What is Fact is Intersubjective

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

Ramblings of a madman. From our perspective, you are freely mixing objective facts with intersubjective agreements.

Objective fact: Pluto is there, it exists (to the best of our knowledge)
Intersubjective agreement: we categorize Pluto as a dwarf planet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ramblings of a madman. From our perspective, you are freely mixing objective facts with intersubjective agreements.

Objective fact: Pluto is there, it exists (to the best of our knowledge)
Intersubjective agreement: we categorize Pluto as a dwarf planet.

To the best of your knowledge?? i.e. you could be hallucinating and you don't even know?
If you insist it is objective, then, on whose authority? your mother, father, yourself.. ???.

The only way to be more sure that you know is objective has to be based on intersubjective agreement upon a human-based embodied science FSK - note FSRK-based.
This is the top layer reinforcement of what is really real, i.e. it is interactive with your brain, mind and self.

[Atla]

Ramblings of a madman. From our perspective, you are freely mixing objective facts with intersubjective agreements.

Objective fact: Pluto is there, it exists (to the best of our knowledge)
Intersubjective agreement: we categorize Pluto as a dwarf planet.

To the best of your knowledge?? i.e. you could be hallucinating and you don't even know?
If you insist it is objective, then, on whose authority? your mother, father, yourself.. ???.

The only way to be more sure that you know is objective has to be based on intersubjective agreement upon a human-based embodied science FSK - note FSRK-based.
This is the top layer reinforcement of what is really real, i.e. it is interactive with your brain, mind and self.

To the best of our scientific knowledge. What are you on about again? 100% objectivity is still an ideal.

It takes a special kind of idiot to think that he can achieve absolute certainty about anything by trying to shove everything into his no-noumenon intersubjective view. That he derived from realism in the first place by the way.

Especially that your kind of no-noumenon leads to solipsism so there can't even be intersubjectivity, but that's just the icing on the cake.

[Iwannaplato]

I think it's great that the scientific FSK would through reverse causation start the universe billions of years before humans existed.
And that into the future we can conflate epistemology with ontology,
and conclusions that humans draw with what they draw them about.

I know I made my father by noticing him beyond the looming face of my mother.

[Atla]

I think it's great that the scientific FSK would through reverse causation start the universe billions of years before humans existed.
And that into the future we can conflate epistemology with ontology,
and conclusions that humans draw with what they draw them about.

I know I made my father by noticing him beyond the looming face of my mother.

VA: tries to kill God
Also VA: invents a kind solipsism where VA caused VA's universe backwards in time, into which he was born, but this universe still doesn't exist.

So now he made himself God of his own non-existent world where he pretends to talk to other subjects, but actually doesn't because he's alone? But he doesn't really want to be God either so he treats himself with Buddhist stuff.

Well, interesting philosophy.. I wonder if anyone but a schizoid could have come up with it..

[Sculptor]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

Planet is from the Greek which means wondering star.
What we call planets or dwarf planets are not stars, they are not wandering.
In fact planets are not planets. There are large oblate spheroids that follow eliptical paths, about a centre of gravity around what we call the sun , and those objects are called planets.
This last sentence is the cloeset you can get to an objective statement.
"PLANETS" is not a word to say that they are; it is a word to say what we want to call them; A Label.

Statements concerning the staus of Pluto by the self styled "authorities" are no objective. They are statements made my majority agreements and signed off because they are intersubjectively agreed upon. This is little more than a taxonomic standard and should not be confused with any kind of references to objectivity or subjectiivy.

The experience of the re-designation of Pluto ought to gice you a big hint about the nature of "objectivity" though.
But I doubt it will.

[Iwannaplato]

At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.

The particles are intersubjective in Pluto. They have a social life.

Not just the conclusion that they exist and are how we think they are, but they themselves are intersubjective.

[FlashDangerpants]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

That's a designation really, and a contingent one at that. Astronomers currently sort objects that orbit the sun into multiple categories with planets being the largest, asteroids the smallest and dwarf planets in between if I am not mistaken. The categorization is a matter of convention, and conventions are not typically thought of as "objective".

What causes Pluto to fall below the current bounds of the conventional definition of a planet would appear to be its size. The diameter, circumference, weight, velocity, displacement and whatnot of the object in outer space that we call Pluto are among its objective properties and those are used to determine that if an object which orbits the sun is larger than X but smaller than Y then it is a dwarf planet. The true size of Pluto is not intersubjective information except in so far as there are other arbitrary conventions for units of measurement etc. The object is the size that it is, and objectively so.

