'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

PH has regularly used the 'water is H20' as a fact [his definition is illusory] to counter my claim, morality is objective based on moral facts emerging from a human-based moral FSK.
PH's counter is actually grounded upon an illusion, i.e. illusory facts.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:56 pm Elsewhere,, VA has kindly offered a travesty of my argument against moral objectivism.
So here's VA's own argument for moral objectivism.

P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'.
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:34 pm What we call water would be what we call H2O even if the science of chemistry didn't exist.
That's the nature of facts. We can know and describe them only if they exist in the first place.
And that's why VA's theory [P1 & [P2] is trash. It gets the whole business of knowledge back-to-front.
My Counter;
You CANNOT assert 'Water is H20' without any reference to the implied human-based-science-chemistry-FSK.

Re 'What we call water' there is no such thing as 'that-What' before it is called water.
The 'that-what' is merely a speculated thought, i.e. a linguistic thing within the human based linguistic FSK. This is the problem with the Bottom-up approach.
You are begging the question by assuming there pre-exists a 'that-What' which you subsequently dress with words call 'water' then 'water is H20'.

What is most realistic is the "Top-Down" approach which is based on real experiences supported by verifiable and justifiable evidences, NOT based on speculation.
Point is we have real experience of something that is 'wet', fluid, not-solid, always finding its own level, etc. i.e. of a certain same pattern with consistence features everywhere.
We then [by consensus for communication sake] name this experience of that-pattern 'water' [sign] within the linguistic FSK.
To get more details we determine this consistent pattern is 'Water is H2O' from within the human-based-science-chemistry-FSK.

Why we ended up calling that consistent pattern within reality 'water' [or whatever the name] is for the purpose of communication to facilitate survival because 'water' is very critical for human survival. This is within the human-conditioned-linguistic FSK.

Why experiencing, realizing, understanding and knowing 'water is H20' within the human-conditioned-science-Chemistry-FSK is also very critical is because it facilitates survival, to the point we can create our own water [via chemical processes] if there is no water or to analyze water for other useful purposes ultimately to facilitate survival.

Thus whatever we claimed as 'facts' are human-conditioned-FSK-facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
It is critical to understand the conditions of whatever-the-fact [FSK-conditioned], its degree of objectivity, its weaknesses, its usefulness to humanity and how it can facilitate survival or other human interests.

That's it! there is no need to speculate 'that-what' [the 'fact-by-itself'] before it was called 'water' or 'water is H20'.

Now why there are people like PH who are so dogmatic in insisting there are only facts-in-themselves independent of the human conditions and condemn those [FSK-Conditioned facts] who disagree with them is because,
they are suffering from some terrible existential crisis and thus the need to defend and protect their consonances [based on illusions].
Such psychological conditions are the same with the theists with their speculated illusory God.

So, my argument remain valid and sound;
P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'.
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:14 am The 'that-what' is...
The 'that-what' is Kant's noumenon in new terminology.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes rejects the noumena such as that-what we call water before humans discovered it; labeled it or described it, yet desperately needs noumena in order to make his argument work.

But then, what's the difference between noumena and undiscovered facts?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:14 am The 'that-what' is...
The 'that-what' is Kant's noumenon in new terminology.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes rejects the noumena such as that-what we call water before humans discovered it; labeled it or described it, yet desperately needs noumena in order to make his argument work.

But then, what's the difference between noumena and undiscovered facts?
A noumena is a merely an intelligible thing [never empirical] that is impossible to be real, i.e. cannot be empirically real nor can it be verified empirically in any way.
A noumenal or noumenal-fact is merely a speculated thing, which is "just is" or nothing as Peter had claimed.
As such if we state 'undiscovered-noumenal-fact', it is nonsensical and illusory.

However a "undiscovered fact" that is a FSK-based-fact is possible to be realized if it is scientifically possible, i.e. a possible phenomena.
For example I can assert a human-like alien in another planet 100 light years away is a possible-FSK-based fact because it can possible [note the features highlighted here are all empirical and verifiable] thus it will be a previously "undiscovered fact' [FSK] if we can bring the empirical evidence to verify and justify its existence.

