Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why there are so many thread re 'fact' is because there is the contentious dichotomy of Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact.

I posted this thread;

All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Anti-Realism [Idealism ..]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
i.e. All Philosophical issues are reduced to Philosophical Realism vs Philosophical Anti-Realism[/b] [Idealism ..]. This is often shorten to the Realism vs Anti-Realism dichotomy.

[Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Thus on the topic of 'what is fact' we end up with the Realist vs the Anti-Realist views on 'what is fact'.

While the self-claimed "realists" had one single view [as above] the anti-realist positions branched into many different sub-views, e.g. various idealism, etc. My anti-realist position is that of Kant's Empirical Realism or Transcendental Idealism.

The issue is when the self-claimed "realists" present 'what is fact' they merely assume their definition and interpretation is the sole true representation of 'what is fact'.
This was what happened with their hijacking of the term 'realism' and insisting all their views are absolutely real but that is not the case, there are more realistic views of reality from the anti-realists.

The self-claimed "realists" view of 'what is fact' [truth, knowledge or reality] is based merely on the common and conventional sense interpreted from the very basic human brain. The idea of the external world as the real thing is so obvious but this is relatively a very "kindergarten" view in the philosophical perspective.

The anti-realists do not reject the realists' view but for various reasons suspect the philosophical realists' view of reality is too commonsensical, narrow and shallow, thus presented their own anti-realists more advanced philosophical view of what is reality and following that, "what is fact."

Note the similar advancing views in Physics from Newtonian [purely realism] to Einsteinian [mixed realism + anti-realism] to QM [pure anti-realism].

Peter Holmes, et. al. dogmatic realist version of 'what is fact' is similar to that of the Newtonian view of reality, i.e. the external world is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The anti-realists' view of 'what is fact' since >2500 years ago to the present has moved forward tru' the Einsteinian to the QM's anti-realist view of reality.

The self-claimed "realists" view of 'what is realist-fact' [truth, knowledge or reality] which is groundless is too "kindergartenish" to counter the anti-realist [mine] view that there are objective moral facts [anti-realist version].

To Peter Holmes, et. al.
I am still waiting for your justifications on how you ground your 'what is fact' i.e. the so-called realists' fact.

My point;
Whenever the issue of 'fact' is raised we must be mindful there are two versions of 'what is fact', i.e. the so-called realists' fact vs the anti-realist's fact.
The anti-realists' [mine ~Kantian] is more realistic than the so-called realists' fact [which is too commonsensical, narrow, shallow thus relatively "kindergartenish".]

[FlashDangerpants]

Your argument self-sabotages. If realism or antirealism is to be judged "true" (we'll overlook the wankyness of this bullshit debate for now) then it must describe the world that we actually live in. If your outcome from one or other being "true" is that we must stop using the idea of a fact to denote things that are true and known with an entailment that competing claims are untrue and this also is known, then you done fucked up and your theory is trash.

The main problem this debate has always had is that VA doesn't understand antirealism, and thins it has enormous consequence that actually it does not. If antirealism is true, that's fine, nobody needs to change the way they use words like true false fact and fiction. VA needs to develop a more sophisticated understanding, everyone else is fine.

Pete doesn't need to provide any FSK thing for his version of fact by the way. There's never been any argument presented on this forum that establishes them as important at all. There have been many predicated on such importance, but that's the wrong way round.

[Atla]

to counter the anti-realist [mine] view that there are objective moral facts [anti-realist version].

You can't just butt into a debate that has been going on for centuries, mostly (but not exclusively) between God-following absolute objectivists and atheists subjectivists, and redefine objective to mean something totally different. It only makes you look incompetent.

So no one cares about your anti-realist version of objective moral facts there, that's a different debate alltogether. You need to start with: "okay moral subjectivity is likely the case, and WITHIN that worldview, we can again divide into (pseudo)-objectivism and subjectivism".

[Iwannaplato]

Your argument self-sabotages. If realism or antirealism is to be judged "true" (we'll overlook the wankyness of this bullshit debate for now) then it must describe the world that we actually live in. If your outcome from one or other being "true" is that we must stop using the idea of a fact to denote things that are true and known with an entailment that competing claims are untrue and this also is known, then you done fucked up and your theory is trash.

