PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
Strawmaning again?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:10 pm 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
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.
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:10 pm 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?
Wait a minute, you sneaky fucking cunt!
What happend to your "IF"?!?
Probably the same person who starts their argument with an "IF".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:10 pm But if it's only an opinion that there are only opinions - then, who cares?
Wait! What ?!?! Who do you represent? On whose behalf are you speaking?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:10 pm In my (and nearly everyone else's) opinion, there are facts: features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.
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 you don't have a leg to stand on either.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:10 pm It's a bit like: anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.
You are standing on an "IF", and an argumentum ad populum.
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
Ooooh! And putting a capital "F" on "Facts" changes what?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 7:02 am The forum does not revolve around your issue about Facts.
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 7:02 am The forum does not revolve around the fact that your pissed PH doesn't agree with you.
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".
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 7:02 am The forum does not revolve around the fact that your pissed PH doesn't agree with you.
Not relevant to the point I was making.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 issue I raised.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?
Ibid.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. (used metaphorically before you oddly think you've got me again)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".
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.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
Do you actually understand that sentences ending with the symbol "?" are not assertions?mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:41 pmI see no grounds supporting that assertion. I think you've made it up.
Just saying.
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
Oh no! It attempts sarcasm and emphasis on its emphasis. And an attempt at self-deprecating humour.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:21 pmOh, 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.
To what end?
The point you were making was not irrelevant either. I am questioning the point of your point.
Extra points to your idiot-score if you think this is a game of gotcha.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:21 pm Ibid. (used metaphorically before you oddly think you've got me again)
What a bummer, yeah? It's only if there was a way to objectively decide relevance. Or something.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:21 pm My guess is you have raised them there, but if not, they would have been good there.
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.
Re: PH's Fact is Merely an Opinion
But perhaps the point that went entirely over your head is that the only "grounds" supporting ALL assertions is sense-data - experience.mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:41 pm I see no grounds supporting that assertion. I think you've made it up.
Just saying.
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?