FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:53 am
You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable
You think this is an ace card.
I already stated I do not claim,
"it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable"
if it does not answer your point, you need to explain more clearly and plainly instead of being cryptic.
You can't tell the difference between there being a fact of the world and a statement of a fact about the world.
Pete drew your attention to this deficit in your reasoning years ago.
What makes a claim in chemistry actually true or false is a matter of the chemical composition and behaviour of real world molecules etc.
What makes a claim within the field of chemistry as a science credible is the manner and degree to which we can demonstrate correspondence between the chemist's claim and the behaviour of real world things. What Astrology lacks is any of that latter stuff.
I countered Pete's in the following threads but Pete did not give any satisfactory responses but mostly handwaving-off responses.
The threads are still open for him to counter what I have presented therein:
My general principle is this;
whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Etymology of 'Fact': PH's Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40067
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992
PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40071
On the Question of Chemistry:
"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844
'That-What' [Fact] Before It is Called 'Water'?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39822
On scientific claims and credibility:
I have asked Pete this and receive no response:
- 1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "Water is H20" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "water is H20" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].
You talk about chemistry facts of science but you did not take into account the above.
There is a well known difficulty in bridging the gap between what we say about the world and the world itself. You however wildly overinterpret the outcomes of this issue, which are actually not very important at all. You take the unattainablilty of perfect knowledge of a notional world that lies beyond sensory perception and turn it into a fantasy that justifies an explosion of FSK imagininings repackaged as proto-factoids on the say so of anyone who cares to make up an FSK.
"the world-in-itself" is a very contentious issue because it is clung upon by philosophical realists due to an evolutionary default [instinct].
This had led to all sort of dilemma, paradoxes, antinomies and even the acts of evils in order to defend this dogmatic idea which is illusory.
My use of a FSRK is merely to confine reality and knowledge to what is experienced and possible to be experienced to the extend as far as empirical evidence can support my claim reinforced with rationality and critical thinking.
Like the pyrrhonian skeptics I stop
speculating beyond what is evident or possible to be evidenced.
What is wrong with this?
You and p-realists are driven by an inherent primal drive [subliminally] to speculate about something objective and mind independent
beyond what is experienced and possible-to-be-experienced [where the most credible and objective justification is by the human-based science FSRK.]
You are no different from the theists who speculate on a god that is beyond the empirical.
You are unaware you are entangled within a psychological net as Hume had alluded to re his problem of causation.
But in your imagininngs, you are in charge of the FSK game and you are the one who says what is credible. And that's the only reason you play the game at all. To have your own little sandpit where all the rules are made by you and anyone who questions them is a kindergartner, as if the kid playing in the sandpit isn't a kindi too.
What don't you ask ChatGpt [with reservations] whether the claim of FSK is reasonable or not re my claim;
"whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective."
That can give you ideas for sources other than your sort of analytic philosophy re ordinary language.
Note;
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
By now, there is nothing within analytic philosophy for you to bridge the reality gap between the human factor and what is supposedly the mind-independent external objective world out there.
If you resort to post-analytic philosophy in the world of Rorty et al, you are veering into pragmatism and no mind-independent world.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188
As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.