What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Objectivity can only be attributed to a relationship, not the thing in itself.
Whether a thing is objective or subjective talks to the relationship between the observer and the observed.

Subjective is when we make comments about or apprend something and make it subject to our point of view.

Objective is a much harder to claim to ever make. This is when we try to make statements about something are pretend to delete our personal view point. To do this we are forced to reference others' opinions (which are subjective), or try to establish criteria with which to describe that thing and are agreed by "all".
The problems with this are legion. SInce objectivity has to entail inter-subjective agreement we can never be sure whether or no our language community or peer group's criteria are those which best describe the thing of interest.

Subjectivity and objectivity are about judgements, and values.

Thanks for this. Here are a few counters.

1 To make a factual assertion - such as 'water is H2O' - is not to pretend to delete one's personal viewpoint. We can 'prefix' any factual assertion with adverbial 'In my (our) opinion...', and that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion - and that's what objectivity is all about.

This is just nomination and tautology. Nothing to do with objectivity and subjectivity, except to the degree that people have agreed upo the convention of calling water H2O. Other opinons may differ. eau no they don't . eau yes they DO!!

I disagree. There is a substance in the universe which is a compound of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. The names we give this substance and its elements are completely arbitrary and conventional. But the existence of the substance and its elements are facts - features of reality - that have nothing to do with language or description.

No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years.
It is exactly a consensus of our langauge community.

Not so. What some of us call water is what some of us call a compound of what some us call hydrogen and oxygen. That linguistic consensus - within the practice and discourse of chemistry - has no bearing on the nature of water, which has existed for millions of years as a fact of reality, evidence for the existence of which is overwhelming. You mistake what we now say about this feature of reality for the reality itself.

Water is H2O is not about induction. It is based on a chemical theory of matter. It is deductive.

Not so. A scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, and is therefore inductive. It may contain deductions, given those inductive conclusions. But that's irrelevant here, because we're dealing with the nature of facts, not arguments.

Since all facts can be challenged and that their existence is useful, all facts are values, since they are valued.

This is just word play.
1 The fact that any factual assertion can be challenged doesn't mean it is 'a value'. There's no logical connection between these two assertions.
2 Yes, we value true factual assertions because they are useful. They constitute our knowledge of reality, without which we're sunk.
3 Gold is not 'a value'. We may value it - care about it, prize it, want to possess it. And we may give it an exchange value. Try listing the properties of gold; being 'a value' is not one of them.

THough it may be hard to imagine, it is at least possible that our current chemical theory could be found wanting and H2O is water could fall intto disuse and ridicule. Such is the case for all discredited scientific theories.
Water is ond of 4 elements of nature was "objective", and factual, Yet no longer has value.

Agreed. And what discredits a scientific theory about a fact is a different fact. Water turned out not to be one of the four fundamental elements, but rather a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. And this did and does nothing to undermine objectivity or the existence of facts. On the contrary, it confirms them.

[Sculptor]

Thanks for this. Here are a few counters.

1 To make a factual assertion - such as 'water is H2O' - is not to pretend to delete one's personal viewpoint. We can 'prefix' any factual assertion with adverbial 'In my (our) opinion...', and that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion - and that's what objectivity is all about.

This is just nomination and tautology. Nothing to do with objectivity and subjectivity, except to the degree that people have agreed upo the convention of calling water H2O. Other opinons may differ. eau no they don't . eau yes they DO!!

I disagree. There is a substance in the universe which is a compound of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. The names we give this substance and its elements are completely arbitrary and conventional. But the existence of the substance and its elements are facts - features of reality - that have nothing to do with language or description.

No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years.
It is exactly a consensus of our langauge community.

Not so. What some of us call water is what some of us call a compound of what some us call hydrogen and oxygen. That linguistic consensus - withing the practice and discourse of chemistry - has no bearing on the nature of water, which has existed for millions of years as a fact of reality, evidence for the existence of which is overwhelming. You mistake what we now say about this feature of reality for the reality itself.

Water is H2O is not about induction. It is based on a chemical theory of matter. It is deductive.

Not so. A scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, and is therefore inductive. It may contain deductions, given those inductive conclusions. But that's irrelevant here, because we're dealing with the nature of facts, not arguments.

