PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH's 'what is fact' [feature of reality] is merely an opinion because he does not provide any verification and justification for it despite my countless "a million times" requests for it.

PH's 'what is fact' is a hearsay from the early-Wittgenstein [which W later abandoned as kindergatenish] is linguistically based without any real verification and justification.

As such, "what is fact" to PH is merely an opinion [as best personal belief] based on his subjective judgment and faith on Wittgenstein's claims in his Tractatus.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH.. you claimed what is fact is a feature of reality that is independent of individual's opinion and beliefs but what is fact to you is not independent of your judgment and faith on Wittgenstein.

Now if you want to claim that 'what is fact' to you is indeed factual, it has to be verifiable and justifiable.
To do so, you have to reference it to some specific FSK.
Since all FSK are constructed and sustained by humans,
thus, whatever is ultimately your 'what is fact' has to be conditioned to the human conditions.
As such no facts as verified* and justified* can be fact-in-itself independent of human conditions.

* btw not by description, but this is an emergence in entanglement with the human conditions stretching back with a 13 billion years condition.

[Peter Holmes]

If it's a fact that there are only opinions, then there is a fact, so the claim that there are only opinions is false.

But if it's only an opinion that there are only opinions - then, who cares? In my (and nearly everyone else's) opinion, there are facts: features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.

It's a bit like: anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If it's a fact that there are only opinions, then there is a fact, so the claim that there are only opinions is false.

But if it's only an opinion that there are only opinions - then, who cares? In my (and nearly everyone else's) opinion, there are facts: features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.

It's a bit like: anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

Strawmaning again?
I did not state "there are only opinions".

What I claimed is, what you claimed as "facts" in the statement below are merely opinions.
"there are facts: features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion"
i.e. those 'facts' are actually 'opinions' because they are groundless.

As I had stated you have adopted the above 'opinion' from the early-Wittgenstein and his likes.
Peter Holmes' grounds on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416

OTOH, what is real fact is always conditioned and emerged from a specific FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.
As such, the fact that 'water is H2O' is because the scientific FSK concluded so as verified and justified.
It is not because I said so or this or that scientist said so, thus such fact is independent of the individual's opinion.

Your,
"there are facts: features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion"
are is merely a statement of words which is not verified nor justified on any grounds.
That is merely the early-Wittgenstein's opinion which he abandoned later which you are still sticking to dogmatically.

What is most rational is,
you have to accept that 'water is H20' is a fact and philosophically you have to deliberate on this further.
But 'water is H2O' is not a fact-in-itself rather it is a fact-within-the-scientific-FSK.
Since all FSKs are constructed and sustained by humans, thus not independent of the human conditions, 'water is H2O' is a fact that cannot be independent of human conditions. [contra your independence stance].

What I claimed is, what you claimed as "facts" in the statement below are merely opinions.
"there are facts: features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion"
They are merely statements and noises that do not 'obtain'.

To 'obtain' re facts, one must rely on a credible FSK, thus ultimately what is fact cannot be independent of the human conditions.

It is because you adopted the false idea of "what is fact" that you transposed and insists there are no moral facts.

[Iwannaplato]

Stop calling out PH in thread after thread. Make your case in one of the threads that ALREADY deals with your topic.
The forum does not revolve around your issue about Facts.
The forum does not revolve around the fact that your pissed PH doesn't agree with you.
Each thread is a topic, and for months now you have ONE main topic combining rancor at mainly one person with a single philosophical position.
In a more moderated forum all these, really rather large number of threads would be combined into one.

This 'Hey, look, now I found a good way to show that PH is silly, confused....' whatever is noise.

[Peter Holmes]

No, like all features of the universe, the gases oxygen and hydrogen are what they are, how ever they're named and described. So the chemical constitution of water is what it is, how ever it's named and described. And our knowledge of that chemical fact is not groundless; we have experimental, empirical, physical evidence. So the factual assertion, 'water is H2O' is true, inasmuch as any inductive scientific assertion can be said to be true. We did invent the practice and discourse of chemistry, but we didn't invent the facts that chemistry describes. And that's what makes chemistry a credible and reliable discipline. And moral discourse has no such factual basis, which is why there are no moral facts.

[Skepdick]

If it's a fact that there are only opinions, then there is a fact

That "IF" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you, isn't it?

So is there a fact, or isn't there a fact?

so the claim that there are only opinions is false.

Wait a minute, you sneaky fucking cunt!

What happend to your "IF"?!?

But if it's only an opinion that there are only opinions - then, who cares?

Probably the same person who starts their argument with an "IF".

In my (and nearly everyone else's) opinion, there are facts: features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.

Wait! What ?!?! Who do you represent? On whose behalf are you speaking?

Do you represent yourself, or do you represent nearly everyone?
Are speaking on your behalf, or are you speaking on nearly everyone's behalf?
Does your opinion represent your opinion; or everyone else's opinion?

