Double Posting- deleted

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: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Double Posting- deleted

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

double posting
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: FSK Conditioned Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Ah this thread is much better worded than the other one with the same title:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:30 am What is most disturbing is there are a certain dogmatic ideologues [Peter Holmes & gang] who insist only their way of what is fact is the only way; when what they claimed as facts are ultimately illusory.
This means 'I disagree with PH's position. I also have not changed my mind.'
Here is a view [acceptable by whoever is rational]
This means: Here is my view.
From the above, facts in morality are established by moralist according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.
This means 'That is my view.'
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: FSK Conditioned Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:28 am What is most disturbing is there are a certain dogmatic ideologues [Peter Holmes & gang] who insist only their way of 'what is fact' is the ONLY way; when what they claimed as facts are ultimately illusory.

Here is a view [acceptable by whoever is rational] where 'what is fact' is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fact
Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.
There is a range of other uses, depending on the context.
For example, fact may be argued under the authority of a specific discipline, such as scientific facts or historical facts.
Rhetorical assertion of fact is often forwarded without an implied or express basis of authority.

Although the term fact often implies objectivity and truth, it is not so obvious that facts are free from interpretation; some argue that facts are established only within certain frameworks of thought and value perspectives.
For example, historians understand historical facts within a certain context of understanding.
Similarly facts in social sciences are established by social scientists according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.
Statistical data is determined by the methodology that is used.

Even in the natural sciences, facts are meaningful only within certain theoretical frameworks.

The issue is closely related with the concept of objectivity and issues regarding the universality of truth.
From the above, facts in morality are established by moralist according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.

What is more is, I insist all claims of objective moral facts must first be verified justified within the scientific FSK before they can qualify as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.

Views?
Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

And this clearly shows that we use the word fact in two completely different ways. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth value; it just is or was the case. But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.

The point is that these different uses of the word fact allow for equivocation, which the above extract demonstrates, and which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways. And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim. So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.

But VA forgets the other use of the word fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)

So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.

I should add that, from incomprehension or pig-headedness, VA will ignore this explanation, and make little or no attempt to rebut it. I live without hope.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: FSK Conditioned Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:28 am What is most disturbing is there are a certain dogmatic ideologues [Peter Holmes & gang] who insist only their way of 'what is fact' is the ONLY way; when what they claimed as facts are ultimately illusory.

Here is a view [acceptable by whoever is rational] where 'what is fact' is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fact
Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.
There is a range of other uses, depending on the context.
For example, fact may be argued under the authority of a specific discipline, such as scientific facts or historical facts.
Rhetorical assertion of fact is often forwarded without an implied or express basis of authority.

Although the term fact often implies objectivity and truth, it is not so obvious that facts are free from interpretation; some argue that facts are established only within certain frameworks of thought and value perspectives.
For example, historians understand historical facts within a certain context of understanding.
Similarly facts in social sciences are established by social scientists according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.
Statistical data is determined by the methodology that is used.

Even in the natural sciences, facts are meaningful only within certain theoretical frameworks.

The issue is closely related with the concept of objectivity and issues regarding the universality of truth.
From the above, facts in morality are established by moralist according to certain theoretical assumptions and value perspectives.

What is more is, I insist all claims of objective moral facts must first be verified justified within the scientific FSK before they can qualify as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.

Views?
Here's the Oxford Concise definition of the word fact: a thing that is known to to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

And this clearly shows that we use the word fact in two completely different ways. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred obviously has no truth value; it just is or was the case. But a thing that is known to be true, in this context, can only be a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression: X is/was the case.

The point is that these different uses of the word fact allow for equivocation, which the above extract demonstrates, and which VA relies on in his argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

It's true that we can describe something in limitless different ways. And it's true that a description - a truth-claim - exists in a descriptive context. There's no such thing as a context-free description/truth-claim. So in this way a linguistic fact - a true factual assertion - depends on a descriptive context.

But VA forgets the other use of the word fact, to mean 'a thing that is known to exist [or] to have occurred' - which (outside language) obviously isn't a linguistic expression with a truth-value. I call this kind of fact 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

(I maintain that the condition 'is known' doesn't affect the nature of this kind of fact - and that in practice, when we talk about facts, the condition is irrelevant. But that is a controversial matter.)

So here's the equivocation: 'a fact can exist only within a descriptive context' - what VA calls a framework and system of knowledge. This is true, if the word fact means 'linguistic fact'. But if it means 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then it's false - and completely misleading - as VA's 'theory' demonstrates.

Point is, if there are moral facts-as-features-of-reality, then they exist demonstrably in reality, as do all other facts. The claim 'there are moral assertions, so there are moral facts' is an absurd non sequitur. It's like saying 'there are astrological assertions, so there are astrological facts'.
Sorry about this.
Please post this in the other thread.
Post Reply