What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not 'trying to be rhetorical'. I'm explaining what we mean by the words 'objective' and 'objectivity', which is what a dictionary definition tries to do.
To say it doesn't do it accurately or subtly enough - with enough nuance - seems to suggest there is some abstract thing - let's imagine it means something to say it's a 'concept' - which we call 'objectivity' and which we can more or less inaccurately describe - and that 'philosophy' describes it more accurately - or with more refinement - than a dictionary does or can.

But this is the ancient metaphysical delusion at work - as it is in the strange idea that 'good', 'bad', 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are somehow (if only abstractly) things which can therefore be real properties - factual predicates in descriptions of people, things and actions. Words mean what we use them to mean, and can mean nothing else. To assert or deny that so-called abstract things such as objectivity exist is to mistake an abstract noun for a thing that therefore may or may not exist. (Plato's Socrates on 'the good'' or 'justice'.) We've been mired in this delusion for centuries.

This is a philosophical forum thus the philosophical [open-ended questioning] meaning and deliberation of the term 'objectivity' must prevail.

Note the essence of the philosophical consideration of the term 'objectivity' is this;

1. Objectivity is fundamentally inter-subjective consensus.
2. There is a continuum and degrees to 'objectivity' relative to its method of verification.

Scientific facts has the highest degree of objectivity but it essentially is reduced to the consensus of subjects, i.e. the scientists as peers within the scientific community.
The fact that Pluto was a full planet, is a small dwarf planet and likely to be a full planet again is up to the consensus of scientists [based on justified arguments] within the astronomy community.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110422.htm

Mathematical axioms are also objective, i.e. true and independent of any human subjective opinion.

On the other end of the continuum of objectivity, it is an objective knowledge, Nia Franklin is the winner of the 2019 Miss America pageant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_America_2019

But note the fundamental of this objective knowledge is based on intersubjective consensus of appointed judges' subjective judgments.

Thus the determining factor of objectivity is intersubjective consensus which obviously be related to something provable.

End of digression. Point is, your prescription - consistently with what I understand of your argument - remains confused:

It would be from this more refined perspective that we will establish objective moral principles as abstracted from empirical evidences.
"Establish' mean humanity must work on it since there are no ontological pre-existing objective moral principles like those forced upon theists by a God [illusory].

The moral principles we've established and are developing are value-judgements - decisions about what SHOULD BE the case - and can't be facts about what IS the case. So moral principles can't be objective - matters of fact independent of opinion, individual or collective.

Some theists jump up and down screaming 'nihilism...moral anarchy...', because they're determined to peddle their 'no god = no morality, god = objective morality' nonsense. But they misunderstand objectivity - and the nature of morality. Recognising the necessary subjectivity of moral value-judgements is the key to demolishing theistic moral objectivism and the derived argument for the existence of a god.

With the slightest acceptance, I agree god = objective morality, i.e. it is based on intersubjective consensus and independent of the individual views and opinion.
Re the continuum of objectivity, I will rate this as 5/100 in contrast to 80/100 of scientific theories.
The problem with theistic morality is, it is grounded on the idea of God which is illusory and thus groundless.
I admit the theistic moral model grounded on God has utility to humanity but it has its very terrible negative side effects to humanity.

Unfortunately at present there are no formalized secular moral model to contrast the formalized theistic moral model which admittedly is useful to a degree but has its negative side effects.

Thus we need to establish a fool proof moral and ethics models based on secular principles.
Fortunately based on evidence and existing trend there is an implied moral drive and system within the individuals working collectively towards higher and moral/ethical methods.
This is why I have proposed a formalized Secular Moral Model [Kantian guided] which is driven by absolute objective moral principles abstracted and grounded on empirical evidence. This secular moral model which is dynamic will be more effective than the groundless theological moral model with its side effects of evil.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The difference is that Christian morality can be rationally grounded, meaning it can explain the "why" of its existence. But there isn't even the potential, rationally speaking, for any Atheist morality to be grounded. Common Law without any legitimative grounds is no longer a law or common at all. It's just a historical fiction waiting to be disregarded. So the "lesser" morality is the ungrounded one.

