Linguistic Facts versus Scientific and Other Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes insisted on the following;
The only features of reality that have truth-value are factual assertions, which are linguistic expressions.

I argued below why Peter Holmes is heavily mistaken with the above statement.

PH's fact as statement of affairs is basically from Analytic Philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/

The point is whatever is fact or states of affairs they must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true.

Notice your mistake here. Outside language, a state-of-affairs - a feature of reality that is or was the case - has no truth-value. It isn't true or false.

The only features of reality that have truth-value are factual assertions, which are linguistic expressions.
In other words, there's a crucial and fundamental difference between the two uses of the word 'fact'.

You are the one who is mistaken due to ignorance.
What you are referring to is the specific Language Framework and System. I agree when taken outside its context there is no true or false.

You are very ignorant is insisting,
The only features of reality that have truth-value are factual assertions, which are linguistic expressions.

I have been telling you a 1000 times, what is fact or truth is justified from its specific FSL.

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

There are degrees of veracity relative to each specific FSK.

The fact from your insisted Lingua FSK are empty facts and truth.

Facts of reality are generated from within other specific FKS, the most reliable is the Scientific FSK.
Even then, the most credible FSK we have at present, i.e. the Scientific FSK only produce facts that are at best 'polished conjectures'.

If 'Snow is white' is true it must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true.

Correspondence theories of truth provide a convenient and popular account of what makes a factual assertion what we call 'true'. But the basic claim - 'snow is white' is true because snow is white - is a perfect tautology - a purely linguistic exercise. We can use the word 'dog' to talk about what we call dogs, but there's nothing canine about the word 'dog', or the word 'canine'. A name no more corresponds with what we use it to name than an arrow corresponds with its target. The later Wittgenstein's hard-won insight - that meaning is use - has profound implications.

Note I stated the above, linguistic facts like 'snow is white iff snow is white' are empty facts until they are realized and justified empirically and philosophically.

To justify snow is white is true, one will need to rely on a Framework and System of Knowledge. [FSK]
The most effective FSK for the above purpose is the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore whatever is "fact" is conditioned by the Scientific Framework and System. Such a fact cannot standalone by itself.

This is merely to say any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. But that's trivially true and inconsequential.

"trivially true and inconsequential" What??
What we are after is the really-real and the only way we can realize the really-real is the conditional approach and never the absolute approach.
There is only reality which is conditional to humans.
Facts cannot standalone, whatever is fact and real is integrated with the human conditions.

I have requested you to prove to me the existence of a real standalone absolute fact-by-itself. You have ignored this. You will not be able to do so anyway because a thing-in-itself is an impossibility to be real. [Kant].

Moral facts are states-of-affairs that justified empirically and philosophically as conditioned via a specific Moral Framework and System.

Nope. That every factual assertion is 'conditioned' doesn't mean that every assertion is factual. What makes an assertion factual is that it claims something about reality that may or may not be or have been the case - something that is or was REAL. And moral realists and objectivists have failed to demonstrate the real, actual existence of moral features of reality - moral things that may or may not be or have been the case. Saying 'slavery is morally wrong' is NOT like saying 'snow is white'. The word 'is' in each assertion has a completely different function - a different use.

There are three separate things: features of reality; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which, classically, may be true or false. And it's a mistake to muddle them up. Moral realists claim there are moral features of reality, and theirs is the burden of proving such things exist - unmet so far, to my knowledge.

True not every assertion is factual.
But all factual assertion are 'conditioned'.
The degree of veracity of a factual assertion is dependent on the credibility of the specific FSK, where the Scientific FSK is the gold standard.
I have argued the Moral FSK is similarly and heavily dependent on facts from the Scientific FSK.

I have already justified the existence of certain examples moral facts empirically and philosophically [a "1000" times], thus their reasonable credibility next to Scientific facts.

My point;
1. Linguistic facts are merely one of the many types of facts. Linguistic facts are 'empty' facts i.e. they are only words and statements and not interacting with reality. Therefore linguistic facts are one of the least credible facts.
For facts to be really-real and realized as real they must be justified empirically and philosophically via a credible Framework and System of Knowledge. The most credible facts are that from the Scientific Framework and System and this is the Gold Standard in terms of the credibility of facts.

Views?

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes insisted on the following;
The only features of reality that have truth-value are factual assertions, which are linguistic expressions.

I argued below why Peter Holmes is heavily mistaken with the above statement.

PH's fact as statement of affairs is basically from Analytic Philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/

The point is whatever is fact or states of affairs they must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true.

Notice your mistake here. Outside language, a state-of-affairs - a feature of reality that is or was the case - has no truth-value. It isn't true or false.

The only features of reality that have truth-value are factual assertions, which are linguistic expressions.
In other words, there's a crucial and fundamental difference between the two uses of the word 'fact'.

You are the one who is mistaken due to ignorance.
What you are referring to is the specific Language Framework and System. I agree when taken outside its context there is no true or false.

