those times the Geocentric Claim was the accepted norm, it would be madness for anyone to claim otherwise.

But then it took extra empirical evidence, effort, intelligence, rationality to get to the truth that the more realistic fact is that of the Heliocentric claim, i.e.
that it is the Earth that is orbiting around the Sun.

When the truth of the Heliocentric claim was made, Copernicus was heavily condemned and denounced in the worst manner.

And Galileo
  • In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture",[148] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
    wiki
................
The same event and condemnation of the Heliocentric claim is the same with the dogmatic grasp of the "No IS from Ought" [NOFI] claim.
This NOFI is very obvious from a short-sighted view based on the equivocation fallacy.
Those who disagree with the NOFI claim is regarded as stupid, mad, do not understand this or that, and that someday the 'penny will drop for them'.

But the point those who disagree with the NOFI claim view it as short-sighted despite the obvious. It is not they are blind nor ignorant of the NOFI claim but rather like the Heleocentrists, those who counter the NOFI are ignorant of the existence of moral facts just a Hume was ignorant of such moral facts. This is where Hume acknowledged his ignorance [inevitable during his time in the 1700s]
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.

The first kind [sensation] arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.

Treatise: Book I, Part I, SECTION II.: Division of the Subject
Note the above implied Hume was ignorant of the matter of fact of sensations related to moral issues where he merely assign them to unknown causes.

My point;
Those who are stuck with Hume NOFI are ignorant of the inherent moral potentials as programmed within all humans.
The same mistake, over and over again. Facts about human 'sensations' have no moral entailment, because no factual premise can entail a moral conclusion. So discovering the sources of human behaviour - in the way we discovered heliocentrism - can make no difference.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 7:01 am The No IS from Ought [NOFI] claim is the same as the Flat-Earth Claim in the following perspective;
  • Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbit Earth.
    Wiki
The Geocentric Claim is so obvious which is based on empirical evidence;
  • Two observations supported the idea that Earth was the center of the Universe:

    First, from anywhere on Earth, the Sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the Moon and the planets have their own motions, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. The stars appeared to be fixed on a celestial sphere rotating once each day about an axis through the geographic poles of Earth.[2]
    Second, Earth seems to be unmoving from the perspective of an earthbound observer; it feels solid, stable, and stationary.
    -wiki
I am sure during those times the Geocentric Claim was the accepted norm, it would be madness for anyone to claim otherwise.

But then it took extra empirical evidence, effort, intelligence, rationality to get to the truth that the more realistic fact is that of the Heliocentric claim, i.e.
that it is the Earth that is orbiting around the Sun.

When the truth of the Heliocentric claim was made, Copernicus was heavily condemned and denounced in the worst manner.

And Galileo
  • In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture",[148] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
    wiki
................
The same event and condemnation of the Heliocentric claim is the same with the dogmatic grasp of the "No IS from Ought" [NOFI] claim.
This NOFI is very obvious from a short-sighted view based on the equivocation fallacy.
Those who disagree with the NOFI claim is regarded as stupid, mad, do not understand this or that, and that someday the 'penny will drop for them'.

But the point those who disagree with the NOFI claim view it as short-sighted despite the obvious. It is not they are blind nor ignorant of the NOFI claim but rather like the Heleocentrists, those who counter the NOFI are ignorant of the existence of moral facts just a Hume was ignorant of such moral facts. This is where Hume acknowledged his ignorance [inevitable during his time in the 1700s]
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.

The first kind [sensation] arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.

Treatise: Book I, Part I, SECTION II.: Division of the Subject
Note the above implied Hume was ignorant of the matter of fact of sensations related to moral issues where he merely assign them to unknown causes.

My point;
Those who are stuck with Hume NOFI are ignorant of the inherent moral potentials as programmed within all humans.
The same mistake, over and over again. Facts about human 'sensations' have no moral entailment, because no factual premise can entail a moral conclusion. So discovering the sources of human behaviour - in the way we discovered heliocentrism - can make no difference.
You are the ignorant one.

Do you understand how Hume arrived at his NOFI, no ought from is?