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

Your argument structure is, again, not very good. You are trying to establish that there are intersubjective facts and then via false syllogism assume that all facts are therefore intersubjecive. Be better than that please.

[Impenitent]

dwarf planet?

cross the river Styx and meet your "dwarf planet" ...

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

That's a designation really, and a contingent one at that. Astronomers currently sort objects that orbit the sun into multiple categories with planets being the largest, asteroids the smallest and dwarf planets in between if I am not mistaken. The categorization is a matter of convention, and conventions are not typically thought of as "objective".

What causes Pluto to fall below the current bounds of the conventional definition of a planet would appear to be its size. The diameter, circumference, weight, velocity, displacement and whatnot of the object in outer space that we call Pluto are among its objective properties and those are used to determine that if an object which orbits the sun is larger than X but smaller than Y then it is a dwarf planet. The true size of Pluto is not intersubjective information except in so far as there are other arbitrary conventions for units of measurement etc. The object is the size that it is, and objectively so.

The designation is not the critical issue here.
Before we designate, describe what is known, it must have emerged and realized in tandem with the human conditions.
see:
Reality: There are the Emergence & Realization [of Reality] Processes Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is critical are the contingent conditions, i.e. the human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy [IAU]-FSRK that is further conditioned upon the 3.5 billion years of organic history of evolution and 13.7 billion years of physical history.
These are all the imperative conditions that intersubjectively ground what is designated Pluto as a dwarf planet.
Thus when we assert that it is fact [FSRK-ed] Pluto is a dwarf planet, we cannot ignore all the above necessary conditions.


It is the same for every element bolded above and others above; they are all imperatively conditioned upon all the above imperative conditions, thus intersubjective, i.e. their objectivity is intersubjectivity.

It there are true size for Pluto?
How can you measure the actual diameter of Pluto when its surface is so irregular all over the planet?
Ultimately what is the true size for Pluto is an estimation upon intersubjective consensus, thus intersubjectivity, and that in an intersubjective reality.

Btw, what is fact to you is merely a logical and linguistic fact, i.e. it is not a realistic fact.
That is why you can only insist your what is fact is objectively so; i.e. so empty.
A realistic fact is one that is credible and objective as grounded upon a human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most realistic, credible and objective.

And not, a human-based scientific FSRK is grounded on intersubjectivity, if not how?

Your argument structure is, again, not very good. You are trying to establish that there are intersubjective facts and then via false syllogism assume that all facts are therefore intersubjecive. Be better than that please.

Nope.

I claim ALL facts [reality, truth, knowledge, objectivity] must be conditioned upon a human-based FSRK which is conditioned upon a 13.7 billion years of history.
Because it is human-based, i.e. collective of human subjects, it has to be intersubjective, if not how else?
Therefore ALL facts are intersubjective.

There are no god-eye-view standalone facts as you are alluding to.
Thus the only other most realistic option are FSRK-ed facts.

Your 'what is fact' is based on traditional language-based analytic philosophy which is now 'dead' as I had presented here;

Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868

Analytic Philosophy emerged to counter Kant Copernican Revolution where reality is leveraged upon the human condition.
It was Frege who started it in attempting to bridge the subject with the object, but destroyed by
Russell who was countered by
Wittgenstein who countered himself via
the later Wittgenstein
later if was logical position that failed
the we have Ordinary Language philosophy which also failed.
Up to this point traditional analytic philosophy has failed in its original objective.

If you are shifting into post-analytic [veering toward pragmatism], then you what is fact [mind independent, value free] is not valid anymore. Putnam's no fact-value distinction, Rorty did away with mind-independent facts.

[promethean75]

This thing u have with mind dependent intersubjective reality is out of control, VA.

A thousand years ago folks thought planet x was a star when they saw it in the sky. Today we know it's not a star (ball of burning gas) but a planet (solid rock of elements).

Now if we grant your claim that each of these beliefs were predicated on the FSKs of each set of people, it would mean that they were both right at their respective times, even if the thing was never a ball of burning gas.

Moreover, if u put the set from a thousand years ago into a time machine and brought em here, they'd agree that the thing is a solid rock of elements and not a ball of burning gas. But u couldn't send the set from today back in time and have them admit they were wrong when they saw the thing, becuz it's not a star.