You are very ignorant is insisting,
The only features of reality that have truth-value are factual assertions, which are linguistic expressions.

I have been telling you a 1000 times, what is fact or truth is justified from its specific FSL.

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

There are degrees of veracity relative to each specific FSK.

The fact from your insisted Lingua FSK are empty facts and truth.

Facts of reality are generated from within other specific FKS, the most reliable is the Scientific FSK.
Even then, the most credible FSK we have at present, i.e. the Scientific FSK only produce facts that are at best 'polished conjectures'.

If 'Snow is white' is true it must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true.

Correspondence theories of truth provide a convenient and popular account of what makes a factual assertion what we call 'true'. But the basic claim - 'snow is white' is true because snow is white - is a perfect tautology - a purely linguistic exercise. We can use the word 'dog' to talk about what we call dogs, but there's nothing canine about the word 'dog', or the word 'canine'. A name no more corresponds with what we use it to name than an arrow corresponds with its target. The later Wittgenstein's hard-won insight - that meaning is use - has profound implications.

Note I stated the above, linguistic facts like 'snow is white iff snow is white' are empty facts until they are realized and justified empirically and philosophically.

To justify snow is white is true, one will need to rely on a Framework and System of Knowledge. [FSK]
The most effective FSK for the above purpose is the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore whatever is "fact" is conditioned by the Scientific Framework and System. Such a fact cannot standalone by itself.

This is merely to say any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. But that's trivially true and inconsequential.

"trivially true and inconsequential" What??
What we are after is the really-real and the only way we can realize the really-real is the conditional approach and never the absolute approach.
There is only reality which is conditional to humans.
Facts cannot standalone, whatever is fact and real is integrated with the human conditions.

I have requested you to prove to me the existence of a real standalone absolute fact-by-itself. You have ignored this. You will not be able to do so anyway because a thing-in-itself is an impossibility to be real. [Kant].

Moral facts are states-of-affairs that justified empirically and philosophically as conditioned via a specific Moral Framework and System.

Nope. That every factual assertion is 'conditioned' doesn't mean that every assertion is factual. What makes an assertion factual is that it claims something about reality that may or may not be or have been the case - something that is or was REAL. And moral realists and objectivists have failed to demonstrate the real, actual existence of moral features of reality - moral things that may or may not be or have been the case. Saying 'slavery is morally wrong' is NOT like saying 'snow is white'. The word 'is' in each assertion has a completely different function - a different use.

There are three separate things: features of reality; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which, classically, may be true or false. And it's a mistake to muddle them up. Moral realists claim there are moral features of reality, and theirs is the burden of proving such things exist - unmet so far, to my knowledge.

True not every assertion is factual.
But all factual assertion are 'conditioned'.
The degree of veracity of a factual assertion is dependent on the credibility of the specific FSK, where the Scientific FSK is the gold standard.
I have argued the Moral FSK is similarly and heavily dependent on facts from the Scientific FSK.

I have already justified the existence of certain examples moral facts empirically and philosophically [a "1000" times], thus their reasonable credibility next to Scientific facts.

My point;
1. Linguistic facts are merely one of the many types of facts. Linguistic facts are 'empty' facts i.e. they are only words and statements and not interacting with reality. Therefore linguistic facts are one of the least credible facts.
For facts to be really-real and realized as real they must be justified empirically and philosophically via a credible Framework and System of Knowledge. The most credible facts are that from the Scientific Framework and System and this is the Gold Standard in terms of the credibility of facts.

Views?

Think it through again - because you seem to grasp the idea sometimes. For example, you say: 'True not every assertion is factual'. Hoo-rah. Next question: what makes an assertion factual? And I've explained that above.

A feature of reality, such as a dog, has no truth-value. A dog is neither true nor false. To say a dog is true or false is incoherent. If a dog came along and sat on a log, that feature of reality or state-of-affairs - that occurrence - would also have no truth-value.

But a standard definition of the word 'fact' is: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. And that demonstrates what I'm pointing out. This definition refers to two radically different things - a feature of reality, such as a dog or what a dog did, which has no truth-value - and something that is known to be true - which, in this context, can only be a factual assertion. The definition conflates those two different uses of the word 'fact'.

Before I go on, do you understand this fact about the ways we use the word 'fact'?

[Skepdick]

Think it through again - because you seem to grasp the idea sometimes. For example, you say: 'True not every assertion is factual'. Hoo-rah. Next question: what makes an assertion factual? And I've explained that above.

A feature of reality, such as a dog, has no truth-value. A dog is neither true nor false. To say a dog is true or false is incoherent. If a dog came along and sat on a log, that feature of reality or state-of-affairs - that occurrence - would also have no truth-value.

But a standard definition of the word 'fact' is: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. And that demonstrates what I'm pointing out. This definition refers to two radically different things - a feature of reality, such as a dog or what a dog did, which has no truth-value - and something that is known to be true - which, in this context, can only be a factual assertion. The definition conflates those two different uses of the word 'fact'.