Suggest you read Hume's treatise thoroughly and note Hume's inevitable ignorance of neuroscience which was not available during his time.

If Hume is alive at present, I don't think he will insist on his NOFI all the way or as absolute.

So discovering the sources of human behaviour - in the way we discovered heliocentrism - can make no difference.
This is a display of your ignorance.

Note the discovery of Mirror Neurons, more in humans and lesser in the higher primates.
Empathy is one of the fundamental of morality.

Suggest you read more instead of being stuck in your tall dark 'silo' and keep peddling and insisting on your limited knowledge, ignorance with arrogance.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Iwannaplato »

As is often the case, his example actually points to the opposite conclusion than his.
Here we have improvements in empirical observation and measurement. Empirical observation.
And with morals we have two different categories of 'things' being discussed and a different FSK, as he would say, must come in and compete with, in this case empirical science to say that X is real.

And the church, of course, back then would have agreed with the objectivity of morals.
But more importantly the church's viewpoint was humanocentric.
Earth is the center, we are the center, God gave us the earth. It was not just an empirical position, it was a theistic and ontological one.

Saying that human likes and dislikes are indications of what is Objectively good is also humanocentric, because it assumes that what is good for us, is GOOD, period.

We have no way of knowing if what is good for us is GOOD. What is good for us seems to be rather problematic for other species. If we gain space flight we might extend this kind of danger to other species. That might be good, who knows, that might be bad, who knows. But there is no reason to assume it is OBJECTIVELY GOOD.

But just like the church did, VA assumes that what is good, should we find it, for us, our health perhaps or something that could be measured empirically, it is GOOD.

He's on the mythic side of this argument.

It's his arguments, not his position, most people criticise.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 7:01 am The No IS from Ought [NOFI] claim is the same as the Flat-Earth Claim in the following perspective;
  • Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbit Earth.
    Wiki
The Geocentric Claim is so obvious which is based on empirical evidence;
  • Two observations supported the idea that Earth was the center of the Universe:

    First, from anywhere on Earth, the Sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the Moon and the planets have their own motions, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. The stars appeared to be fixed on a celestial sphere rotating once each day about an axis through the geographic poles of Earth.[2]
    Second, Earth seems to be unmoving from the perspective of an earthbound observer; it feels solid, stable, and stationary.
    -wiki
I am sure during those times the Geocentric Claim was the accepted norm, it would be madness for anyone to claim otherwise.

But then it took extra empirical evidence, effort, intelligence, rationality to get to the truth that the more realistic fact is that of the Heliocentric claim, i.e.
that it is the Earth that is orbiting around the Sun.

When the truth of the Heliocentric claim was made, Copernicus was heavily condemned and denounced in the worst manner.

And Galileo
  • In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture",[148] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
    wiki
................
The same event and condemnation of the Heliocentric claim is the same with the dogmatic grasp of the "No IS from Ought" [NOFI] claim.
This NOFI is very obvious from a short-sighted view based on the equivocation fallacy.
Those who disagree with the NOFI claim is regarded as stupid, mad, do not understand this or that, and that someday the 'penny will drop for them'.

But the point those who disagree with the NOFI claim view it as short-sighted despite the obvious. It is not they are blind nor ignorant of the NOFI claim but rather like the Heleocentrists, those who counter the NOFI are ignorant of the existence of moral facts just a Hume was ignorant of such moral facts. This is where Hume acknowledged his ignorance [inevitable during his time in the 1700s]



Note the above implied Hume was ignorant of the matter of fact of sensations related to moral issues where he merely assign them to unknown causes.

My point;
Those who are stuck with Hume NOFI are ignorant of the inherent moral potentials as programmed within all humans.
The same mistake, over and over again. Facts about human 'sensations' have no moral entailment, because no factual premise can entail a moral conclusion. So discovering the sources of human behaviour - in the way we discovered heliocentrism - can make no difference.
You are the ignorant one.

Do you understand how Hume arrived at his NOFI, no ought from is?

Suggest you read Hume's treatise thoroughly and note Hume's inevitable ignorance of neuroscience which was not available during his time.