Since all facts can be challenged and that their existence is useful, all facts are values, since they are valued.

This is just word play.
1 The fact that any factual assertion can be challenged doesn't mean it is 'a value'. There's no logical connection between these two assertions.
2 Yes, we value true factual assertions because they are useful. They constitute our knowledge of reality, without which we're sunk.
3 Gold is not 'a value'. We may value it - care about it, prize it, want to possess it. And we may give it an exchange value. Try listing the properties of gold; being 'a value' is not one of them.

THough it may be hard to imagine, it is at least possible that our current chemical theory could be found wanting and H2O is water could fall intto disuse and ridicule. Such is the case for all discredited scientific theories.
Water is ond of 4 elements of nature was "objective", and factual, Yet no longer has value.

Agreed. And what discredits a scientific theory about a fact is a different fact. Water turned out not to be one of the four fundamental elements, but rather a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. And this did and does nothing to undermine objectivity or the existence of facts. On the contrary, it confirms them.

You are just digging yourself in your own hole.

[Peter Holmes]

This is just nomination and tautology. Nothing to do with objectivity and subjectivity, except to the degree that people have agreed upo the convention of calling water H2O. Other opinons may differ. eau no they don't . eau yes they DO!!

I disagree. There is a substance in the universe which is a compound of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. The names we give this substance and its elements are completely arbitrary and conventional. But the existence of the substance and its elements are facts - features of reality - that have nothing to do with language or description.

No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years.
It is exactly a consensus of our langauge community.

Not so. What some of us call water is what some of us call a compound of what some us call hydrogen and oxygen. That linguistic consensus - withing the practice and discourse of chemistry - has no bearing on the nature of water, which has existed for millions of years as a fact of reality, evidence for the existence of which is overwhelming. You mistake what we now say about this feature of reality for the reality itself.

Water is H2O is not about induction. It is based on a chemical theory of matter. It is deductive.

Not so. A scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, and is therefore inductive. It may contain deductions, given those inductive conclusions. But that's irrelevant here, because we're dealing with the nature of facts, not arguments.

Since all facts can be challenged and that their existence is useful, all facts are values, since they are valued.

This is just word play.
1 The fact that any factual assertion can be challenged doesn't mean it is 'a value'. There's no logical connection between these two assertions.
2 Yes, we value true factual assertions because they are useful. They constitute our knowledge of reality, without which we're sunk.
3 Gold is not 'a value'. We may value it - care about it, prize it, want to possess it. And we may give it an exchange value. Try listing the properties of gold; being 'a value' is not one of them.

THough it may be hard to imagine, it is at least possible that our current chemical theory could be found wanting and H2O is water could fall intto disuse and ridicule. Such is the case for all discredited scientific theories.
Water is ond of 4 elements of nature was "objective", and factual, Yet no longer has value.

Agreed. And what discredits a scientific theory about a fact is a different fact. Water turned out not to be one of the four fundamental elements, but rather a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. And this did and does nothing to undermine objectivity or the existence of facts. On the contrary, it confirms them.

You are just digging yourself in your own hole.

So, you have no counter to my comments. And that's fine. When in a hole...

What you say here is fundamentally incorrect - and fashionable nonsense:

'No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years. It is exactly a consensus of our language community.'

This is to mistake what we know and therefore say about reality for reality itself. Water was, is and will be what we happen to call H2O, regardless of its being known and described.

[Skepdick]

This is to mistake what we know and therefore say about reality for reality itself. Water was, is and will be what we happen to call H2O, regardless of its being known and described.

What is "it" that we happen to call H2O?
What is "it" that we happen to call water?
What is "it'" that I am referencing using the pronoun "it"?

You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

You don't seem to know what "it" is.