Before I go on, do you understand this fact about the ways we use the word 'fact'?

Dogs exist.

^^^ Fact or not a fact?

Morality exists.

^^^ Fact or not a fact?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Think it through again - because you seem to grasp the idea sometimes. For example, you say: 'True not every assertion is factual'. Hoo-rah. Next question: what makes an assertion factual? And I've explained that above.

What makes an assertion factual is based on the various justifications from the specific FSK.

For example theists will insist "A real God exists" as a fact.
To confirm it is a fact, theists will have to justified "God exists as real" empirically and philosophically.
But I have argued, God as Real is an Impossibility, thus it cannot be a fact objectively.

A feature of reality, such as a dog, has no truth-value. A dog is neither true nor false. To say a dog is true or false is incoherent. If a dog came along and sat on a log, that feature of reality or state-of-affairs - that occurrence - would also have no truth-value.

I am not sure which direction you are going.

If some assert 'this animal in front of me is a dog' and claim it to be a fact, perhaps everyone who saw that animal agree it is a dog based 'definition of what is a dog' which aligns with the features seen.
But it is ONLY upon scientific verification and testing via DNA and other testings that we can confirm that animal is a dog or not.
It could possibly turned out to be a wolf that look exactly like a dog but the DNA confirmed it it in fact a wolf.
This the proposition 'this is a dog' in this case can is false upon verification.

It is useless to hang on to "this is a dog by definition of what is a dog". This is merely a empty linguistic proposition.
Ultimately all propositions claimed to be real and factual must be justified [empirically and philosophically] and qualified to its specific FSK.

That is what I am claiming for moral facts, i.e. they must be justified to be true within a moral system and framework similar to how we justify what is a real dog.

But a standard definition of the word 'fact' is: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. And that demonstrates what I'm pointing out. This definition refers to two radically different things - a feature of reality, such as a dog or what a dog did, which has no truth-value - and something that is known to be true - which, in this context, can only be a factual assertion. The definition conflates those two different uses of the word 'fact'.

Before I go on, do you understand this fact about the ways we use the word 'fact'?

What you claim as "fact" is merely a limited sub-fact, i.e. like the linguistic fact from Wiki reference below.

Note the general definition of what is fact is this; [repeated a "1000" times"] which must be qualified to some specific FSK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are both historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.

What you claim as "fact" is merely a sub-fact, note the above linguistic fact.

Beside the above examples, linguistic [like yours], astronomical, historical facts there are tons of other types of facts qualified to their respective FSK, e.g. social, political, medical, mathematical, economics, legal, nutrition, cultural, etc. etc.
Thus there are moral facts within the moral FSK, what is so difficult with this?
You don't seem to be able to absorb this point into your skull - something must be wrong here?

[Peter Holmes]

Think it through again - because you seem to grasp the idea sometimes. For example, you say: 'True not every assertion is factual'. Hoo-rah. Next question: what makes an assertion factual? And I've explained that above.

What makes an assertion factual is based on the various justifications from the specific FSK.

For example theists will insist "A real God exists" as a fact.
To confirm it is a fact, theists will have to justified "God exists as real" empirically and philosophically.
But I have argued, God as Real is an Impossibility, thus it cannot be a fact objectively.

A feature of reality, such as a dog, has no truth-value. A dog is neither true nor false. To say a dog is true or false is incoherent. If a dog came along and sat on a log, that feature of reality or state-of-affairs - that occurrence - would also have no truth-value.

I am not sure which direction you are going.

If some assert 'this animal in front of me is a dog' and claim it to be a fact, perhaps everyone who saw that animal agree it is a dog based 'definition of what is a dog' which aligns with the features seen.
But it is ONLY upon scientific verification and testing via DNA and other testings that we can confirm that animal is a dog or not.
It could possibly turned out to be a wolf that look exactly like a dog but the DNA confirmed it it in fact a wolf.
This the proposition 'this is a dog' in this case can is false upon verification.

It is useless to hang on to "this is a dog by definition of what is a dog". This is merely a empty linguistic proposition.
Ultimately all propositions claimed to be real and factual must be justified [empirically and philosophically] and qualified to its specific FSK.

That is what I am claiming for moral facts, i.e. they must be justified to be true within a moral system and framework similar to how we justify what is a real dog.

But a standard definition of the word 'fact' is: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true. And that demonstrates what I'm pointing out. This definition refers to two radically different things - a feature of reality, such as a dog or what a dog did, which has no truth-value - and something that is known to be true - which, in this context, can only be a factual assertion. The definition conflates those two different uses of the word 'fact'.

Before I go on, do you understand this fact about the ways we use the word 'fact'?

What you claim as "fact" is merely a limited sub-fact, i.e. like the linguistic fact from Wiki reference below.

Note the general definition of what is fact is this; [repeated a "1000" times"] which must be qualified to some specific FSK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are both historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.

What you claim as "fact" is merely a sub-fact, note the above linguistic fact.