Christianity rationally grounded???

No...morality can be rationally grounded IF Christianity is true. That's my claim.

Christianity is true if only God exists is true.
But I have proof; God is an Impossibility to be real- see below.

But then God is illusory and an impossibility to be real.

Let's see your rational justification for that claim. Why is God, in your view, an "impossibility to be real"?

(Note: your claim doesn't change anything about mine, of course, since I used "if" in my claim: thus, it doesn't require anybody's approval, or even the "if" condition to become a "because," in order to still be logically accurate.)

I have already given my justification in that thread;

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

plus this;
P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24751

So far no one has given any convincing counter to my argument.

I have provided the justified argument.
On the practical side I do not expect any theist to change their belief in a God at all because I understand the psychology involved is desperate and embedded deep in their psyche.
It normally take years of new knowledge, critical thinking and reflection for a theist to change his/her mind, even then there is the inevitable cold turkey phase one has to go through.

However, I am optimistic in the future, philosophy backed by advanced-Sciences and technology will be able to wean off theism on a volunteer basis using fool proof approaches to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma.

Whilst Christianity's theological moral model albeit grounded on the illusory God do work in the past and present circumstances, it has its negative baggage of condoning evil acts and hindering the progress of humanity to a great extent.

Phony history. You're acting like all the great artists, discoverers, scientists, physicians, and so on who have been Christians or Jews or other Theists have contributed nothing. Even today, your claim is obviously and verifiably wrong. But even science itself owes it's genesis to the Christian worldview. You should know about Whitehead's Hypothesis, for example, or about the fact that Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, was a theologian and a devout Christian.

You're just so obviously wrong with that claim that I don't know what else to tell you.

I agree there are many Christians and theists who were scientists and has contributed greatly to humanity.
But the significance of their contribution is not due to their belief in a God.
The belief in a God contribute to pacify the existential anxieties inherent in their lower brain's primal faculties which provide the peace and thus allow their higher human cortical faculties to be active and productive.

In the past there were not many choices for one to pacify one's primal mind and the existential turbulences in the mind other than theism. So it is only logical many scientists were theists.

Note this Pew Poll, where only 33% of scientists were theists, most likely casual theists.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/

Meanwhile, you continue to champion beliefs that have, verifiably and historically, left their followers in poverty and misery for millennia. I don't know how anybody can possibly be more wrong about the evidence, honestly.

However, clearly I can't change your mind at the moment. Have a nice day.

You are shooting in the dark with this one.

I 'champion' things like Science, philosophy-proper, Buddhism and other non-theistic religions, non-violence, 100% absolutely objective secular morality, address ALL evil acts, everything [in a fool-proofing manner] that is net-positive to the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
What is so evil with the above?

Meanwhile you are grounded in theism which is generally and inherently embedded with evil laden elements that inspire SOME evil prone evil believers to commit terrible evils and violence as a divine duty to please their God.
Whilst the worst of the above is from TROP, Christianity also has its share of evil acts [albeit lesser] by SOME Christians led by certain evil laden verses in the NT.

You want to change my mind to such evils [of various degrees] from my existing evil-free views? That would be an 'evil' thought.

[uwot]

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
plus this;
P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24751

So far no one has given any convincing counter to my argument.

I don't think they need to. It's not a convincing argument. You say in the second thread:

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.

It is true that many christians are persuaded by Anselm's or Descartes' ontological argument, but the genealogy of the perfect god is fundamentally a theological arms race. As Xenophanes said:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

There are plenty of practical reasons why you would want your god to be more badass than your neighbours', but none of them involve any logical imperative. It's only when the hard of thinking insist that their really, really badass god is the source of objective morality that they are committed to a perfect god.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Note the essence of the philosophical consideration of the term 'objectivity' is this;

1. Objectivity is fundamentally inter-subjective consensus.
2. There is a continuum and degrees to 'objectivity' relative to its method of verification.