Anything you say about "it" is quite literally an argument from ignorance!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I disagree. There is a substance in the universe which is a compound of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. The names we give this substance and its elements are completely arbitrary and conventional. But the existence of the substance and its elements are facts - features of reality - that have nothing to do with language or description.
Not so. What some of us call water is what some of us call a compound of what some us call hydrogen and oxygen. That linguistic consensus - withing the practice and discourse of chemistry - has no bearing on the nature of water, which has existed for millions of years as a fact of reality, evidence for the existence of which is overwhelming. You mistake what we now say about this feature of reality for the reality itself.
Not so. A scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, and is therefore inductive. It may contain deductions, given those inductive conclusions. But that's irrelevant here, because we're dealing with the nature of facts, not arguments.
This is just word play.
1 The fact that any factual assertion can be challenged doesn't mean it is 'a value'. There's no logical connection between these two assertions.
2 Yes, we value true factual assertions because they are useful. They constitute our knowledge of reality, without which we're sunk.
3 Gold is not 'a value'. We may value it - care about it, prize it, want to possess it. And we may give it an exchange value. Try listing the properties of gold; being 'a value' is not one of them.
Agreed. And what discredits a scientific theory about a fact is a different fact. Water turned out not to be one of the four fundamental elements, but rather a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. And this did and does nothing to undermine objectivity or the existence of facts. On the contrary, it confirms them.

You are just digging yourself in your own hole.

So, you have no counter to my comments. And that's fine. When in a hole...

What you say here is fundamentally incorrect - and fashionable nonsense:

'No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years. It is exactly a consensus of our language community.'

This is to mistake what we know and therefore say about reality for reality itself. Water was, is and will be what we happen to call H2O, regardless of its being known and described.

Sculptor is supporting what I have been claiming [edited];

"water is H2O" is not an absolute fact of reality. It is a relative-objective fact of our scientific culture [the scientific FSRC], and only true in the last couple of 100 years. It is exactly a consensus of our language within the scientific-chemistry community' - thus intersubjective.

I posted this thread to counter your claim, 'water is of absolute reality as H2O';
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876

What is more realistic of 'what is water' is merely a denser cluster of particles from this soup of particles"



Even the above i.e. particles are merely intersubjective relative-objective scientific facts from the science-physics FSRC.

Is there any thing that exists [by itself] regardless of humans?
NO!

The impulse to invoke ex nihilo nihil fit is merely an impulse of an adaptive evolutionary default.
To reify something out of nothing is delusional.

The most realistic attitude is to suspend judgment on whatever is triggered by the adaptive evolutionary default to grab onto finitude; and accept the concession that whatever is real must be conditioned upon a human-based FSRC, where the scientific FSRC is the gold standard of reality.

[Peter Holmes]

Is there any thing that exists [by itself] regardless of humans?
NO!

Every thing that existed before humans evolved - for billions of years - obviously existed [by itself] regardless of humans. So this question is fantastically stupid.

And the claim that, had humans not evolved, nothing would exist [by itself] - is mind-bogglingly absurd.

[Skepdick]

Every thing that existed before humans evolved - for billions of years - obviously existed [by itself] regardless of humans. So this question is fantastically stupid.

And the claim that, had humans not evolved, nothing would exist [by itself] - is mind-bogglingly absurd.

Idiots like Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is why the fly will never get out of the philosophical bottle...

Without humans nobody anywhere in the entire universe asserts existence. About anything.

Only humans care about the existence/non-existence distinction.

[Age]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

Physical things aren't objective or subjective. For example, a dog isn't objective or subjective.

I never assumed nor said otherwise.

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions.

To repeat, also, I have already agreed with and accepted your definition here.

So, why are you repeating what you are here?

Did you forget, did you not comprehend, or has something else occured here?

Also, let us not forget that I have already pointed out that this is just your opinion, and thus not necessarily an objective fact all.

And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And I think you agree with these explanations of the terms

Do you only think?

It follows that the only thing that could 'make' morality objective is the existence of moral facts: moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

Okay.

Given this, I suggest you demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - which means showing that any moral assertion is true. Choose one you're convinced is a fact - and just do it.

If you had ever asked me to, over all of our discussions here, then I would have. However, considering you never have, and are now demanding me to, then I will not.

However, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.

Then you won't need to make unsubstantiated claims about it being easy to prove that morality is objective.

But, it seems that it is perfectly okay for you to make unsubstituted claims about morality being subjective only, correct?

[Skepdick]

Physical things aren't objective or subjective.

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions.

Are you relying on facts or opinions when you say "Physical things aren't objective or subjective" ?

Any objects (e.g an apple) is a "physical things. So according to Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes objects aren't objective. Apples aren't objective.

What a fucking idiot.