In Peter's case,
when he claimed 'facts exist out there independent of human conditions'
his 'facts' are unqualified but merely an abstractions of things-in-general which can be either real [empirical or FSK-based] or fictions [e.g. God, square-circles].
Because they are merely things-in-general from abstractions, they are noumena or intelligible objects.

To be realistic,
Peter must qualify his 'facts' e.g. empirical-facts or FSK-based facts, e.g. scientific facts and the likes.
But to do so, this will checkmate Peter that such facts must be human-conditioned-FSK-based thus cannot be independent of the human conditions.

As such, there cannot be any facts that are unqualified by itself without entanglement with the human conditions.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:40 am A noumena is a merely an intelligible thing [never empirical] that is impossible to be real, i.e. cannot be empirically real nor can it be verified empirically in any way.
A noumenal or noumenal-fact is merely a speculated thing, which is "just is" or nothing as Peter had claimed.
There's nothing "impossible" about a noumenon - it's just an unknown. Unknown doesn't imply that it's unknowable.

IF there exists a 10th planet in the solar system it's presently a noumenon.
A noumenal-fact would be that planet's mass; or the duration of its orbit around the Sun; or the number of moons it has.

The crux of the issue is that you don't know that a 10th planet doesn't exist; and if you were to make a claim about the 10th planet's non-existence then the epistemic burden of proof is on you!

And so Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes claims the non-existence of moral facts, but then he swiftly sticks you with the burden of proof like a hot potato. And you lap it up every time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:40 am A noumena is a merely an intelligible thing [never empirical] that is impossible to be real, i.e. cannot be empirically real nor can it be verified empirically in any way.
A noumenal or noumenal-fact is merely a speculated thing, which is "just is" or nothing as Peter had claimed.
There's nothing "impossible" about a noumenon - it's just an unknown. Unknown doesn't imply that it's unknowable.
Kant explained in detail what he meant by a noumenon as I had paraphrased it.

Here is one relevant bit of info.
Kant in CPR wrote:If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative sense of the term.
Sensible mean empirical possibility.
Peter's fact is an abstraction and speculation, is a noumenon in the negative sense, thus impossible to be known empirically.

IF there exists a 10th planet in the solar system it's presently a noumenon.
A noumenal-fact would be that planet's mass; or the duration of its orbit around the Sun; or the number of moons it has.

The crux of the issue is that you don't know that a 10th planet doesn't exist; and if you were to make a claim about the 10th planet's non-existence then the epistemic burden of proof is on you!

And so Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes claims the non-existence of moral facts, but then he swiftly sticks you with the burden. And you lap it up every time.
"If there exists a 10th planet in the solar system" then, it is a undiscovered phenomena, i.e. an empirical thing.
But this is a conditional statement where anything is possible upon the 'if' except it should not be non-contradictory.
Since we are speculating on something that is sensible or empirical, it cannot be a noumenon [which by definition is non-sensible].

The 10th Planet or even the hundredth planet in our solar system is an empirical [phenomenal] possibility, the only condition required is to bring the empirical evidences to be verified and justified via an astronomy FSK.

A noumenon [by definition] would be something like "there is a 10th planet that exists independent of the human conditions [sensibility]" - which is impossible to be real.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:14 am PH has regularly used the 'water is H20' as a fact [his definition is illusory] to counter my claim, morality is objective based on moral facts emerging from a human-based moral FSK.
Is a moral precept an objective fact or a personal (subjective) opinion?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:14 am PH has regularly used the 'water is H20' as a fact [his definition is illusory] to counter my claim, morality is objective based on moral facts emerging from a human-based moral FSK.
Is a moral precept an objective fact or a personal (subjective) opinion?
A fact [mine] is a FSK conditioned fact, not PH's illusory fact.
A scientific fact is an objective fact emerging from a scientific FSK.
A moral fact is an objective fact emerging from a moral FSK.
A moral fact as objective is reducible to a scientific fact.