So, since I have trouble understanding him would it fair to say he is an
Metaphysical anti-realist
but a
Moral realist

In other words there is no independent reality, and perceivers are necessary for the existence of anything, but there are moral facts and morals are real, in the sense that it is morally better if we develop our empathy.

Wouldn't that make it strange to say that there are moral facts becasure, for example, we have mirror neurons that lead to empathy. Isn't that basing moral realism on 'things' that an metaphysical anti-realist does not believe exist?

[FlashDangerpants]

Your argument self-sabotages. If realism or antirealism is to be judged "true" (we'll overlook the wankyness of this bullshit debate for now) then it must describe the world that we actually live in. If your outcome from one or other being "true" is that we must stop using the idea of a fact to denote things that are true and known with an entailment that competing claims are untrue and this also is known, then you done fucked up and your theory is trash.

So, since I have trouble understanding him would it fair to say he is an
Metaphysical anti-realist
but a
Moral realist

In other words there is no independent reality, and perceivers are necessary for the existence of anything, but there are moral facts and morals are real, in the sense that it is morally better if we develop our empathy.

Wouldn't that make it strange to say that there are moral facts becasure, for example, we have mirror neurons that lead to empathy. Isn't that basing moral realism on 'things' that an metaphysical anti-realist does not believe exist?

Sort of and sort of. He's antirealist ONLY when he needs to make some non sequitur argument against you. Suddenly whatever you just said makes you a realist and antirealism, no matter how irrelevant, is his get out of jail free card.

From the antirealism he supposes he can draw what he needs for this FSK bullshit he loves so much. A perverse constructivist theory in which all knowledge is the product of human culture but where there is a hiearchy and the usefulness of on FSK is rated against that of another in some sort of combat where "credibility" is established. That's where the super weirdness he cannot eaxmine really lives. In this wretched little toilet of abused reasoning, there is some bandwagon argument about why science is good, that somehow applies to his own FSK about "morality-proper" even though not one person in the wolrd who isn't vegetable Ambulance beilieves in his ridiculous little FSK. Any time you discusss that aspect of his awful theory you will be told you are a "bastard logical positivist".

So yeah, he's in the absurd position of a constructivist who needs to use that to support a teleological argument about moral rightness ... and that argument contains a mystical element about DNA containing a true message of right and wrong. Except of course he also needs his moral theory not to discuss right or wrong for fuck knows what reason.

[Iwannaplato]

From the antirealism he supposes he can draw what he needs for this FSK bullshit he loves so much. A perverse constructivist theory in which all knowledge is the product of human culture but where there is a hiearchy and the usefulness of on FSK is rated against that of another in some sort of combat where "credibility" is established.

That could be alright with me. Or, I might say something like that. But he has never justified the leap from the brain has a structure that is connected to experiencing emotions that are likely similar to others when we see them, to this being a moral fact about how to be good. We can certainly see how a brain structure leads to experiences, attitudes and tendencies of behavior, but there is nothing there that says 'morals'. And there is no FSK that does that unless he came up with one himself. But I don't see anywhere where his FSK explains how moral facts come into the equation. It is a pure axiom. The axiom would have to be something like 'If the brain has a structure that leads to a certain attitude or behavior, these are moral attitudes and behaviors.' That would be a pure axiom because nothing in the brain (or anywhere else) indicates this is the case. And then he has the problem of only focusing on those parts of the brain he likes which seem not to include the reptile brain nor the limbic system. And he refers to sex as fornication.

So yeah, he's in the absurd position of a constructivist who needs to use that to support a teleological argument about moral rightness ... and that argument contains a mystical element about DNA containing a true message of right and wrong. Except of course he also needs his moral theory not to discuss right or wrong for fuck knows what reason.