Scientific facts has the highest degree of objectivity but it essentially is reduced to the consensus of subjects, i.e. the scientists as peers within the scientific community.
The fact that Pluto was a full planet, is a small dwarf planet and likely to be a full planet again is up to the consensus of scientists [based on justified arguments] within the astronomy community.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110422.htm

Mathematical axioms are also objective, i.e. true and independent of any human subjective opinion.

On the other end of the continuum of objectivity, it is an objective knowledge, Nia Franklin is the winner of the 2019 Miss America pageant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_America_2019

But note the fundamental of this objective knowledge is based on intersubjective consensus of appointed judges' subjective judgments.

Thus the determining factor of objectivity is intersubjective consensus which obviously be related to something provable.

Note the contradiction in what you say:

'Objectivity is fundamentally inter-subjective consensus.' 'Mathematical axioms are also objective, i.e. true and independent of any human subjective opinion.'

Objectivity can't be both 'fundamentally intersubjective consensus' and 'true and independent of any human subjective opinion'. The rules of identity and non-contradiction forbid it. Please acknowledge your mistake, or I'll begin to think you're catching Mr Can's slipperiness.

The whole point of objectivity and facts is their independence from judgement, belief and opinion. A fact is just true even if nobody, not even a god, believes it is. The intersubjective consensus could be 100 per cent rejection, and it would still be true. And if we find out that what we thought was a fact isn't, we don't say it used to be true but is now false. We just say we were mistaken. We didn't stop knowing the earth is flat.

There is no 'continuum of objectivity', because a factual assertion is (classically) either true or false. And, as I've argued, tautologous mathematical and logical assertions are only vacuously 'true'. The words 'correct' or 'consistent' are more appropriate. The attribution of factual truth and falsehood to such assertions is redundant and confusing.

[TimeSeeker]

Note the contradiction in what you say:

Note that you have accepted the 'law' of non-contradiction (an 'ought' claim) without any justification.

Objectivity can't be both 'fundamentally intersubjective consensus' and 'true and independent of any human subjective opinion'. The rules of identity and non-contradiction forbid it.

That's an unjustified meta-belief. Are the "rules" of identity and non-contradiction objective? The notion of "objectivity" doesn't exist - even in physics. Please point me to a reference frame that you deem to be "objective". The "law" of identity does not apply at macro scale. Molecules don't exist. Atoms don't exist. You don't exist. Only a collection of fundamental particle exists interacting with each other. Abstractly known as "humans".

The whole point of objectivity and facts is their independence from judgement, belief and opinion.

Yeah, but they will never be free from interpretation. And so the RULES of interpretation themselves are subject to subjective consensus.

Please acknowledge your mistake or this is futile.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
plus this;
P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24751

So far no one has given any convincing counter to my argument.

I don't think they need to. It's not a convincing argument. You say in the second thread:

My point is no theist with the minimal of rationality will accept a less than perfect God.

It is true that many christians are persuaded by Anselm's or Descartes' ontological argument, but the genealogy of the perfect god is fundamentally a theological arms race. As Xenophanes said:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

There are plenty of practical reasons why you would want your god to be more badass than your neighbours', but none of them involve any logical imperative. It's only when the hard of thinking insist that their really, really badass god is the source of objective morality that they are committed to a perfect god.

I agree with you [which is very obvious] my argument will not work with those who accept a less than perfect God which are few among humanity.

The majority of theists are from the Abrahamic religions which make up 4+ billion of the 7+ billion people on Earth. The Hindu Brahman is also viewed as Absolute and perfect. It the same with the Bahais and other theistic religions.
My proof of God is Impossible is effectively targeted toward the Abrahamic religions especially Islam which is a potential threat to humanity.