[Age]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

Objectivity can only be attributed to a relationship, not the thing in itself.
Whether a thing is objective or subjective talks to the relationship between the observer and the observed.

I never assumed nor said anything otherwise. However, I just noticed that I was meant to include the 'objective' word in between the 'morality' and 'is' words.

Subjective is when we make comments about or apprend something and make it subject to our point of view.

Is it possible to make comments about things, which are not subject to one's point of view?

If yes, then will you write it or some of them down here?

Objective is a much harder to claim to ever make. This is when we try to make statements about something are pretend to delete our personal view point.

Well this would be a rather very silly thing to do. Do you know why you do this?

If yes, then why, exactly?

To do this we are forced to reference others' opinions (which are subjective), or try to establish criteria with which to describe that thing and are agreed by "all".
The problems with this are legion. SInce objectivity has to entail inter-subjective agreement we can never be sure whether or no our language community or peer group's criteria are those which best describe the thing of interest.

But, the criteria or the same way objectivity is found and realised will, and does, suffice as the criteria, or way, in knowing the best way to describe the thing of interest.

Subjectivity and objectivity are about judgements, and values.

I agree.

But, do you know how to distinguish between the two properly, Accurately, and Correctly?

If yes, then how is that, exactly?

[Peter Holmes]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

Physical things aren't objective or subjective. For example, a dog isn't objective or subjective.

I never assumed nor said otherwise.

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions.

To repeat, also, I have already agreed with and accepted your definition here.

So, why are you repeating what you are here?

Did you forget, did you not comprehend, or has something else occured here?

Also, let us not forget that I have already pointed out that this is just your opinion, and thus not necessarily an objective fact all.

And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And I think you agree with these explanations of the terms

Do you only think?

It follows that the only thing that could 'make' morality objective is the existence of moral facts: moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

Okay.

Given this, I suggest you demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - which means showing that any moral assertion is true. Choose one you're convinced is a fact - and just do it.

If you had ever asked me to, over all of our discussions here, then I would have. However, considering you never have, and are now demanding me to, then I will not.

However, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.

Then you won't need to make unsubstantiated claims about it being easy to prove that morality is objective.

But, it seems that it is perfectly okay for you to make unsubstituted claims about morality being subjective only, correct?

'Oooo. Cos you're demanding an example of a moral fact - I won't provide one.'

Fine. Keep pretending you have the goods. No one's fooled.

And I've explained 'a million times' why there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective. It's not an unsubstantiated claim.

Yours is the burden of proof. Choose any moral assertion you like - 'murder is morally wrong' (dick-for-brains' go-to), or 'humans killing humans is morally wrong' (VA's go-to), or 'abortion is morally wrong' or 'eating animals is not morally wrong', and so on - and show why it asserts a moral fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

Do that, and you'll have won the argument. VA and moron sidekick dick-for-brains can't do it. So you'll be their new hero.

[Sculptor]

I disagree. There is a substance in the universe which is a compound of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. The names we give this substance and its elements are completely arbitrary and conventional. But the existence of the substance and its elements are facts - features of reality - that have nothing to do with language or description.
Not so. What some of us call water is what some of us call a compound of what some us call hydrogen and oxygen. That linguistic consensus - withing the practice and discourse of chemistry - has no bearing on the nature of water, which has existed for millions of years as a fact of reality, evidence for the existence of which is overwhelming. You mistake what we now say about this feature of reality for the reality itself.
Not so. A scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, and is therefore inductive. It may contain deductions, given those inductive conclusions. But that's irrelevant here, because we're dealing with the nature of facts, not arguments.
This is just word play.
1 The fact that any factual assertion can be challenged doesn't mean it is 'a value'. There's no logical connection between these two assertions.
2 Yes, we value true factual assertions because they are useful. They constitute our knowledge of reality, without which we're sunk.
3 Gold is not 'a value'. We may value it - care about it, prize it, want to possess it. And we may give it an exchange value. Try listing the properties of gold; being 'a value' is not one of them.
Agreed. And what discredits a scientific theory about a fact is a different fact. Water turned out not to be one of the four fundamental elements, but rather a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. And this did and does nothing to undermine objectivity or the existence of facts. On the contrary, it confirms them.

You are just digging yourself in your own hole.

So, you have no counter to my comments. And that's fine. When in a hole...