One can view morals in terms of character, instead of rules of behavior. Rather than the golden rule, say, a good person is an empathetic person, and that character trait will lead to tendencies to treat others well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant was wrong. If we doubt the existence of the 'external world' - and therefore our knowledge of it - we have no reason not to doubt our 'internal world'.
But since the Cartesian, dualist model is incorrect, all conclusions flowing from it, including empiricist skepticism and the need Kant felt to transcend it, by means of the supposed Copernican revolution, are otiose. Kant never got off the hamster wheel.

(Btw, the word is propositions. Prepositions are a closed grammatical word class.)

As I had stated you are ignorant of the philosophical issues at stake.
If Kant was wrong then why did G E Moore took up the challenge? I don't read of many who thought Kant was wrong. You think you are more smarter than Moore in this case?

You are wrong again with 'internal world'.
According to Descartes we have no reason to doubt specifically the internal "I AM" not an "internal world."

Btw, you still have not provided justification to ground your 'what is fact' other than say "it is so" or "that is the case" but no 'why and how it is the case.'

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief that it exists is irrational.
So (the rational position is that) there's no 'external world' the existence of which needs to be proven.
Or: the 'I am' of the cogito is just a part of the world, so to doubt the world must be to doubt the cogito. But doubt can exist only against a background of certainty - the point of Wittgenstein's gentle teasing of Moore.

Abandon dualism - because it's rational to do so - and all the supposed problems it entails evaporate - in my opinion.

I believe 'dualism' is essential for survival but one should not be dogmatic about it.

If you abandon dualism, then you agree with monism?

Meanwhile. There is no foundation - no 'grounding' - for what we say - beneath our linguistic practices.
All we can say is 'this is how we use this word'.
And we use the word 'fact' to refer to features of reality (things and events) that are or were the case - that exist or existed.

You seem to be ignorant you are in fact grounding on some sort of foundation, i.e. the linguistic foundation of linguistic practices, thus the linguistic FSK that is agreed upon by those who use the same language.
Your "All we can say is 'this is how we use this word'" is thus merely noises, flimsy and illusory.

But then you are also grounding your "feature of reality" upon philosophical realism, thus the philosophical realism FSK.

Whatever is your 'fact' it is grounded upon your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.

Thus my point, all facts are grounded upon its specific FSK, i.e. in your case, your fact is grounded upon your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.
Your fact cannot be by itself, it has to be grounded to your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.

But the point is the philosophical realism FSK is unrealistic. So your 'what is fact' based on your unrealistic philosophical realism is not realistic.

We can and do describe those features of reality in many different ways. But their existence has nothing to do with the ways we describe them.
They don't exist simply because we describe them. That account of what constitutes a fact is incoherent.

In this case, what you have is,

• 1. the reality which has features [the supposed referent] and its existence
  2. the description of the features of reality-R

The point here the "reality" [1] [the supposed referent] you referred to here is unrealistic in the ultimate sense.

What you are claiming is, that reality [R] is independent of the descriptions of R. This is precisely what is Philosophical Realism, with the point,

a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Thus your "what is fact" grounded on the linguistic and philosophical realism FSK which not realistic in the ultimate sense.

OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.

You see the difference between my and your view of what is fact?
note this thread;
Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34917

Since my view of 'what is fact' is realistic, you don't have any solid grounds to insist your 'what is fact' [unrealistic] has greater factual value over my 'what is fact'.
So what I have claimed as moral facts grounded on a specific moral FSK is true and realistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We can and do describe those features of reality in many different ways. But their existence has nothing to do with the ways we describe them.
They don't exist simply because we describe them. That account of what constitutes a fact is incoherent.

In this case, what you have is,

• 1. the reality which has features [the supposed referent] and its existence
  2. the description of the features of reality-R

The point here the "reality" [1] [the supposed referent] you referred to here is unrealistic in the ultimate sense.

What you are claiming is, that reality [R] is independent of the descriptions of R. This is precisely what is Philosophical Realism, with the point,

a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The Philosophical Realists' Fact
Thus your "what is fact" grounded on the linguistic and philosophical realism FSK which not realistic in the ultimate sense.

OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.

