(October 27, 2018 at 3:45 am)robvalue Wrote: I was thinking of a similar example to try and demonstrate this. I claim that all the fences around my garden are tall, and I want to prove it scientifically. What is the first thing you would ask?The same questions I'd ask you if you told me that you were going to measure the growth rate of a daisy. What moral realism is telling you is that moral facts are like daisy facts or fence facts. You should expect to find yourself asking the same questions and employing the same fundamental assumptions and axioms. If you do, and if you grant credibility to the product of this process with regards to daisies and fences....it's unclear why you would not do the same for moral propositions.
Quote:We all know what tall means, but if we're going to make factual statements, we need a precise definition. Does it mean 6 feet and over? 8 feet and over? Does it mean higher than the average of all fences in the area? Does it mean what 99% people would call tall? If we don’t agree here, then I can say it’s factually talk by one definition, and you can say it isn’t by another, and we’re both correct.-even if we don't agree here, your fence is still as tall as it is. I'm not sure what the problem is? If you say tall is six feet and up, and I say it's eight...and we measure your fence and find that it's 7'4......it's the 7'4 that makes either claim (the fence is tall - 6f, the fence is tall - 8f) objectively true or false.
Now, if you told me that you were going to scientifically prove that all the fences around your garden are tall by measuring how many of the pickets where white...I'd have questions, lol.
Quote:Can we make the meta-definition that all definitions of tall must refer to being 6 feet and over? We could, if we wanted to, but this is still just defining the word further. Anyone who doesn’t agree would come up with different facts, and again, we could both be right. This is the equivalent of trying to shoe-horn the desired definitions of "good" in without doing any science or philosophy, but just appealing to popularity, utility or emotion. For something so vague, it’s the No True Scotsman. Khem seems to want to do this, but you don’t, which is very confusing to me if you’re supporting the same position.
We can make definitions of anything we like. Objectivism, realism (not just moral realism, all realism) demands that these definitions be accurate in some mind independent way. So..as above, if you make the definition of tall 6foot..and your fence is 7'4..then it's objectively true..in the same way that anything else is objectively true...that your fence is tall.
It's not enough that you make the definition, though, saying that 6 foot and up is tall doesn't demonstrate that any fence is tall. For the claim "this fence is tall" to be a fact..then the height of the fence must be mind independent, and greater than 6 feet.
If you have a commitment to scientific naturalism or scientific realism or even logical realism....you make all of the same relevant commitments.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