What you say here is fundamentally incorrect - and fashionable nonsense:

'No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years. It is exactly a consensus of our language community.'

This is to mistake what we know and therefore say about reality for reality itself. Water was, is and will be what we happen to call H2O, regardless of its being known and described.

A few hundred years ago it was an objective fact that water was one of the only four elements in the universe.
I am pretty sure that in a thousands years from now "water = H2O" is going to look equally ridiculous.
"Water = H2O Fulfills all the current scientific norms and by agreement of the scientific community it makes perfect sense.
Yet the current atomic theory is a model, and as such subject ro the revision that all science is subject to.

Because water is not just two hydrogens and one oxygen, There is nothing about water that the model could predict. As far as I know it is the only simple compund that is less dense when a solid than when liquid. Water is a configuration of protons and electrons that when electolyised can be made to render what we call hydrogen and oxygen bu shares none of their properties.

Science is suseptible to paradigm change; I suggest that is its strength. The atomic model is already showing signs of age. We are now able to look at individual atims with an electron microscope and they do not look like the Bohr model Seemingly with every year that passes new sub-atomic particles are "discovered" and the more they fnd the more questions there are. An "atom" literally means indivisible. That idea has been blown away a long time ago,
Science progresses, yet with each step questions multiply beyond the progress.

SO "water= H2O" relies on a set of long held assumptions. These assumptions are endemic an this make it look universal, absolute and eternally objective.
However the history os science tells a different story.
In declaring this a fact beyond our interest you are no different from Veritas declaring a moral FSK.
If you think I am wrong that rather than dodge the bullet defend yourself.

[Peter Holmes]

You are just digging yourself in your own hole.

So, you have no counter to my comments. And that's fine. When in a hole...

What you say here is fundamentally incorrect - and fashionable nonsense:

'No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years. It is exactly a consensus of our language community.'

This is to mistake what we know and therefore say about reality for reality itself. Water was, is and will be what we happen to call H2O, regardless of its being known and described.

A few hundred years ago it was an objective fact that water was one of the only four elements in the universe.
I am pretty sure that in a thousands years from now "water = H2O" is going to look equally ridiculous.
"Water = H2O Fulfills all the current scientific norms and by agreement of the scientific community it makes perfect sense.
Yet the current atomic theory is a model, and as such subject ro the revision that all science is subject to.

Because water is not just two hydrogens and one oxygen, There is nothing about water that the model could predict. As far as I know it is the only simple compund that is less dense when a solid than when liquid. Water is a configuration of protons and electrons that when electolyised can be made to render what we call hydrogen and oxygen bu shares none of their properties.

Science is suseptible to paradigm change; I suggest that is its strength. The atomic model is already showing signs of age. We are now able to look at individual atims with an electron microscope and they do not look like the Bohr model Seemingly with every year that passes new sub-atomic particles are "discovered" and the more they fnd the more questions there are. An "atom" literally means indivisible. That idea has been blown away a long time ago,
Science progresses, yet with each step questions multiply beyond the progress.

SO "water= H2O" relies on a set of long held assumptions. These assumptions are endemic an this make it look universal, absolute and eternally objective.
However the history os science tells a different story.
In declaring this a fact beyond our interest you are no different from Veritas declaring a moral FSK.
If you think I am wrong that rather than dodge the bullet defend yourself.

The terms 'universal', 'absolute' and 'eternal' constitute a straw man argument against what can loosely be called realism.

Yes, paradigms or models change. And the reason why they change is because new information shows that new paradigms or models seem to describe reality more accurately - with more predictive power, and so on.

But what they don't show is that our paradigms or models are reality - that there is nothing more to reality than the ways we perceive, know and describe it. That's the stupid, anti-realist conclusion.

The bullet is yours to dodge - and that's the implications following from your anti-realist claim.

[Sculptor]

So, you have no counter to my comments. And that's fine. When in a hole...

What you say here is fundamentally incorrect - and fashionable nonsense:

'No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years. It is exactly a consensus of our language community.'

This is to mistake what we know and therefore say about reality for reality itself. Water was, is and will be what we happen to call H2O, regardless of its being known and described.