You see the difference between my and your view of what is fact?
note this thread;
Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34917

Since my view of 'what is fact' is realistic, you don't have any solid grounds to insist your 'what is fact' [unrealistic] has greater factual value over my 'what is fact'.
So what I have claimed as moral facts grounded on a specific moral FSK is true and realistic.

1 Why is philosophical anti-realism 'realistic in the ultimate sense'?
By what criterion?
What does 'realistic' mean in that expression?
The word 'realistic' means 'like or conforming to reality'. To what reality does anti-realism conform?

You didn't get the point?
Here again, I stated, [the philosophical anti-realist] as a more realistic view;

The Philosophical Anti-Realists' Fact
OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific FSK and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.

Even when scientific facts are the most credible and realistic, they are at best mere 'polished conjecture' which must be further and ultimately supported by sound philosophical anti-realism [re Kantian] reasonings.
Btw, in this case 'what is fact' is entangled with reality and humans but the description of it is independent on the linguistic perspective.

In your case, it is ultimately unrealistic because;
what-is-reality and that feature-of-reality are independent of the human conditions [philosophical realist -ontological FSK,
at the same time,
the descriptive [linguistic FSK] of the fact of that feature reality is also independent of beliefs and opinion.
This imply your "reality" and "the features of that reality" are totally disconnected [independent] with humans.

As such, your view of reality may work with common sense, conventional sense, e.g. Newtonian Physics, it is not realistic in a higher level of philosophical consideration, e.g. QM.
At the extreme such disconnection with the human conditions will lead to the extent of genocide and extermination of the human species in the case of the independent Islamic God.

I say again, your desperation to stick to the dogmatic view is purely driven by an unmodulated inherent psychological weakness which exists in the majority of humans.

2 Are what people have claimed as astrological facts, grounded on a specific astrological FSK, true and realistic? Spoiler: the answer is no. Therefore, 'grounding on a specific FSK' can't be a sufficient condition for what constitutes a fact. The reliability of an FSK doesn't and can't come merely from the existence of the FSK. Something else is necessary, viz, evidence from the reality that anti-realists deny.

By definition of what is fact conditioned upon a specific FSK, with the scientific FSK as the standard of true and realistic at say 90/100, then astrological facts has 1/100 degree of credibility, i.e. taken to be non-sensical.

Btw, your claim of "what is fact" is confined ONLY to the linguistic FSK and philosophical realism FSK but do not extend to the evidence-based FSK.
You stated earlier, evidence of the external world is irrational.

Strawmaning again, where did I state anti-realists [Kantian] deny evidence from reality. Rather what is primary with anti-realists [Kantian] is empirical evidence from reality but has to be supported by sound philosophical reasonings [e.g. to avoid dogmatic scientism, etc.].

3 Anti-realism gets us nowhere nearer moral facts - moral objectivity - than realism does.

Anti-realism [Kantian] rely on facts, i.e. if moral facts then from the moral FSK.
As with anti-realist facts, what is critical is whether they have net-positive utilities for mankind, which scientific facts [even as double-sided sword] has done so.

As I had claimed the inherent moral potential within all humans is a moral fact within a moral FSK. The physical neural correlates of compassion and empathy are represented by mirror neurons as one element [amongst many] of the set in the human brain.

Here is one clue, there are more to it..
Since >2500 years ago, the Buddhists [and others] had intuitively worked on such moral facts, i.e. develop the compassion and empathy competence of humans which results in moral progress for those who are successful in their endeavors.
At present there are loads of scientific researches into the workings of the brain of Buddhists to justify their moral competence.
This at present is not conclusive but the results point to the possibility of justifying the moral facts of moral potentials represented by physical neural correlates which can be improved upon.

Even Christianity being so dogmatic has the intuitive impulse to work on the moral potential within Christians with its overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. 'love all even your enemies' 'thou shall not kill, period!' 'give the other cheek' etc. albeit has to rely on the threat of Hellfire.

Meanwhile your stance is NO, NO, NO, NO ... to all possibilities of moral facts and that such facts can lead to moral progress because you are are stuck in a dogmatic resistant state due to negative psychological impulses. You and your generations will be groping till the next 1000s of years without any guide towards continuous improvements of moral progress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is how Buddhism works on the moral potential [moral fact] which is represented by neural correlates in the brain [matter of fact].