If Hume is alive at present, I don't think he will insist on his NOFI all the way or as absolute.

So discovering the sources of human behaviour - in the way we discovered heliocentrism - can make no difference.
This is a display of your ignorance.

Note the discovery of Mirror Neurons, more in humans and lesser in the higher primates.
Empathy is one of the fundamental of morality.

Suggest you read more instead of being stuck in your tall dark 'silo' and keep peddling and insisting on your limited knowledge, ignorance with arrogance.
Knowledge of how things are makes no difference. A fact can't entail a moral conclusion. It's as simple as that. But, by all means, try to show how a fact can entail a moral conclusion. And when you can't, have a good hard think about your argument.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Mon May 09, 2022 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 3:57 pm A fact can't entail a moral conclusion.
I'm fairly sure he doesn't actually understand that sentence.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 3:59 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 3:57 pm A fact can't entail a moral conclusion.
I'm fairly sure he doesn't actually understand that sentence.
Yep. But his work-around is to deny that what we call facts exist. 'All facts are really opinions, so moral opinions are facts'.

Face palm.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

His recent thing for saying all logic is half-truths arrises because he also can't really get the idea of entailment either. He ended up having to borrow some alt-logic where mutually exclusive facts don't entail loss of fact status.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 4:17 pm His recent thing for saying all logic is half-truths arrises because he also can't really get the idea of entailment either. He ended up having to borrow some alt-logic where mutually exclusive facts don't entail loss of fact status.
Yep. You're right to hunt that one down. It won't work, of course. We're trashing a recent-life's work. Can't be pleasant - you'd have thought. Trouble is, nothing can be allowed to make any difference. Ho hum.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Impenitent »

this is a sphere - this ought to roll

wait, that's a geometric claim

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 3:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:00 am

The same mistake, over and over again. Facts about human 'sensations' have no moral entailment, because no factual premise can entail a moral conclusion. So discovering the sources of human behaviour - in the way we discovered heliocentrism - can make no difference.
You are the ignorant one.

Do you understand how Hume arrived at his NOFI, no ought from is?

Suggest you read Hume's treatise thoroughly and note Hume's inevitable ignorance of neuroscience which was not available during his time.

If Hume is alive at present, I don't think he will insist on his NOFI all the way or as absolute.

So discovering the sources of human behaviour - in the way we discovered heliocentrism - can make no difference.
This is a display of your ignorance.

Note the discovery of Mirror Neurons, more in humans and lesser in the higher primates.
Empathy is one of the fundamental of morality.

Suggest you read more instead of being stuck in your tall dark 'silo' and keep peddling and insisting on your limited knowledge, ignorance with arrogance.
Knowledge of how things are makes no difference. A fact can't entail a moral conclusion. It's as simple as that. But, by all means, try to show how a fact can entail a moral conclusion. And when you can't, have a good hard think about your argument.
It is a fact that all humans has a potential for intelligence [note in general principle the contrast between human intelligence and intelligence of non-humans].
It is a fact that humans has a higher intelligence that non-humans.
This is represented by the inherent intelligence potential "programmed" within all humans.

It is undeniable, relatively, humans has higher "moral" sense than non-humans.
This moral sense has to be a moral potential that is represented by neural correlates as matter of fact and physical referent in the human brain.
If not, how else.

All facts are conditioned within a specific FSK.
The existence of such a moral sense potential is a moral fact as a moral conclusion when considered within a moral FSK.

Btw, do not hastily subsumed what I termed as moral fact [justified as physical above] into your nonsensical moral framework, re moral sayings and opinions.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 5:50 am It is a fact that all humans has a potential for intelligence [note in general principle the contrast between human intelligence and intelligence of non-humans].
It is a fact that humans has a higher intelligence that non-humans.
This is represented by the inherent intelligence potential "programmed" within all humans.
I'm not sure how much use you expect to get out of that one, but the fact-value distinction applies to claims of quantified, measurable intellegence just as surely as it does to quantified, measurable goodness. They are the subject of evaluative, not quantitative judgments.

That's why there's an is-ought gap. It's why your moral science will never have numbers that aren't laughable.
Post Reply