A few hundred years ago it was an objective fact that water was one of the only four elements in the universe.
I am pretty sure that in a thousands years from now "water = H2O" is going to look equally ridiculous.
"Water = H2O Fulfills all the current scientific norms and by agreement of the scientific community it makes perfect sense.
Yet the current atomic theory is a model, and as such subject ro the revision that all science is subject to.

Because water is not just two hydrogens and one oxygen, There is nothing about water that the model could predict. As far as I know it is the only simple compund that is less dense when a solid than when liquid. Water is a configuration of protons and electrons that when electolyised can be made to render what we call hydrogen and oxygen bu shares none of their properties.

Science is suseptible to paradigm change; I suggest that is its strength. The atomic model is already showing signs of age. We are now able to look at individual atims with an electron microscope and they do not look like the Bohr model Seemingly with every year that passes new sub-atomic particles are "discovered" and the more they fnd the more questions there are. An "atom" literally means indivisible. That idea has been blown away a long time ago,
Science progresses, yet with each step questions multiply beyond the progress.

SO "water= H2O" relies on a set of long held assumptions. These assumptions are endemic an this make it look universal, absolute and eternally objective.
However the history os science tells a different story.
In declaring this a fact beyond our interest you are no different from Veritas declaring a moral FSK.
If you think I am wrong that rather than dodge the bullet defend yourself.

The terms 'universal', 'absolute' and 'eternal' constitute a straw man argument against what can loosely be called realism.

Yes, paradigms or models change. And the reason why they change is because new information shows that new paradigms or models seem to describe reality more accurately - with more predictive power, and so on.

But what they don't show is that our paradigms or models are reality - that there is nothing more to reality than the ways we perceive, know and describe it. That's the stupid, anti-realist conclusion.

The bullet is yours to dodge - and that's the implications following from your anti-realist claim.

I would take this as progress.
Are you now saying that "water is H2O" is not eternally the case?
Are you saying that "water is H2O" is not universal?

Next question: are you a realist?


Yet you've already lost the plot.
You have not addressed a single thing I wrote.
You are basically making the same argument as Veritas. Contemporary science is your FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

A few hundred years ago it was an objective fact that water was one of the only four elements in the universe.
I am pretty sure that in a thousands years from now "water = H2O" is going to look equally ridiculous.
"Water = H2O Fulfills all the current scientific norms and by agreement of the scientific community it makes perfect sense.
Yet the current atomic theory is a model, and as such subject ro the revision that all science is subject to.

Because water is not just two hydrogens and one oxygen, There is nothing about water that the model could predict. As far as I know it is the only simple compund that is less dense when a solid than when liquid. Water is a configuration of protons and electrons that when electolyised can be made to render what we call hydrogen and oxygen bu shares none of their properties.

Science is suseptible to paradigm change; I suggest that is its strength. The atomic model is already showing signs of age. We are now able to look at individual atims with an electron microscope and they do not look like the Bohr model Seemingly with every year that passes new sub-atomic particles are "discovered" and the more they fnd the more questions there are. An "atom" literally means indivisible. That idea has been blown away a long time ago,
Science progresses, yet with each step questions multiply beyond the progress.

SO "water= H2O" relies on a set of long held assumptions. These assumptions are endemic an this make it look universal, absolute and eternally objective.
However the history os science tells a different story.
In declaring this a fact beyond our interest you are no different from Veritas declaring a moral FSK.
If you think I am wrong that rather than dodge the bullet defend yourself.

The terms 'universal', 'absolute' and 'eternal' constitute a straw man argument against what can loosely be called realism.

Yes, paradigms or models change. And the reason why they change is because new information shows that new paradigms or models seem to describe reality more accurately - with more predictive power, and so on.

But what they don't show is that our paradigms or models are reality - that there is nothing more to reality than the ways we perceive, know and describe it. That's the stupid, anti-realist conclusion.

The bullet is yours to dodge - and that's the implications following from your anti-realist claim.

I would take this as progress.
Are you now saying that "water is H2O" is not eternally the case?
Are you saying that "water is H2O" is not universal?

Next question: are you a realist?


Yet you've already lost the plot.
You have not addressed a single thing I wrote.
You are basically making the same argument as Veritas. Contemporary science is your FSK.

Sorry, but you haven't addressed a single thing I wrote. And I'm tired of this stupidity. Thanks for engaging.