I took a deeper philosophical dive into the above terms [PH's specific] via the following links from SEP [has reasonable philosophical credibility] and note all of them are groundless.
- Propositions
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/
Facts
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
States-of-affairs
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
Re Propositions;
- The term ‘Proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following:
• the primary bearers of truth-value,
• the objects of belief and other “Propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.[1]),
• the referents of that-clauses, and
• the meanings of sentences.
re States-of-affairs, it is unsettled matter;
- Therefore a theory of states of affairs must answer the question how a state of affairs can “involve” objects and properties (relations) and combine them, if the objects don’t exemplify the properties (stand in the relations).
Although there are promising proposals to answer it, this question is still open.
re Facts
- The word “fact” is used in at least two different ways.
First:
In the locution “matters of fact”, facts are taken to be
what is contingently the case, or
that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge.
Second;
The word [fact] is also used in locutions such as
• It is a fact that Sam is sad
• That Sam is sad is a fact
• That 2+2=4 is a fact.
In this second use, the functor (operator, connective) “It is a fact that” takes a sentence to make a sentence
(an alternative view has it that “It is a fact” takes a nominalised sentence, a that-clause, to make a sentence),
and the predicate “is a fact” is either elliptic for the functor, or takes a nominalised sentence to make a sentence.
It is locutions of this second sort that philosophers have often employed in order to claim (or deny) that facts are part of the inventory of what there is,
and play an important role in semantics, ontology, metaphysics, epistemology and the philosophy of mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge.
The second is merely linguistic, i.e. a play with words and meaning.
In addition,
- Is a fact just a true Proposition?
There are metaphysical and linguistic arguments to the contrary.
What is more reasonable regarding 'what is fact' is this;
- Frege famously wrote,
“‘Facts, facts, facts’ cries the scientist if he wants to bring home the necessity of a firm foundation for science.
What is a fact?
A fact is a thought that is true.” (1918, p. 25)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/
- First:
In the locution “matters of fact”, facts are taken to be
what is contingently the case, or
that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge.
Thus Hume famously writes at the beginning of Section IV of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding:
“All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit,
1. Relations of Ideas and
2. Matters of Fact”.
The latter option [Humean] is expounded in the influential philosophy of facts to be found in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (1921).
Wittgenstein there announces that the world is the totality of facts and that every fact is contingent (Wittgenstein TLP: 1.1).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
As such amidst of the blah, blah, blah within a deeper philosophical discussion of what is fact, the fundamental principles of what is fact is represented via the WIKI's definition of what is fact, i.e.
Thus,A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK.
i.e. Scientific facts are are conditioned upon the scientific FSK [the most credible at present].
Thus moral facts are are conditioned upon the moral FSK.
Btw, my moral facts are not related to 'moral' statements of what is right or wrong morally but rather are grounded on matter of fact of the inherent moral potential represent by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
My point,
Peter Holmes et. al., your counters against my claims "there are objective moral facts" are a sham based on your groundless terms re prepositions, facts and state-of-affairs and your dogmatic ideological view of what is morality.