Beside the above examples, linguistic [like yours], astronomical, historical facts there are tons of other types of facts qualified to their respective FSK, e.g. social, political, medical, mathematical, economics, legal, nutrition, cultural, etc. etc.
Thus there are moral facts within the moral FSK, what is so difficult with this?
You don't seem to be able to absorb this point into your skull - something must be wrong here?

Perhaps you're nearly there.

You offer this definition of fact:

'A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.'

Now, a dog coming along and sitting on a log could be a fact, according to this definition. It could be 'an occurrence in the real world'. Its occurrence could be verified, so we could test the 'statement of fact': a dog sat on a log. I assume you agree to all this. This could be an example of a fact.

Now, do the same for the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong'. In what way does that state a verifiable 'occurrence in the real world'? In what way can moral rightness or wrongness be an occurrence in the real world?

Obviously, the enslaving and killing of people are empirically verifiable occurrences in the real world. But the moral rightness or wrongness of enslaving and killing of people are not such occurrences - so they can't be facts, according to your definition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

What you claim as "fact" is merely a limited sub-fact, i.e. like the linguistic fact from Wiki reference below.

Note the general definition of what is fact is this; [repeated a "1000" times"] which must be qualified to some specific FSK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are both historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.

What you claim as "fact" is merely a sub-fact, note the above linguistic fact.

Beside the above examples, linguistic [like yours], astronomical, historical facts there are tons of other types of facts qualified to their respective FSK, e.g. social, political, medical, mathematical, economics, legal, nutrition, cultural, etc. etc.
Thus there are moral facts within the moral FSK, what is so difficult with this?
You don't seem to be able to absorb this point into your skull - something must be wrong here?

Perhaps you're nearly there.

You offer this definition of fact:

'A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.'

Now, a dog coming along and sitting on a log could be a fact, according to this definition. It could be 'an occurrence in the real world'. Its occurrence could be verified, so we could test the 'statement of fact': a dog sat on a log. I assume you agree to all this. This could be an example of a fact.

I had been there long time ago, it is you who is getting there but still not yet, I don't see you will ever get there. To each one's own.

Now, do the same for the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong'. In what way does that state a verifiable 'occurrence in the real world'? In what way can moral rightness or wrongness be an occurrence in the real world?

Obviously, the enslaving and killing of people are empirically verifiable occurrences in the real world. But the moral rightness or wrongness of enslaving and killing of people are not such occurrences - so they can't be facts, according to your definition.

They are moral facts according to my the definition above because as you will note in the examples given, facts are specific and conditions upon their respective Framework and System. You are deliberately ignoring and deceptively inventing your strawman.

Let set aside the issue of 'slavery' temporary since 'slavery' is not the same but less intense and not so obvious than "killing another human."

Morality and Ethics in its most general definition per Wiki is;

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

I assume you can agree with the above in its most general definition.

Here is where we differ, i.e.

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

I believe morality is universal and generic to all human beings - note not universal in the Plato's sense of 'universals'.

Let not jump into "humans killing other humans" is "morally wrong" at this point.

Rather we should state "a human killing another human" is not morally-proper, i.e. morally it is something a human ought-not to do.
Why 'morally'? it is because it is dealt within a Moral Framework and System as defined.
Why? because it is justifiable and verifiable inductively as a moral fact, no normal living human would want nor volunteer to be killed or murdered.
(The above is one justification which is sufficient, there are many other basis of justifications which I will not go into.)

Once the moral fact ' no human ought-to kill another human' is justified within a Moral Framework and System, it is a moral fact that is objective and independent of individuals', cultural tribes, and other groups' opinions and beliefs. This is the same with Science and other FSK.

Once the Moral and Ethical Framework and System is established, whatever that is not in compliance with the justified standards set therein, they are morally false, not morally objective, not-true or morally wrong.
On this basis we can state "killing another human" is morally wrong conditioned upon the Moral System and Framework which establish the justified moral fact 'no human ought-to kill another human'.
Thus the moral rightness and wrongness, truth or falsehood must be qualified to the specific Moral-Ethics Framework and System.

Btw the political Framework and System [the legislature, the judiciary, the police] recognize 'human killing another human' is wrong, i.e. legally or politically wrong. Some exceptions are permitted but the killing another human is still the main issue. Why are you not complaining about this?

I believe you are ignorant of the difference between Morality-Ethics and other Framework and System.

The point with 'killing another human' within the Political Framework and System is the power and driver is by the people for the people, thus no individual freewill.

The point with 'killing another human' within the Moral and Ethical System is, the driver is by the individual for the individual himself and no one else. The power that drive Morality and Ethics is from the individual's freewill and justified moral true facts.
Within Morality and Ethics, the legislator, the jury & judge, the prosecutor are all within the individual's system [mind, brain and body] and not imposed from externally.

The above principles are applicable to other moral facts like 'slavery' set aside earlier.

[Peter Holmes]

The above principles are applicable to other moral facts like 'slavery' set aside earlier.

