Not sure who you are talking to above.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:13 pmI didn't comment on a revealing feature of VA's reaction to my syllogism above, setting out his argument.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 amExplain precisely why P1 is false when that is precisely how objective scientific facts emerge from the scientific FSK.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:56 am
You invented the fiction of 'a moral FSK', which begs the question, because it assumes moral cognitivism - that moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality that can be known. Fallacy.
And you ignore the fact that what makes any FSK credible is evidence from the reality that you agree exists outside any descriptive context. And from false premises, your conclusion is useless. Here it is.
P1 We 'co-create' facts through FSKs.
P2 Any FSK can 'produce' facts.
C Therefore, a moral FSK can produce moral facts.
That you don't understand why this is an appallingly bad argument - that you vainly think that rweaking it with conditions can rectify it - demonstrates a deep problem in your reasoning.
Notice that he wants to defend P1, which is easy to falsify. (We don't co-create the fact that water is H2O. It just is H2O.)
Note your strawmaning as usual changing 'co-create' with '.." to co-create [no ' '].
Prove to me that 'water is H2O' has no entanglement with the human conditions?
It is empirical evident that scientific facts [astronomy] from the scientific FSK are more credible that say 'astrological facts' from the astrology FSK.But also notice he presumably thinks P2 is unarguable: any FSK can 'produce' facts - because it's a framework and system of knowledge, which must therefore be knowledge of something. So there are astrology facts, because there's an astrology FSK.
Ah, but then the condition of credibility comes in by way of special pleading. It's not any FSK that can 'produce' facts; it has to be a credible FSK.
Ah, but then what makes an FSK credible? An appeal to empirical evidence is useless, because P1 precludes that: if we co-create facts through FSKs, we can't use those facts to establish the credibility of FSKs. So the whole argument collapses.
VA either won't understand this refutation, or will ignore it and mantra-mumble as usual.
I have also mentioned a 'million' times why the scientific FSK is the most credible thus used as the standard for other FSKs to be compared with.
Why Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34157
The point is the more you resist with your rigid dogmatism and kindergartenish knowledge, the more you are insulting your own intelligence. [perhaps your brain areas (relevant to the issues) are already atrophied, thus too late].viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060
- 1. Objectivity
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Reliability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness
9. Predictability.
Suggest you do more research into philosophy and the other advancing modern knowledge, especially neuroscience and the modern view of 'what is morality' so that you can produce more references from the 'giants' of the knowledge concerned.
You should have noticed how shallow and empty your points are when you are merely making noises from your own mind without any references to credible sources.