Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:28 am
Just to clarify the two mistakes in Logik's case for moral objectivism, as I understand them.
1 Logik defines truth and objectivity as follows:
'Here is my conventional use of the word "objectivity" and "truth", Peter.
Objective truths.
Any linguistic expression which is accepted or asserted as true from most perspectives and in all (or most) contexts.
How is truth of the expression asserted? It doesn't matter!
What matters is that it has high degree of certainty due to its large sample size.'
And more recently, Logik has written the following:
'Scientific consensus is objectivity by definition. It is the foundation for what we call "scientific facts".
So logic believes that a 'linguistic expression' is true if it 'accepted or asserted as true from most perspectives and in all (or most) contexts.'
But this mistakes what is believed to be true for what actually is true. It's a fallacious argument from popularity, or the bandwagon fallacy.
Logik believes that if the claim 'the earth is flat' is 'accepted or asserted as true from most perspectives and in all (or most) contexts', then the claim is true, which means the earth really is flat. All that's needed is 'consensus' - truth by popular vote. (Consensus is inter-subjective by definition, so the phrase 'inter-subjective consensus' is a tautology.) The criterion for truth is a 'high degree of certainty'.
Logik misrepresents the nature of scientific claims, which are only ever provisional - best explanation so far - always pending new information - fully aware of their inductive basis. Scientists don't, on the whole, claim to know 'the truth'. They just propose and test explanations for the evidence.
2 Logik compounds this mistake concerning the nature of facts and objectivity, by reasoning that, since a fact is merely what is 'accepted or asserted as true from most perspectives and in all (or most) contexts', then, by reversing the arrow, that which is 'accepted or asserted as true from most perspectives and in all (or most) contexts' is a fact.
So if most people in most contexts accept or assert as true that persecuting homosexuals is morally good, then it's true that it's morally good. And if most people in most contexts accept or assert that vanilla is the best ice cream flavour, then it's a fact that it's the best flavour. All that's required is consensus.
Logik bangs on about decision theory - that we can choose to accept or reject a linguistic assertion as being a fact - so that what counts as a fact is a matter of opinion. But again, this mistakes what we choose to think is a fact for what actually is a fact - as though we have no rational way of telling the difference, such as, for example, checking to see if the assertion describes the feature of reality correctly, given the way we use the signs involved.
I for one find Logik's argument about facts and objectivity absurd and patently self-contradictory - and obviously no basis for the claim that morality is objective. But I have other fish to fry now. I hope those following this discussion have profited from it, even if Logik and I haven't.
Another lame attempt at a strawman.
If all people agreed and described the earth as “flat” you still have to describe/define/explain the concept of “flatness” as it s understood by 8 billion people. If their scientific models predicted just as accurately even though they SAID the Earth is “flat” then you are literally arguing over language.
Peter makes the very mistake he accuses me of. He mistakes the way things are for what we say about them. Thus confusing meaning with language.
You can no more explain “flatness” (an adjective) than you can explain “blueness” (adjective).
Or wrongness. An adjective.
Or correctness. An adjective.
Or erroneousness. An adjective.
Or goodness. An adjective.
To claim that facts are “free of subjective judgment and personal biases” is to insist on descriptive use of language. If you insist on such things as "facts" free from personal opinion and biases as existing, then you have no need or use for adjectives! Please stop using them.
You can’t even define the word “fact” without using adjectives!
So logic believes that a 'linguistic expression' is true if it 'accepted or asserted as true from most perspectives and in all (or most) contexts.'
But this mistakes what is believed to be true for what actually is true. It's a fallacious argument from popularity, or the bandwagon fallacy.
I stated from the very beginning that "truth" is strictly a logical construct. A statement is either true or false.
Only a human can determine the truth-falsity value of a logical statement, because decision theory.
Linguistic statements do not exist in a vacuum.
For every statement which Peter calls a "fact" I can simply ask the question: Who determines if this is a fact and how?
For every statement we call true, I can simply ask the question: Who determines that it is true and how?
Only humans can make determinations, so the question still stands: Who determines factuality or truth?
To claim that this is a bandwagon fallacy, is the same as to claim that a sentence can be true independent from any mind having to evaluate it
In which case this is true: "Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen". Why is it true? Because it is! Intrinsically.
Too bad that no human can extract any meaning from it.
My argument is far simpler than what Peter makes it out to be. Because every statement is either true or false we can ALWAYS ask this question: Is the sentence "X Y Z" true?
Since only humans can determine truth-falsity then only a human can determine that "X Y Z" is true or false.
"Murder is wrong." is either true or false. Only a human can determine the truth-value.
Majority of humans have determined that it's true thus making it objective truth.
The concept of 'objectivity' is a social construct! If you want morality to be objective - construct it!