This approach to morality explains why, for Buddhists, self-awareness stands at the center of moral cultivation and moral behavior.
For, ordinary beings are severely deluded about their own minds, and therefore often fail to see how they ought to behave, both morally and for their own and others’ benefit.
An endemic refusal to accept things as they really are, because that reality is frightening or humbling to the constructed self, is ineluctably intertwined with all unscrupulous, unskillful, and unwholesome behavior.
Yet Buddhists emphasize that it is possible (through Buddhist practice) to improve one’s ability to notice the character of one’s morally significant mental actions; and to notice the defilements is to see that they are defilements, that they are to-be-abandoned.
This does not necessarily eliminate the defilements directly, but it fosters the moral motivation to do so.
Further trainings help to disentangle the causal knots that promote selfishness and self-delusion, and to repair the mind’s tendencies toward compassion and equanimity.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 21-09845-7#:

[FlashDangerpants]

From the antirealism he supposes he can draw what he needs for this FSK bullshit he loves so much. A perverse constructivist theory in which all knowledge is the product of human culture but where there is a hiearchy and the usefulness of on FSK is rated against that of another in some sort of combat where "credibility" is established.

That could be alright with me. Or, I might say something like that. But he has never justified the leap from the brain has a structure that is connected to experiencing emotions that are likely similar to others when we see them, to this being a moral fact about how to be good. We can certainly see how a brain structure leads to experiences, attitudes and tendencies of behavior, but there is nothing there that says 'morals'. And there is no FSK that does that unless he came up with one himself. But I don't see anywhere where his FSK explains how moral facts come into the equation. It is a pure axiom. The axiom would have to be something like 'If the brain has a structure that leads to a certain attitude or behavior, these are moral attitudes and behaviors.' That would be a pure axiom because nothing in the brain (or anywhere else) indicates this is the case. And then he has the problem of only focusing on those parts of the brain he likes which seem not to include the reptile brain nor the limbic system. And he refers to sex as fornication.

Constructivism in itself, just like antirealism is totally fine. They become problematic when dense individuals take them on board and don't understand that you have to take the bits you don't want along with the bits that you do.

VA thinks the thing that makes scence a plausible method to investigate tghe phenomena of the physical world is that lots of people think it is good. He doesn't seem to place much value on reproducibility of experimental results and whatnot. He likes to claim certain things are scientific facts but doesn't believe those things ought to be the result of an experiment or any other normal part of the scientific method.

Because of these failings he will make the leap from undictive to deductive types of reason and just declare some deductive ...( yet deductively invalid )... claim to be "scientific fact according to the science FSK" even though nothing remotely resembling it has ever seen peer review or publication. That's his accidental trick that he uses to claim moral sciencey fact, he doesn't even know he's doing it.

He doesn't know how to analyse arguments at even a rudimentary level so he tends not to understand that he's doing these things, nor why it's problematic when he does them.

So yeah, he's in the absurd position of a constructivist who needs to use that to support a teleological argument about moral rightness ... and that argument contains a mystical element about DNA containing a true message of right and wrong. Except of course he also needs his moral theory not to discuss right or wrong for fuck knows what reason.

One can view morals in terms of character, instead of rules of behavior. Rather than the golden rule, say, a good person is an empathetic person, and that character trait will lead to tendencies to treat others well.

I'm a moral skeptic, I reckon that we have difficulty working out whether to use a rule-based, and outcome-based, or a virtues-based approach across the board because we find each of those approaches useful in many particular circumstances and it's a rock paper scissors game where none can ever win out globally.

But the truth is there seem to be certain restrainsts on what is possible to usefully discuss on this or any other forum. At least 90% of the people available think that "I know murder is wrong; you don't class that as knowldge; therefore you have no reason not to murder people" is some sort of killer argument. WIth that handicap permanenetly shackling conversation, we can only cover really quite stupid topics like those presented by Venereal Aqualung.