The clencher is here: if both sets agree on what a 'rock of elements' and a 'ball of burning gas' is, the accuracy of the FSK doesn't change depending on what time it is held. Simply, if those old people hold the same FSK as us new people do about what these things are, the old FSK that led them to believe the thing was a star, is flat out wrong. Even they would admit it.

Reality has to exist independently of perception. And the way that reality is is not determined by how it's perceived or what it is called.

U can even use descartes' formula for proving the existence of the self to prove this fact by tweaking the argument a bit. He proves he exists becuz he can doubt it... but he must exist to be able to doubt. Similarly, there has to be an object before u can be sure or unsure about what it is, before u can accurately or inaccurately describe it. why don't u realize that?!

[Veritas Aequitas]

This thing u have with mind dependent intersubjective reality is out of control, VA.

A thousand years ago folks thought planet x was a star when they saw it in the sky. Today we know it's not a star (ball of burning gas) but a planet (solid rock of elements).

Now if we grant your claim that each of these beliefs were predicated on the FSKs of each set of people, it would mean that they were both right at their respective times, even if the thing was never a ball of burning gas.

Moreover, if u put the set from a thousand years ago into a time machine and brought em here, they'd agree that the thing is a solid rock of elements and not a ball of burning gas. But u couldn't send the set from today back in time and have them admit they were wrong when they saw the thing, becuz it's not a star.

The clencher is here: if both sets agree on what a 'rock of elements' and a 'ball of burning gas' is, the accuracy of the FSK doesn't change depending on what time it is held. Simply, if those old people hold the same FSK as us new people do about what these things are, the old FSK that led them to believe the thing was a star, is flat out wrong. Even they would admit it.

Reality has to exist independently of perception. And the way that reality is is not determined by how it's perceived or what it is called.

U can even use descartes' formula for proving the existence of the self to prove this fact by tweaking the argument a bit. He proves he exists becuz he can doubt it... but he must exist to be able to doubt. Similarly, there has to be an object before u can be sure or unsure about what it is, before u can accurately or inaccurately describe it. why don't u realize that?!

P75: Reality has to exist independently of perception

Within philosophy we cannot hastily jump onto the obvious.

First there is no way humans can ever know what reality is by itself, i.e. a real thing-in-itself [if there is such a thing] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions.
You deny this?
Do you have any way to know or prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception?

If you cannot show any way nor prove the existence of a real thing [or reality] independent of perception, then you are merely speculating which possibly could be a falsehood or illusion.
I raised a thread, re, the nearest 'real' star you see in the night sky based on its light having to travel millions of light year to reach you, is likely have exploded and non-existing in real time now.
Is the Nearest Star [not our Sun], Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154
The point is all humans has an inherent evolutionary default [instinct] to make such speculations necessarily to facilitate survival and various reasons.

Yes, perception-itself alone cannot be reality because what is perceived is within the brain and mind.
Yes, perception is known to be independent of the-perceived [the thing] BUT on the other hand,
there is no thing that exist in itself [the-perceived] that is absolutely independent of any human interactions; there is no way you can prove it realistically.

So we have a dilemma.
1. The thing [or reality] by-itself or in-itself that is absolutely independent of any human interactions is like a square-circle i.e. an impossibility to be real. It would be effective to give up this option of establishing reality.

2. So the most realistic option is for us to work from the basis of what we have on our "hands", i.e. perceptions, appearances, experiences and observations, and from there dig deeper into their root sources within human nature to understand their relation to reality.
That is where Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution.
This is a complex task because we have a 13.7-billion-years-history that is conditioned upon human nature to work with.

It is from the preferred mode 2 where the theme of intersubjectivity [FSRK basis] arise.
So reality is relative and must be qualified to the FSRK at the time or conditions.
So what is realized as reality is because so and so FSRK said so, of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
The point is before we perceive, know and describe a thing, there are prior processes within human nature [intersubjectively] that enable the emergence and realization of reality.
One cannot ignore these processes.
I have given clues here.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

You need to suspend judgment on your current beliefs and reflect more deeply, widely and on the nuances above.

[Age]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

Ramblings of a madman. From our perspective, you are freely mixing objective facts with intersubjective agreements.

Objective fact: Pluto is there, it exists (to the best of our knowledge)
Intersubjective agreement: we categorize Pluto as a dwarf planet.

So, even a so-called 'objective fact' can be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, well to this one here.