As for those who claim a less than perfect God, I still have different ace card to counter their claims, i.e. bring the relevant evidence to prove the existence of their God. Even since the emergence of humans, no one has been able to prove the existence of God.
I am very certain 99.999% there is no way they can bring any proofs to verify the existence of their less than perfect God.
Note it is a very common acceptance by theists, that their belief in God is based on faith not proofs nor reason.

It is inherent in the nature of humans to strive for the ideal, i.e. perfection.
Those who are ignorant of their own inherent propensity for perfection will stick to a lesser than perfect God, but when they are enlightened to it, they will logically prefer a perfect God.

Humanly and rationally, which human as theist would want their god to be inferior to another more superior and vulnerable to be dominated by the more superior god and likely to be forced to kill the arse of the superior God.
The avoidance of the above is so easy, i.e. just change the quality of their existing God to a perfect God

[Peter Holmes]

Note the contradiction in what you say:

Note that you have accepted the 'law' of non-contradiction (an 'ought' claim) without any justification.

Objectivity can't be both 'fundamentally intersubjective consensus' and 'true and independent of any human subjective opinion'. The rules of identity and non-contradiction forbid it.

That's an unjustified meta-belief. Are the "rules" of identity and non-contradiction objective? The notion of "objectivity" doesn't exist - even in physics. Please point me to a reference frame that you deem to be "objective". The "law" of identity does not apply at macro scale. Molecules don't exist. Atoms don't exist. You don't exist. Only a collection of fundamental particle exists interacting with each other. Abstractly known as "humans".

The whole point of objectivity and facts is their independence from judgement, belief and opinion.

Yeah, but they will never be free from interpretation. And so the RULES of interpretation themselves are subject to subjective consensus.

Please acknowledge your mistake or this is futile.

I think you're wrong. The non-contradiction rule (not 'law') isn't a value-judgement: a rock shouldn't be a not-rock. A tautology isn't a value-judgement. And the justification for accepting the rule is that language can't work without it - and that's a fact.

Reality - atoms, molecules, people and so on are irrelevant. We're talking about what we can say. And reality doesn't conform to the ways we talk about it. That's back-to-front. And that's why my question to you earlier is so important: does logic deal with reality at all?

Of course the rules of interpretation, which are just the rules of language itself, are matters of agreement. The factual truth that constitutes objectivity is always 'given the way we use the words or other signs involved'. But the absence of what sort of foundation do you lament? In contrast to what sort of security do you fear infinite regress? I think that's a metaphysical fear, and metaphysics is sublimated theology.

[TimeSeeker]

Logic (logos/language) describes reality.
Some logos describes reality more precisely.

How precisely should we describe reality? Value judgment.

One man’s water is another’s dihydrogen monoxide.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Note the essence of the philosophical consideration of the term 'objectivity' is this;

1. Objectivity is fundamentally inter-subjective consensus.
2. There is a continuum and degrees to 'objectivity' relative to its method of verification.

Scientific facts has the highest degree of objectivity but it essentially is reduced to the consensus of subjects, i.e. the scientists as peers within the scientific community.
The fact that Pluto was a full planet, is a small dwarf planet and likely to be a full planet again is up to the consensus of scientists [based on justified arguments] within the astronomy community.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110422.htm

Mathematical axioms are also objective, i.e. true and independent of any human subjective opinion.

On the other end of the continuum of objectivity, it is an objective knowledge, Nia Franklin is the winner of the 2019 Miss America pageant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_America_2019

But note the fundamental of this objective knowledge is based on intersubjective consensus of appointed judges' subjective judgments.

Thus the determining factor of objectivity is intersubjective consensus which obviously be related to something provable.

Note the contradiction in what you say:

'Objectivity is fundamentally inter-subjective consensus.' 'Mathematical axioms are also objective, i.e. true and independent of any human subjective opinion.'

Objectivity can't be both 'fundamentally intersubjective consensus' and 'true and independent of any human subjective opinion'. The rules of identity and non-contradiction forbid it. Please acknowledge your mistake, or I'll begin to think you're catching Mr Can's slipperiness.