Agreed, morality is about what is deemed right and wrong behaviour. And those judgements are necessarily subjective, even if we apply them universally - through space and time.

Your case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is this: there are moral facts because there is a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts.

But how about this claim?: there are chemical facts because there is a chemical system and framework of knowledge that produces chemical facts.

That's obviously nonsense. There are chemical facts simply because there are chemical features of reality - things that can be described using the language of chemistry. If those features of reality didn't exist, there would be no chemical facts.

To repeat - and for you to ignore again: that every factual assertion - every truth-claim - is 'conditioned' does not mean every assertion is factual. For example, the claim 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen' is 'conditioned' by chemical knowledge and language. But its truth-value - 'true' - depends on the existence of the feature of reality that it asserts. That's what makes it a factual assertion.

So your claim that there's a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts is specious. Your knockout example - 'killing other humans is morally wrong' - doesn't identify and assert an actual feature of reality, so it isn't a factual assertion at all, let alone a true one.

And your claim that a moral assertion derived from previously adopted moral principles is therefore factual and therefore objective - is just plain false. That an action 'is deemed' wrong or improper because it's inconsistent with a principle merely pushes the question back to the subjective choice of the principle. The only fact involved is the putative consistency: X is morally wrong, so Y is morally wrong.

But, but, but... We've been through this a zillion times, and you just don't understand the issue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

duplicated

[Veritas Aequitas]

duplicated

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above principles are applicable to other moral facts like 'slavery' set aside earlier.

Agreed, morality is about what is deemed right and wrong behaviour. And those judgements are necessarily subjective, even if we apply them universally - through space and time.

Your case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is this: there are moral facts because there is a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts.

But how about this claim?: there are chemical facts because there is a chemical system and framework of knowledge that produces chemical facts.

That's obviously nonsense. There are chemical facts simply because there are chemical features of reality - things that can be described using the language of chemistry. If those features of reality didn't exist, there would be no chemical facts.

Your views above are too shallow and narrow.

I believe my use of 'generate' mislead you to think FSK 'produce' their respective facts.
The better word to use is 'emergence' i.e. facts emerge from the complex forces of the respective Framework and System.

Note for example, we get scientific facts from a scientific framework and systems.
Do you think it is scientists themselves who "produce" the fact of scientific facts from within the scientific Framework and System?
Nope!
Rather, scientific facts emerge from the scientific framework and system with the respective scientists in interaction with other scientists and all other humans and "reality" [all there is].
"Reality" is also an emergence scientific via the interactions of all humanity in a soup of being_ness.

Chemistry is a subset of Science.
Thus facts of Chemistry emerge from the Chemistry Framework and System within the Scientific FSK with the respective scientists in interaction with other scientists and all other humans and "reality" [all there is].

To repeat - and for you to ignore again: that every factual assertion - every truth-claim - is 'conditioned' does not mean every assertion is factual. For example, the claim 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen' is 'conditioned' by chemical knowledge and language. But its truth-value - 'true' - depends on the existence of the feature of reality that it asserts. That's what makes it a factual assertion.

I understand not every assertion is factual.
If I state 'water' is H20 myself, it does not mean it is factual.
'Water' is 'H20' is factual only when I [if as scientist] had experienced that which is 'water' and I have justified [via scientific method] that is 'water' as a matter of fact via the Chemistry Framework in interaction with my peers and within the whole of humanity and reality.
If I am not a scientist and had not verified that-as-experienced as a 'water is H20' then I will have put faith in the scientists involved and Chemistry-Scientific Framework and System.

So not every assertion is factual.
Where a claim is held to be factual, it emerge as a fact via the above processes, thus all factual cognitions are conditional.

I have challenged you to prove to me 'water is H20' or 'water' that is unconditional and exists by itself.
Note there are other complex and contentious philosophical issues for yourself to clear before one can arrive one's conclusion. But you just ignore them and is bigoted to your dogmatic views.

All you can state is the superficial 'water is H20 iff that is the case, water is H20' which is tautological thus useless as a fact. This is merely the very superficial linguistic framework and system.

I have stated your thinking is too shallow and narrow.
Note in Physics when Physicists ventured deeper and wider into the realty of the physical, they arrived at a point where reality is conditioned upon the observer* and that is conditioned upon the Framework and System of Physics.
* observers are not confined to the scientists but to all of humanity.

In Philosophy exploration there is truth in Russell's assertion, i.e.
"Perhaps there is no 'real' table at all ..." in reference to the table which was right in front of him and sold to his touch.

It is unfortunate you are stuck within the linguistic 'silo' thus ignorant of the many perspectives of reality.

So your claim that there's a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts is specious. Your knockout example - 'killing other humans is morally wrong' - doesn't identify and assert an actual feature of reality, so it isn't a factual assertion at all, let alone a true one.