Not that it matters anyway. Just because it is everyone's opinion that there are facts (including yours) does that mean there are facts; or not?

Just because it's everyone's opinion (including yours) that we OUGHT to call this color red..

Is it now a fact that THIS COLOR is red?

It's a bit like: anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

It's a bit like you don't have a leg to stand on either.

You are standing on an "IF", and an argumentum ad populum.

[Skepdick]

The forum does not revolve around your issue about Facts.

Ooooh! And putting a capital "F" on "Facts" changes what?

The forum does not revolve around the fact that your pissed PH doesn't agree with you.

This is a philosophy forum. It is the nature of Philosophy (as a social activity) that any two intrerlocutors must necessarily disagree, but it becomes quite a spectacle when any given Philosopher disagrees with themselves. As PH constantly does.

The issue at hand has always been the question: What is the mechanism by which individual; or collective linguistic encodings of sense-data gets promoted to factual status?

Is it the correspondence theory that makes this color "factually red"?
Is it the coherence theory that makes this color "factually red"?
Is it the consensus theory that makes this color "factually red"?
Is it a fact (in itself) that this color is red?

PH silently subscribes to the consensus theory when it comes to the objective meaning (use) of English words.

Unless it's the words "right" and "wrong".

[Iwannaplato]

Ooooh! And putting a capital "F" on "Facts" changes what?

Oh, my god, how embarrassing, I followed the thread title's Capitilizing of 'fact' and thus used the wrong form of emphasis. I should have italicized or perhaps bolded. Thank you. I will never make such an egregious error again.
Oh, no I did, I capitalized 'capitalizing'. How Embarassing again.

The forum does not revolve around the fact that your pissed PH doesn't agree with you.

This is a philosophy forum. It is the nature of Philosophy (as a social activity) that any two intrerlocutors must necessarily disagree, but it becomes quite a spectacle when any given Philosopher disagrees with themselves. As PH constantly does.

Not relevant to the point I was making.

The issue at hand has always been the question: What is the mechanism by which individual; or collective linguistic encodings of sense-data gets promoted to factual status?

Not relevant to the issue I raised.

Is it the correspondence theory that makes this color "factually red"?
Is it the coherence theory that makes this color "factually red"?
Is it the consensus theory that makes this color "factually red"?
Is it a fact (in itself) that this color is red?

Ibid.

PH silently subscribes to the consensus theory when it comes to the objective meaning (use) of English words.

Unless it's the words "right" and "wrong".

Ibid. (used metaphorically before you oddly think you've got me again)

All your points/queations would, like VA's OP, go quite nicely in many of the other dozens of threads that VA has started on this topic. My guess is you have raised them there, but if not, they would have been good there.

[mickthinks]

The issue at hand has always been the question: What is the mechanism by which individual; or collective linguistic encodings of sense-data gets promoted to factual status?

I see no grounds supporting that assertion. I think you've made it up.

Just saying.

[Skepdick]

The issue at hand has always been the question: What is the mechanism by which individual; or collective linguistic encodings of sense-data gets promoted to factual status?

I see no grounds supporting that assertion. I think you've made it up.

Just saying.

Do you actually understand that sentences ending with the symbol "?" are not assertions?

[Skepdick]

Ooooh! And putting a capital "F" on "Facts" changes what?

Oh, my god, how embarrassing, I followed the thread title's Capitilizing of 'fact' and thus used the wrong form of emphasis. I should have italicized or perhaps bolded. Thank you. I will never make such an egregious error again.
Oh, no I did, I capitalized 'capitalizing'. How Embarassing again.

Oh no! It attempts sarcasm and emphasis on its emphasis. And an attempt at self-deprecating humour.

To what end?

Not relevant to the point I was making.

The point you were making was not irrelevant either. I am questioning the point of your point.

Ibid. (used metaphorically before you oddly think you've got me again)

Extra points to your idiot-score if you think this is a game of gotcha.

My guess is you have raised them there, but if not, they would have been good there.

What a bummer, yeah? It's only if there was a way to objectively decide relevance. Or something.

Wait, wait! Let me guess...

Your points - always relevant.
Other points - always irrelevant.

But it goes without saying. Your point is irrelevant, if there's no point to your point.

[Skepdick]

I see no grounds supporting that assertion. I think you've made it up.

Just saying.

But perhaps the point that went entirely over your head is that the only "grounds" supporting ALL assertions is sense-data - experience.

If I am making up my experiences then so are you; and so is everyone.

Which brings us right back to my question: What is the mechanism by which individual; or collective linguistic encodings of our experiences gets promoted to factual status?

What is the mechanism by which this experience is encoded as the English word "red"; and not the English word "bus"?
What is the mechanism by which the experience below is encoded as the English sentence "goat on a tree trunk"; and not the English sentence "chicken in a box"?

Who participates; and steers semiosis?

goat.jpg (40.05 KiB) Viewed 1260 times