The whole point of objectivity and facts is their independence from judgement, belief and opinion. A fact is just true even if nobody, not even a god, believes it is. The intersubjective consensus could be 100 per cent rejection, and it would still be true. And if we find out that what we thought was a fact isn't, we don't say it used to be true but is now false. We just say we were mistaken. We didn't stop knowing the earth is flat.

There is no 'continuum of objectivity', because a factual assertion is (classically) either true or false. And, as I've argued, tautologous mathematical and logical assertions are only vacuously 'true'. The words 'correct' or 'consistent' are more appropriate. The attribution of factual truth and falsehood to such assertions is redundant and confusing.

There is no contradiction at all.
What is a contradiction must be at the same time and in the same sense [perspective].

There are two phases and perspectives within the emergence of objectivity.

On any issue, there are a range of personal view by various individuals.

Phase 1 - Individual Proposition
Let say there is Scientific Problem on hand contested by various Hypotheses X, Y, Z and that which involves the participation of 1000 scientists.

Phase 2 - Collective Consensus
Now if hypothesis-X has a consensus of 900 scientists over the 100 for Y and Z combined, then hypothesis X will accepted as the standard Theory, i.e. Theory X.

In phase 1, the hypothesis-X was true and dependent on the individuals' judgement.

But once it is accepted as theory-X by the collective via inter-subjective consensus it is then true and independent of the individual's judgment. That same hypothesis-X is now shifted to a different perspective i.e. collective perspective as a theory.
So there is no contradiction because they are deliberated in a different perspective.

It is the same with laws that are objective.
During the discussion stage of a law, there will be various views which is true relatively and dependent on the individual judgments.
But once the law is accepted and officially enacted then it is objective and independent of any one's view and judgment.

In the deliberation of the Law of Contradiction, it is critical to note whether the issue is within the same or in different senses or perspectives.



There will always be a continuum of the degree of objectivity depending on the disclosed methods in arriving at the objective proposition.
In scientific knowledge the objectivity is often processed by rigorous testing so there is no serious issue in degree of objectivity.
But there are various perspectives to objectivity [as defined philosophically].
If the sampling size done was smaller than greater, it is will affect the degree of objectivity.

Note, I got that idea from Kant re objectivity and knowledge.

The whole point of objectivity and facts is their independence from judgement, belief and opinion. A fact is just true even if nobody, not even a god, believes it is. The intersubjective consensus could be 100 per cent rejection, and it would still be true. And if we find out that what we thought was a fact isn't, we don't say it used to be true but is now false. We just say we were mistaken. We didn't stop knowing the earth is flat.

On this you are moving to the argument within Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Reason.

I am arguing from the Philosophical Anti-Realist standpoint where everything is ultimately subjective, i.e. never independent of the human conditions at all.

There is no way humans can ever determine the true shape of the Earth, it is not round, merely roughly spherical but not exactly. Whatever the truth of the shape of the Earth, it is still dependent of the human conditions. However we can arrive at a best 'estimate' truth based on intersubjective consensus which is then independent of any individual's judgment within those in consensus.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas

I believe I've explained why I disagree with your position - which, because of this discussion, I think I understand pretty well.

And you say: 'I am arguing from the Philosophical Anti-Realist standpoint where everything is ultimately subjective, i.e. never independent of the human conditions at all.' If this isn't idealism by another name, I don't understand it. And I reject idealism outright.

And anyway, I think this is a misinterpretation of Dummett's anti-realism, which, in my opinion, is not subjectivist. Supposed abstract ideal objects aren't matters of opinion. But that's a bigger and different argument - and we're already way off-topic. Thanks for the engagement.

[TimeSeeker]

I reject idealism outright.

IF you accept the law of non-contradiction (which it seems like you do) then rejecting idealism is a contradiction. Because the root of that word is "idea" and your words stem from (describe?) ideas. Saying that you are an idealist is a truism.