And your claim that a moral assertion derived from previously adopted moral principles is therefore factual and therefore objective - is just plain false. That an action 'is deemed' wrong or improper because it's inconsistent with a principle merely pushes the question back to the subjective choice of the principle. The only fact involved is the putative consistency: X is morally wrong, so Y is morally wrong.

But, but, but... We've been through this a zillion times, and you just don't understand the issue.

Note I do not prefer to emphasize the statement;
'killing other humans is morally wrong'
which can be very misleading when read by the morally ignorant like you.

What I don't prefer is also the term 'assertion' which can be easily be someone making all sorts of statements with conviction on an arbitrary basis.

I also do not prefer the term 'moral judgment' where anyone can make such 'moral judgment' with conviction on an arbitrary basis.
Where I used moral judgment, it has to be qualified thoroughly.

What I had stated all the time is;
'no human ought to kill another' is a moral fact which is an emergence out of the Moral Framework and System based on the necessary justification processes as I had explained above.

[Peter Holmes]

The above principles are applicable to other moral facts like 'slavery' set aside earlier.

Agreed, morality is about what is deemed right and wrong behaviour. And those judgements are necessarily subjective, even if we apply them universally - through space and time.

Your case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is this: there are moral facts because there is a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts.

But how about this claim?: there are chemical facts because there is a chemical system and framework of knowledge that produces chemical facts.

That's obviously nonsense. There are chemical facts simply because there are chemical features of reality - things that can be described using the language of chemistry. If those features of reality didn't exist, there would be no chemical facts.

Your views above are too shallow and narrow.

I believe my use of 'generate' mislead you to think FSK 'produce' their respective facts.
The better word to use is 'emergence' i.e. facts emerge from the complex forces of the respective Framework and System.

Whether it's generation or emergence is irrelevant. What matters is the nature and function of true factual assertions - what makes them factual and true.

Note for example, we get scientific facts from a scientific framework and systems.
Do you think it is scientists themselves who "produce" the fact of scientific facts from within the scientific Framework and System?
Nope!
Rather, scientific facts emerge from the scientific framework and system with the respective scientists in interaction with other scientists and all other humans and "reality" [all there is].
"Reality" is also an emergence scientific via the interactions of all humanity in a soup of being_ness.

Codswallop. What we call reality, of which we're part, isn't an emergence or a production. Mystical nonsense.

Chemistry is a subset of Science.
Thus facts of Chemistry emerge from the Chemistry Framework and System within the Scientific FSK with the respective scientists in interaction with other scientists and all other humans and "reality" [all there is].

To repeat - and for you to ignore again: that every factual assertion - every truth-claim - is 'conditioned' does not mean every assertion is factual. For example, the claim 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen' is 'conditioned' by chemical knowledge and language. But its truth-value - 'true' - depends on the existence of the feature of reality that it asserts. That's what makes it a factual assertion.

I understand not every assertion is factual.
If I state 'water' is H20 myself, it does not mean it is factual.
'Water' is 'H20' is factual only when I [if as scientist] had experienced that which is 'water' and I have justified [via scientific method] that is 'water' as a matter of fact via the Chemistry Framework in interaction with my peers and within the whole of humanity and reality.

Nonsense. The 'factuality' of the assertion 'water is H2O' has nothing to do with who makes the assertion, or how it came to be asserted. To repeat, what makes it factual is that it claims something about reality that may or may not be the case. So it has a verifiable truth-value which is independent from opinion.

If I am not a scientist and had not verified that-as-experienced as a 'water is H20' then I will have put faith in the scientists involved and Chemistry-Scientific Framework and System.

Empirical verification or falsification is not the issue here. But since you set such store on this criterion, you have to demonstrate how a moral assertion such as 'no human ought to kill another' can be empirically verified. What actual evidence is there for this moral assertion, the absence of which could falsify it? Appealing to another moral assertion, or to what people do or don't want for themselves, doesn't work.

So not every assertion is factual.
Where a claim is held to be factual, it emerge as a fact via the above processes, thus all factual cognitions are conditional.

Wtf is a factual cognition? Please give an example of a factual cognition, and show why it must be conditional. Is the factual assertion 'water is H2O' an example? Is that linguistic expression supposed to BE a factual cognition? And what makes it necessarily conditional? (I think you're lost in a metaphysical fog.)

I have challenged you to prove to me 'water is H20' or 'water' that is unconditional and exists by itself.
Note there are other complex and contentious philosophical issues for yourself to clear before one can arrive one's conclusion. But you just ignore them and is bigoted to your dogmatic views.

1 I assume we're part of a real universe containing things such as water, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on. 2 Of what do you think scientists find empirical evidence if it's not the real universe of which we're part?

All you can state is the superficial 'water is H20 iff that is the case, water is H20' which is tautological thus useless as a fact. This is merely the very superficial linguistic framework and system.

To describe things, we have to use language. What we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and what we call hydrogen. To call this a 'superficial linguistic framework' is absurd. Such a description and the thing being described - the feature of reality - are completely different things which it's a mistake to muddle up. But how else can we describe reality?

