Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 6:57 am
We can and do describe those features of reality in many different ways. But their existence has nothing to do with the ways we describe them.
They don't exist simply because we describe them. That account of what constitutes a fact is incoherent.
In this case, what you have is,
- 1. the reality which has features [the supposed referent] and its existence
2. the description of the features of reality-R
The point here the "reality" [1] [the supposed referent] you referred to here is
unrealistic in the ultimate sense.
What you are claiming is, that reality [
R] is independent of the descriptions of
R. This is precisely what is Philosophical Realism, with the point,
Thus
your "what is fact" grounded on the linguistic and philosophical realism FSK which not realistic in the ultimate sense.
OTOH,
my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.
You see the difference between my and your view of what is fact?
note this thread;
Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34917
Since my view of 'what is fact' is realistic, you don't have any solid grounds to insist your 'what is fact' [unrealistic] has greater factual value over my 'what is fact'.
So what I have claimed as moral facts grounded on a specific moral FSK is true and realistic.
1 Why is philosophical anti-realism 'realistic in the ultimate sense'?
By what criterion?
What does 'realistic' mean in that expression?
The word 'realistic' means 'like or conforming to reality'. To what reality does anti-realism conform?
You didn't get the point?
Here again, I stated, [the philosophical anti-realist] as a more realistic view;
OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific FSK and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.
Even when scientific facts are the most credible and realistic, they are at best mere 'polished conjecture' which must be further and ultimately supported by sound philosophical anti-realism [re Kantian] reasonings.
Btw, in this case 'what is fact' is
entangled with reality and humans but the description of it is independent on the linguistic perspective.
In your case, it is ultimately unrealistic because;
what-is-reality and that feature-of-reality are independent of the human conditions [philosophical realist -ontological FSK,
at the same time,
the descriptive [linguistic FSK] of the fact of that feature reality is also independent of beliefs and opinion.
This imply your "reality" and "the features of that reality" are
totally disconnected [independent] with humans.
As such, your view of reality may work with common sense, conventional sense, e.g. Newtonian Physics, it is not realistic in a higher level of philosophical consideration, e.g. QM.
At the extreme such disconnection with the human conditions will lead to the extent of genocide and extermination of the human species in the case of the independent Islamic God.
I say again, your desperation to stick to the dogmatic view is purely driven by an unmodulated inherent psychological weakness which exists in the majority of humans.
2 Are what people have claimed as astrological facts, grounded on a specific astrological FSK, true and realistic? Spoiler: the answer is no. Therefore, 'grounding on a specific FSK' can't be a sufficient condition for what constitutes a fact. The reliability of an FSK doesn't and can't come merely from the existence of the FSK. Something else is necessary, viz, evidence from the reality that anti-realists deny.
By definition of what is fact conditioned upon a specific FSK, with the scientific FSK as the standard of true and realistic at say 90/100, then astrological facts has 1/100 degree of credibility, i.e. taken to be non-sensical.
Btw, your claim of "what is fact" is confined ONLY to the linguistic FSK and philosophical realism FSK but do not extend to the evidence-based FSK.
You stated earlier, evidence of the external world is irrational.
Strawmaning again, where did I state anti-realists [Kantian] deny evidence from reality. Rather what is primary with anti-realists [Kantian] is empirical evidence from reality but has to be supported by sound philosophical reasonings [e.g. to avoid dogmatic scientism, etc.].
3 Anti-realism gets us nowhere nearer moral facts - moral objectivity - than realism does.
Anti-realism [Kantian] rely on facts, i.e. if moral facts then from the moral FSK.
As with anti-realist facts, what is critical is whether they have
net-positive utilities for mankind, which scientific facts [even as double-sided sword] has done so.
As I had claimed the inherent moral potential within all humans is a moral fact within a moral FSK. The physical neural correlates of compassion and empathy are represented by mirror neurons as
one element [amongst many] of the set in the human brain.
Here is one clue, there are more to it..
Since >2500 years ago, the Buddhists [and others] had intuitively worked on such moral facts, i.e. develop the compassion and empathy competence of humans which results in moral progress for those who are successful in their endeavors.
At present there are loads of scientific researches into the workings of the brain of Buddhists to justify their moral competence.
This at present is
not conclusive but the results point to the possibility of justifying the moral facts of moral potentials represented by physical neural correlates which can be improved upon.
Even Christianity being so dogmatic has the intuitive impulse to work on the moral potential within Christians with its overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. 'love all even your enemies' 'thou shall not kill, period!' 'give the other cheek' etc. albeit has to rely on the threat of Hellfire.
Meanwhile your stance is NO, NO, NO, NO ... to all possibilities of moral facts and that such facts can lead to moral progress because you are are stuck in a dogmatic resistant state due to negative psychological impulses. You and your generations will be groping till the next 1000s of years without any guide towards continuous improvements of moral progress.