[Iwannaplato]

Constructivism in itself, just like antirealism is totally fine. They become problematic when dense individuals take them on board and don't understand that you have to take the bits you don't want along with the bits that you do.

Yes, it seems like he opens to door to a Muslim saying the Koran plus science (plus some axioms, they consider deductive conclusions ((while they are despite this axioms))) is a Muslim FSK and so it is a moral fact that women's testimony is worth half of a mans, or its ok to kill infidels or whatever. And for that matter, they could point to the aggressive portions of the brain to support the 'kill the infidel' moral fact.

VA thinks the thing that makes scence a plausible method to investigate tghe phenomena of the physical world is that lots of people think it is good.

Has he really said that?

He doesn't seem to place much value on reproducibility of experimental results and whatnot. He likes to claim certain things are scientific facts but doesn't believe those things ought to be the result of an experiment or any other normal part of the scientific method.

I missed this.

Because of these failings he will make the leap from undictive to deductive types of reason and just declare some deductive ...( yet deductively invalid )... claim to be "scientific fact according to the science FSK" even though nothing remotely resembling it has ever seen peer review or publication. That's his accidental trick that he uses to claim moral sciencey fact, he doesn't even know he's doing it.

I'm a moral skeptic, I reckon that we have difficulty working out whether to use a rule-based, and outcome-based, or a virtues-based approach across the board because we find each of those approaches useful in many particular circumstances and it's a rock paper scissors game where none can ever win out globally.

I'm an antirealist when it comes to morals, though in practical terms, I am eclectic. IOW sometimes I am sort of deontological, sometimes consequentialist. I'm a slut when it comes to epistemology also.

But the truth is there seem to be certain restrainsts on what is possible to usefully discuss on this or any other forum. At least 90% of the people available think that "I know murder is wrong; you don't class that as knowldge; therefore you have no reason not to murder people" is some sort of killer argument. WIth that handicap permanenetly shackling conversation, we can only cover really quite stupid topics like those presented by Venereal Aqualung.

And his shouting-from-the-hilltop method - creating a new thread whenever his outraged or thinks he has a new line of attack is annoying. Often these threads should really be continuations in topic. He can throw them at a couple of threads, if they are relevant. And since he starts thread after thread on the same topic, this is common.

[Skepdick]

How exactly is it that you get to claim moral skepticism

I'm a moral skeptic

while also claiming that people must do this and that?

They become problematic when dense individuals take them on board and don't understand that you have to take the bits you don't want along with the bits that you do.

How exactly does one become "skeptical" about the very oughts/social norms/morals they are actively peddling?!?

[Skepdick]

I'm an antirealist when it comes to morals.

Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't.

Are you an anti-realist when it comes to gravity? If you aren't - why the special pleading?

Everything that physicists identify as a "force" is not real in the exact same sense anti-realists mean it.

All physical forces are facts of theory - they are not facts of reality. Which is precisely the distinction the OP draws.

[FlashDangerpants]

Constructivism in itself, just like antirealism is totally fine. They become problematic when dense individuals take them on board and don't understand that you have to take the bits you don't want along with the bits that you do.

Yes, it seems like he opens to door to a Muslim saying the Koran plus science (plus some axioms, they consider deductive conclusions ((while they are despite this axioms))) is a Muslim FSK and so it is a moral fact that women's testimony is worth half of a mans, or its ok to kill infidels or whatever. And for that matter, they could point to the aggressive portions of the brain to support the 'kill the infidel' moral fact.

Indeed. And the Christian FSK that says "God sends earthquakes to punish queers" can now have some random number of plausibles assigned to it. The White Supremeacy FSK that awards heroism points based on how many black people you can shoot in one afternoon is now legitimised.

Once you realise there's nothing but manufactured FSKs standing between your unspeakable desires and your glorious vices you can cook up any justification you like for any old shit you want. You just need to understand the implications of there being nothing beyond the FSK itself that provides this legitimacy stuff.

But it is ironic that the only reason we have any of this to discuss is that Vaginal Aquaduct wanted to make it official that Islam is evil and felt entitled to bulldoze the entire edifice of morality to make that statement "objective".