Is a moral precept an objective fact or a personal (subjective) opinion?
A moral precept as a rule and conditioned within a social-moral FSK if adapted from and reducible to a verifiable moral fact is objective.
A moral precept if established by a group of people based on [reducible to] the physical moral fact is an objective moral fact qualified to its specific FSK.
A moral precept if established as a personal resolution by an individual is an opinion.

For example,
Within the nutrition FSK, the hunger drive to eat food is a biological fact.
A precept to eat only healthy food as a rule within a Diet-FSK [re nutrition] is an objective fact if it is directed and reducible to the hunger drive as a biological fact.
But a precept [rule] to eat only certain food for religious reasons or for pleasure sake, that precept would not be an objective fact within a Diet-FSK.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:29 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:14 am PH has regularly used the 'water is H20' as a fact [his definition is illusory] to counter my claim, morality is objective based on moral facts emerging from a human-based moral FSK.
Is a moral precept an objective fact or a personal (subjective) opinion?
A fact [mine] is a FSK conditioned fact, not PH's illusory fact.
A scientific fact is an objective fact emerging from a scientific FSK.
A moral fact is an objective fact emerging from a moral FSK.
A moral fact as objective is reducible to a scientific fact.

Is a moral precept an objective fact or a personal (subjective) opinion?
A moral precept as a rule and conditioned within a social-moral FSK if adapted from and reducible to a verifiable moral fact is objective.
A moral precept if established by a group of people based on [reducible to] the physical moral fact is an objective moral fact qualified to its specific FSK.
A moral precept if established as a personal resolution by an individual is an opinion.

For example,
Within the nutrition FSK, the hunger drive to eat food is a biological fact.
A precept to eat only healthy food as a rule within a Diet-FSK [re nutrition] is an objective fact if it is directed and reducible to the hunger drive as a biological fact.
But a precept [rule] to eat only certain food for religious reasons or for pleasure sake, that precept would not be an objective fact within a Diet-FSK.
All your arguments are peppered with "FSKs". It's as if you think you can prove whatever you like just by sticking the appropriate FSK to it. You've got your very own magic word: FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:29 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:08 am
Is a moral precept an objective fact or a personal (subjective) opinion?
A fact [mine] is a FSK conditioned fact, not PH's illusory fact.
A scientific fact is an objective fact emerging from a scientific FSK.
A moral fact is an objective fact emerging from a moral FSK.
A moral fact as objective is reducible to a scientific fact.

Is a moral precept an objective fact or a personal (subjective) opinion?
A moral precept as a rule and conditioned within a social-moral FSK if adapted from and reducible to a verifiable moral fact is objective.
A moral precept if established by a group of people based on [reducible to] the physical moral fact is an objective moral fact qualified to its specific FSK.
A moral precept if established as a personal resolution by an individual is an opinion.

For example,
Within the nutrition FSK, the hunger drive to eat food is a biological fact.
A precept to eat only healthy food as a rule within a Diet-FSK [re nutrition] is an objective fact if it is directed and reducible to the hunger drive as a biological fact.
But a precept [rule] to eat only certain food for religious reasons or for pleasure sake, that precept would not be an objective fact within a Diet-FSK.
All your arguments are peppered with "FSKs". It's as if you think you can prove whatever you like just by sticking the appropriate FSK to it. You've got your very own magic word: FSK.
You are exposing your ignorance with the above.

"FSK" is the reality, how else?
Show me where any realization then assertion of reality is not conditioned upon any Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR]?

The most fundamental FSK or FSR is the human-FSK.
One cannot just get away with mentioning 'FSK' it must have credibility and reliability, i.e. supported by verification and justification.
The most reliable and credible FSK AT PRESENT is the scientific FSK which is the standard for all other FSKs.

Note this thread to update your own FSK;
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:18 am
Harbal wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:01 pm
All your arguments are peppered with "FSKs". It's as if you think you can prove whatever you like just by sticking the appropriate FSK to it. You've got your very own magic word: FSK.
You are exposing your ignorance with the above.

"FSK" is the reality, how else?
Show me where any realization then assertion of reality is not conditioned upon any Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR]?