I have stated your thinking is too shallow and narrow.
Note in Physics when Physicists ventured deeper and wider into the realty of the physical, they arrived at a point where reality is conditioned upon the observer* and that is conditioned upon the Framework and System of Physics.
* observers are not confined to the scientists but to all of humanity.

This is the mistake of thinking that one way of describing reality has an inherent priority. Is that dog really a dog, or is it really random quantum events? (Stupid question.)

In Philosophy exploration there is truth in Russell's assertion, i.e.
"Perhaps there is no 'real' table at all ..." in reference to the table which was right in front of him and sold to his touch.

Russell - particularly with this deluded empiricist nonsense - has cast a long, obfuscatory shadow.

It is unfortunate you are stuck within the linguistic 'silo' thus ignorant of the many perspectives of reality.

So your claim that there's a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts is specious. Your knockout example - 'killing other humans is morally wrong' - doesn't identify and assert an actual feature of reality, so it isn't a factual assertion at all, let alone a true one.

And your claim that a moral assertion derived from previously adopted moral principles is therefore factual and therefore objective - is just plain false. That an action 'is deemed' wrong or improper because it's inconsistent with a principle merely pushes the question back to the subjective choice of the principle. The only fact involved is the putative consistency: X is morally wrong, so Y is morally wrong.

But, but, but... We've been through this a zillion times, and you just don't understand the issue.

Note I do not prefer to emphasize the statement;
'killing other humans is morally wrong'
which can be very misleading when read by the morally ignorant like you.

What I don't prefer is also the term 'assertion' which can be easily be someone making all sorts of statements with conviction on an arbitrary basis.

I also do not prefer the term 'moral judgment' where anyone can make such 'moral judgment' with conviction on an arbitrary basis.
Where I used moral judgment, it has to be qualified thoroughly.

What I had stated all the time is;
'no human ought to kill another' is a moral fact which is an emergence out of the Moral Framework and System based on the necessary justification processes as I had explained above.

Yes, and I and others have shown you why this claim is false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting.
Happen to frequent - something's wrong with the mouse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed, morality is about what is deemed right and wrong behaviour. And those judgements are necessarily subjective, even if we apply them universally - through space and time.

Your case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is this: there are moral facts because there is a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts.

But how about this claim?: there are chemical facts because there is a chemical system and framework of knowledge that produces chemical facts.

That's obviously nonsense. There are chemical facts simply because there are chemical features of reality - things that can be described using the language of chemistry. If those features of reality didn't exist, there would be no chemical facts.

Your views above are too shallow and narrow.

I believe my use of 'generate' mislead you to think FSK 'produce' their respective facts.
The better word to use is 'emergence' i.e. facts emerge from the complex forces of the respective Framework and System.

Whether it's generation or emergence is irrelevant. What matters is the nature and function of true factual assertions - what makes them factual and true.

Your insistence on the above is based on ignorance.
Insisting things are by nature and function as factual and true without any reference to experience is mystical and illusory.
Theists will insist what they assert of God by nature and function is real.
How can one accept that if that is not justified empirically and philosophically which to do that one must fall back on a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

Nope emergence is solid realization of what real and experienced. Note my argument on this;
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

Note for example, we get scientific facts from a scientific framework and systems.
Do you think it is scientists themselves who "produce" the fact of scientific facts from within the scientific Framework and System?
Nope!
Rather, scientific facts emerge from the scientific framework and system with the respective scientists in interaction with other scientists and all other humans and "reality" [all there is].
"Reality" is also an emergence scientific via the interactions of all humanity in a soup of being_ness.

Codswallop. What we call reality, of which we're part, isn't an emergence or a production. Mystical nonsense.

As I had stated what emerges is what is experiences and cognized as real and obviously such emergence and experience must be justified empirically and philosophy.

Chemistry is a subset of Science.
Thus facts of Chemistry emerge from the Chemistry Framework and System within the Scientific FSK with the respective scientists in interaction with other scientists and all other humans and "reality" [all there is].

Nonsense. The 'factuality' of the assertion 'water is H2O' has nothing to do with who makes the assertion, or how it came to be asserted. To repeat, what makes it factual is that it claims something about reality that may or may not be the case. So it has a verifiable truth-value which is independent from opinion.

The assertion factuality has to be made by humans only based on the generic experiences of humans. So it definitely has something to do with humans albeit not any individual.

If it has a verifiable truth-value, how is verified other than by humans.
As such the verified truth has to be conditioned by human conditions.
There is no way what is truth and reality can be absolutely independent of human conditions.
Prove it if you can?

So not every assertion is factual.
Where a claim is held to be factual, it emerge as a fact via the above processes, thus all factual cognitions are conditional.

Wtf is a factual cognition? Please give an example of a factual cognition, and show why it must be conditional. Is the factual assertion 'water is H2O' an example? Is that linguistic expression supposed to BE a factual cognition? And what makes it necessarily conditional? (I think you're lost in a metaphysical fog.)