VA thinks the thing that makes scence a plausible method to investigate tghe phenomena of the physical world is that lots of people think it is good.

Has he really said that?

He doesn't seem to place much value on reproducibility of experimental results and whatnot. He likes to claim certain things are scientific facts but doesn't believe those things ought to be the result of an experiment or any other normal part of the scientific method.

I missed this.

He's been leaving the word "credible" out of his FSK recipe a lot lately, but yes, Science is in his view the most credible FSK, and aping that credibility by faking some vague science-ness for his own FSK is what he currently believes gives his own thing 'credibility' rather than simply marking it as the absurd pseudoscience that it struggles to become. But the undergarments of the argument are a clear and obvious bandwagon fallacy, avoidance of which is presumably why he uses that credible word less often now.

He gets to decide what constitutes a science factoid as established recently:

As I had stated you are a gnat in terms of such knowledge.
The oughtness to breathe else we die is such a basic biological fact and to demand a peer reviewed publication is bothering on stupidity.

That's never true of the scientific FSK. So you don't have anything from the scientific FSK to justify this scientific fact of oughtness that you claim. You are a fraud.

The oughtness [noun, referent] is represented by the neural correlates and physiological mechanics that compel a person to breathe in the event there is a shortness of oxygen.

I have already explained the point above how 'oughtness to breathe' is imperative for all living humans.
You can't see the 500 pound gorilla?

Sadly he never did locate that peer reviewed publication. Which is odd, anyone wo does discover a scientific fact of oughtness would surely be in line for multiple nobel prizes all at once.

Because of these failings he will make the leap from undictive to deductive types of reason and just declare some deductive ...( yet deductively invalid )... claim to be "scientific fact according to the science FSK" even though nothing remotely resembling it has ever seen peer review or publication. That's his accidental trick that he uses to claim moral sciencey fact, he doesn't even know he's doing it.

I'm a moral skeptic, I reckon that we have difficulty working out whether to use a rule-based, and outcome-based, or a virtues-based approach across the board because we find each of those approaches useful in many particular circumstances and it's a rock paper scissors game where none can ever win out globally.

I'm an antirealist when it comes to morals, though in practical terms, I am eclectic. IOW sometimes I am sort of deontological, sometimes consequentialist. I'm a slut when it comes to epistemology also.

Samesies really. Unfortunately I seldom have cause to look at the fundamentals of my own position and work out where the weaknesses lie, because the spambots who dominate the sub are never going to raise an interesting objection.

But the truth is there seem to be certain restrainsts on what is possible to usefully discuss on this or any other forum. At least 90% of the people available think that "I know murder is wrong; you don't class that as knowldge; therefore you have no reason not to murder people" is some sort of killer argument. WIth that handicap permanenetly shackling conversation, we can only cover really quite stupid topics like those presented by Venereal Aqualung.

And his shouting-from-the-hilltop method - creating a new thread whenever his outraged or thinks he has a new line of attack is annoying. Often these threads should really be continuations in topic. He can throw them at a couple of threads, if they are relevant. And since he starts thread after thread on the same topic, this is common.

Fight fire with fire I say. That's why I opened one thread just for his fake numbers. Every time he is asked to provide the basis for any of his numbers he just abandons thread and starts a new one, so do what VA would do.

[Iwannaplato]

Why there are so many thread re 'fact' is because there is the contentious dichotomy of Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact.

Contentiousness is not solved by having a variety of threads. That's actually a very specific topic and should be in one thread. And this argument for the lack of proliferation of VA threads holds for most of his threads. One could argue that argument x is so different from the content of thread Y, I felt it was necessary to start of new thread. But, then, that would be something not relevant to the two types of facts.

He seems to get an idea, and instead of continuing an argument in an already existing thread, he starts a new thread. Sometimes also using the same post to continue in some thread.

Again, the above is a very specific topic, especially in an online forum. There is no need to create new threads whenever one comes at an issue from a new angle. And that's a charitable explanation of the motivation.