The most fundamental FSK or FSR is the human-FSK.
One cannot just get away with mentioning 'FSK' it must have credibility and reliability, i.e. supported by verification and justification.
The most reliable and credible FSK AT PRESENT is the scientific FSK which is the standard for all other FSKs.

Note this thread to update your own FSK;
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889
Nobody else on this forum seems to mention FSKs, but you can barely write a sentence without including the term. You must think it gives credibility to what would otherwise sound like a load of rubbish. Well it doesn't; that's all I'm saying.
Last edited by Harbal on Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by promethean75 »

I believe the FSK Harbal is using here is Ordinary Language theory, developed by prominent Wittgensteinians, Ryleans and others associated with the analytical positivist movement.

A fine choice, sir.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Agent Smith »

Thw FSK idea holds promise. I wonder though how it differs from other similar notions?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:18 am
Harbal wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:01 pm
All your arguments are peppered with "FSKs". It's as if you think you can prove whatever you like just by sticking the appropriate FSK to it. You've got your very own magic word: FSK.
You are exposing your ignorance with the above.

"FSK" is the reality, how else?
Show me where any realization then assertion of reality is not conditioned upon any Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR]?

The most fundamental FSK or FSR is the human-FSK.
One cannot just get away with mentioning 'FSK' it must have credibility and reliability, i.e. supported by verification and justification.
The most reliable and credible FSK AT PRESENT is the scientific FSK which is the standard for all other FSKs.

Note this thread to update your own FSK;
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889
Nobody else on this forum seems to mention FSKs, but you can berely write a sentence without including the term. You must think it gives credibility to what would otherwise sound like a load of rubbish. Well it doesn't; that's all I'm saying.
It is bad philosophy to bank on 'nobody else mention X' in this forum, especially when this is a philosophy forum where precision is critical.

Something is very wrong with you when you complain and condemn my use the concept of 'Framework' [structure] and 'System' onto the wider concept of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR]. You are making yourself very stupid by stubbornly refusing to understand [not necessary agree with] 'what is a FSK' and condemning it despite my detailed explanation of what is a FSK.

Normally when most people make a claim, they do not take into account the full context and background elements involved in supporting their claim.
The use of FSK is critical to ensure one take into account the exact perspective, [context, paradigm, and the like], one is relying upon to express one's meaning of terms, knowledge and reality.
The term FSK encompasses all and every elements including the claimant's conditions*, that are necessary to support one's claims of knowledge to ensure precision in arriving at any truth.

Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific method. There are however more elements in the justification of scientific facts then merely the scientific method, e.g. peer review, the assumptions, limitations, and whatever necessary that is implied in arriving at a scientific fact.
As such, the concept of a FSK is useful to ensure all necessary elements are accounted for.
You deny this is useful?

Once we have established the general FSK, we can then identify the sub-FSKs of science, e.g. the Physics, Chemistry, Biology and so on FSKs. For example, in Physics, the Newtonian, Einsteinian and QM has their own specific sub-FSKs comprising their specific elements.

*What is most critical with my use of 'FSK' is to highlight the inevitable human factors involved.

As I had suggested, if you personally don't like it, just ignore my posts.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:53 am Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific method. There are however more elements in the justification of scientific facts then merely the scientific method, e.g. peer review, the assumptions, limitations, and whatever necessary that is implied in arriving at a scientific fact.
As such, the concept of a FSK is useful to ensure all necessary elements are accounted for.
You deny this is useful?
Whenever you describe science, you pretend it is a merely social activity based entirely on men with beards reaching agreements about what-is-fact.
You never mention the role that experiments and predictions play in linking science to the real world it purports to describe.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

promethean75 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:41 pm I believe the FSK Harbal is using here is Ordinary Language theory, developed by prominent Wittgensteinians, Ryleans and others associated with the analytical positivist movement.

A fine choice, sir.
I am not familiar with Harbal's views, but at the least you understand Harbal is relying upon some sort of FSK in making his claims.
The general principle is regardless of whatever claims one is making, it is inevitable there is a framework [structure] and systems of elements involved.

As for Ordinary Language Philosophy [OLP], my view is;
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
The OLP FSK is too rickety.
Post Reply