Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

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: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is a classic case of Cognitive Dissonances in a philosophical discussion;

I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.

My detailed argument is as follows;
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 4:52 am
What is wrong with the following argument?
  • P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
    P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
    C Therefore, there are moral facts.
Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.
Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.

What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].

Note my emphasis if fact 'as defined'.

Who give you the authority that your fact [as defined] is absolute.

Note Skepdick's usual counter;

Where I have qualified my FSK, I can claim the below is a "green" circle.
Image

The above presentation is just not typical but rather extreme. There is nothing wrong with the above logic as long as I qualify the terms and meanings I used within a specific FSK.
Obviously I will not resort to such extreme normally, but just to show you what I meant when what is fact is conditioned upon a FSK.
The word here is not the critical thing but rather what is critical is what is experienced within a defined FSK.

However my definition of fact in relation to a specific FSK is quite normal, note, as implied here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance which you need to seek a cure.
Btw,
I am not claiming for moral opinions.
I am claiming moral facts as moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by neural correlates and other physical feature within the brain [& body]. Note a clue [not the full details] to the physical referent here;

Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34812

Problem is you are stuck in a very old dogmatic paradigm re morality.
No, the trouble is that you know a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, but you don't apply that knowledge to your own argument.

The existence of mirror neurons is a (recently discovered) fact about our brains - that helps to explain our behaviour. But it's not a 'moral fact', anymore than the existence of our brains is a 'moral fact'. (In the same way, the fact that humans must breathe or they die is also just a fact, with no moral significance.) Your non sequitur fallacy is this:

Mirror neurons programme us to do X; therefore, doing X is morally right.

To repeat, a factual premise (of any kind whatsoever) can't entail a moral conclusion. And that's because a conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises. If there's no claim about moral rightness/wrongness in the premise(s), the conclusion can't logically make a moral claim, because that won't follow from the premise(s). It really is that simple.
Strawman again,
I NEVER agreed,
"you know a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion,"
rather
'you know a factual premise [empirical] can't entail a moral opinion"

BUT
a factual premise [empirical] can entail a moral fact via a moral FSK.

PH: "Mirror neurons programme us to do X; therefore, doing X is morally right."
How many more '000s of times do I need to point out your strawman factory job?

What I have claimed is,
mirror neurons are the elements of the moral potentials or moral oughtness which is a matter of fact that are represented by the physical referent of neural correlates in the brain [& body].
This moral potential [physical as above] is a moral fact that drives ethical acts and evaluations.

For example in terms of hunger, I am not referring to people making choices based on their preferences in what to eat to satisfy their hunger.
What I am pointing out is the neural correlates in the brain and physical elements in the body that generate the hunger drive. This is the matter of fact I am referring. In terms of digestion FSK this is a fact of digestion.

I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed May 11, 2022 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:59 am Here is a classic case of Cognitive Dissanances in a philosophical discussion;

I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.

My detailed argument is as follows;
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 4:52 am
What is wrong with the following argument?
  • P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
    P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
    C Therefore, there are moral facts.
Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.
Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.
Then you have an entailment. If it is valid and sound that the pronouncements of Astrology, Demonology, the various crystal woo studies that discuss auras and so on are facts, then you do have a situation where it MUST be the case that many mutually exclusive truth claims are true, even though those truth claims entail other truth claims being false.

You are committed to a paradox where it is a truth that some other truth is untrue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:59 am However my definition of fact in relation to a specific FSK is quite normal, note, as implied here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
And that is a lie as shown in the paragraph above.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:59 am Here is a classic case of Cognitive Dissanances in a philosophical discussion;

I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.

My detailed argument is as follows;
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 4:52 am
What is wrong with the following argument?
  • P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
    P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
    C Therefore, there are moral facts.
Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.
Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.

What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].
Okay. You think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. WAFWOT.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:33 am Okay. You think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. WAFWOT.
Oh sorry, I could have told you that. I tried the same line on him about 4 years ago and he just agreed that there are unicorn facts.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:37 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:33 am Okay. You think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. WAFWOT.
Oh sorry, I could have told you that. I tried the same line on him about 4 years ago and he just agreed that there are unicorn facts.
Face palm. Note to self. Do something else more useful.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:59 am Here is a classic case of Cognitive Dissanances in a philosophical discussion;

I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.

My detailed argument is as follows;
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:04 am
Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.
Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.

What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].
Okay. You think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. WAFWOT.
As I had stated, it is nonsense to you because you are suffering from cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.

This is where I explained,
IS-OUGHT same as Geocentric Claim.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34802

To the geocentrists then for others to counter that the Earth orbit the Sun is like heresy to them because it contradict their common sense.
In addition the geocentrists claim is tied to a salvation of their cognitive dissonance with a belief in God where the Earth is the center of the Universe.

It is the same for the Moral Fact Deniers like yourself and gang.
You are suffering from cognitive dissonance when I claim otherwise [against your safe view, there are no moral facts] despite the qualified, valid and sound arguments I have given.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:41 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:37 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:33 am Okay. You think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. WAFWOT.
Oh sorry, I could have told you that. I tried the same line on him about 4 years ago and he just agreed that there are unicorn facts.
Face palm. Note to self. Do something else more useful.
Oh indeed. It's also several years since I first told him that if he didn't learn the basics of argument construction he was doomed to waste his entire life just re-making the same small set of mistakes.

And here we are, with VA blaming you for failing to agree with a circular argument that entails an absurd paradox that is all easy to spot.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Peter Holmes et. al. & Cognitive Dissonances

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:57 am Oh indeed. It's also several years since I first told him that if he didn't learn the basics of argument construction he was doomed to waste his entire life just re-making the same small set of mistakes.
The irony (or is it cognitive dissonance), of course, is that you agree with him but you won't admit it for whatever reasons.

In the implicit FSK you are operating within what VA is doing is defined as a "mistake". Sorta like the circle he showed you is defined as "green".
But of course you won't make your FSK explicit, nor justify why you've chosen that particular FSK; nor why that particular argument is "mistaken".

You'll continue silently appointing yourself as the authority on identifying "mistaken" arguments.

For somebody who keeps harping on mutual exclusivity you sure refuse to tell us why your FSK is the "right" one.
Post Reply