Actually you are the one who is lost in a metaphysical and illusory fog.
You are chasing for 'water-by-itself' which is absolutely unconditional which cannot be verified and real, thus illusory and you are chasing reality within a metaphysical delusion.

Whatever you experienced and verified as real and factual is a cognition that is factual.
For example when you see a strange dog in the neighborhood and start telling everyone you saw a real dog as a matter of fact!
In this case you are triggered by an evolutionary process of cognition and realize the 'reality' of a dog and everyone agreed with your fact it is a dog.
But somehow that dog was caught and due to its strangeness was DNA tested to be really a wolf as a matter of fact.

As you can see, your confidence and linguistic fact that you saw a dog is not real but nonetheless you experience a cognition [evolutionary triggered and as a human being], but is your assertion 'I see a real dog' a matter of fact? No!

Your cognition is only a matter of fact only when that animal is verified via DNA as a dog. This is a factual cognition. But it is only a factual cognition that is conditional upon the scientific framework and system [biology & genetics].

Therefore your claim;
"Whether it's generation or emergence is irrelevant. What matters is the nature and function of true factual assertions - what makes them factual and true."
is groundless and metaphysically deluded.

I have challenged you to prove to me 'water is H20' or 'water' that is unconditional and exists by itself.
Note there are other complex and contentious philosophical issues for yourself to clear before one can arrive one's conclusion. But you just ignore them and is bigoted to your dogmatic views.

1 I assume we're part of a real universe containing things such as water, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on.
2 Of what do you think scientists find empirical evidence if it's not the real universe of which we're part?

Once you start with an assumption, your conclusion is groundless.

Science never claimed in the absolute sense there is a real universe out there of which we are part of.
I presume you are not ignorant of how Science works.
Science is based purely on empirical evidences and it infer scientific facts based solely on those empirical evidences via human-based experiments.
I have already stated scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
Science never claim what they conclude are absolutely real things.

At most Science merely ASSUMEd there is a reality out there to be discovered and nothing more.

My challenge still remain,
I have challenged you to prove to me 'water is H20' or 'water' that is unconditional and exists by itself.

All you can state is the superficial 'water is H20 iff that is the case, water is H20' which is tautological thus useless as a fact. This is merely the very superficial linguistic framework and system.

To describe things, we have to use language. What we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and what we call hydrogen. To call this a 'superficial linguistic framework' is absurd. Such a description and the thing being described - the feature of reality - are completely different things which it's a mistake to muddle up. But how else can we describe reality?

Any one can describe anything, i.e. whether reality-we-are-part-of or God. This is the linguistic factor.
How come you are so stuck and adamant linguistic elements override everything else?
If you are average in philosophy, you will understand what is real must be justified empirical and philosophy to be true.

I have stated your thinking is too shallow and narrow.
Note in Physics when Physicists ventured deeper and wider into the realty of the physical, they arrived at a point where reality is conditioned upon the observer* and that is conditioned upon the Framework and System of Physics.
* observers are not confined to the scientists but to all of humanity.

This is the mistake of thinking that one way of describing reality has an inherent priority. Is that dog really a dog, or is it really random quantum events? (Stupid question.)

Your is the stupid question.
Note 'it is a dog' cannot be a cognitive fact until it is verified to the ultimate, for it could be a wolf genetically as the real fact.

In Philosophy exploration there is truth in Russell's assertion, i.e.
"Perhaps there is no 'real' table at all ..." in reference to the table which was right in front of him and sold to his touch.

Russell - particularly with this deluded empiricist nonsense - has cast a long, obfuscatory shadow.

Don't be too arrogant.
Russell presented a detail argument in arriving at his inference.
You have to counter his point with sound argument.

It is unfortunate you are stuck within the linguistic 'silo' thus ignorant of the many perspectives of reality.

So your claim that there's a moral system and framework of knowledge that produces moral facts is specious. Your knockout example - 'killing other humans is morally wrong' - doesn't identify and assert an actual feature of reality, so it isn't a factual assertion at all, let alone a true one.

And your claim that a moral assertion derived from previously adopted moral principles is therefore factual and therefore objective - is just plain false. That an action 'is deemed' wrong or improper because it's inconsistent with a principle merely pushes the question back to the subjective choice of the principle. The only fact involved is the putative consistency: X is morally wrong, so Y is morally wrong.

But, but, but... We've been through this a zillion times, and you just don't understand the issue.

Yes, and I and others have shown you why this claim is false.

Others, you meant the ignorant Sculptor and PantFlasher and who else?.
Most of the time you, Sculptor and PantFlasher as posting their farts [as oppose to facts] from their arses rather than making any references to articles or books from reputable authors.

[Sculptor]

Others, you meant the ignorant Sculptor and PantFlasher and who else?.
Most of the time you, Sculptor and PantFlasher as posting their farts [as oppose to facts] from their arses rather than making any references to articles or books from reputable authors.

Yawn!
Yet another empty headed thread.