Rejecting idealism is a performative contradiction.

[TimeSeeker]

There is no way humans can ever determine the true shape of the Earth, it is not round, merely roughly spherical but not exactly. Whatever the truth of the shape of the Earth, it is still dependent of the human conditions. However we can arrive at a best 'estimate' truth based on intersubjective consensus which is then independent of any individual's judgment within those in consensus.

All models are wrong some are useful ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong ) is the scientific epistemology. A model that is not wrong - is also a model that is not falsifiable and therefore unscientific (by our current conception of science). If a model were to make accurate predictions AND it were unfalsifiable then it would be our "Theory of everything".

Until then risk/margin of error dictates the accuracy of the model required.

When I build myself a coffee table - I assume the Earth is flat. It is an error. And it is inconsequential.
When I fly airplanes I require high precision because errors cost HUMAN LIVES.

This is the no-harm principle in action. It is objective morality.

[TimeSeeker]

does logic deal with reality at all?

Yes. Logic (logos/language) describes reality. Some logos describes reality more precisely. How precisely should we describe reality? Value judgment.

a rock shouldn't be a not-rock. A tautology isn't a value-judgement. And the justification for accepting the rule is that language can't work without it - and that's a fact.

That's the "law" of excluded middle. It's wrong. It's a false dichotomy. See Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Your rock is my diamond. Your water is my dihydrogen monoxide.

Different degrees of precision. More INFORMATION ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression )

language can't work without it - and that's a fact.

Now you are coming to my way of seeing the world. You pragmatist - you!

Since you ARE (in fact) using language as a tool and a tool has UTILITY. And all utility is subjective Can you tell us what you use language for?

Teleology.

[Peter Holmes]

does logic deal with reality at all?

Yes. Logic (logos/language) describes reality. Some logos describes reality more precisely. How precisely should we describe reality? Value judgment.

a rock shouldn't be a not-rock. A tautology isn't a value-judgement. And the justification for accepting the rule is that language can't work without it - and that's a fact.

That's the "law" of excluded middle. It's wrong. It's a false dichotomy. See Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Your rock is my diamond. Your water is my dihydrogen monoxide.

Different degrees of precision. More INFORMATION ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression )

language can't work without it - and that's a fact.

Now you are coming to my way of seeing the world. You pragmatist - you!

Since you ARE (in fact) using language as a tool and a tool has UTILITY. And all utility is subjective Can you tell us what you use language for?

Teleology.

Not so. Logic is a linguistic codification of what we can say about reality - how we can describe it. Do features of reality conform to our ways of talking about them? Do things with dimensions conform to our ways of measuring them? Does a=a, a rock is a rock, tell us anything about what a rock is, and why it's different from all the not-rocks?

Logic deals with language, not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. But the rules of logic apply to all uses of (at least descriptive) language. To say logic deals with reality is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - the ancient metaphysical mistake.

[TimeSeeker]

Not so. Logic is a linguistic codification of what we can say about reality - how we can describe it.

OK, but why do you only consider the descriptive utility of logic? What about its prescriptive utility? e.g Lambda calculus/robotics/artificial intelligence?

Do features of reality conform to our ways of talking about them?

Suppose they didn't. Then what?

Do things with dimensions conform to our ways of measuring them?

How would you tell if they didn't?

Does a=a, a rock is a rock, tell us anything about what a rock is, and why it's different from all the not-rocks?

No. I reject the law of identity. A rock is a type not a thing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory ). An instance of a rock can tell us why it's different from another instance of a rock.

Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences.

The natural sciences use logic? It's still a language - only a higher order language than English.

To say logic deals with reality is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - the ancient metaphysical mistake.

But it does deal with reality. Approximations thereof. What is the shape of the Earth the way it really is?

Perhaps the better question to ask: if the best man-made language (Mathematics) doesn’t deal with reality, can you point out a man-made tool that does?