Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

However, under subjectivism..things are not good-and-bad, like schrodingers cat, until someone is asked.  Things are not good or bad at all outside of a personal opinion.  Moral statements to the contrary are not indeterminable, they are determinable, and wrong in point in fact.  They purport to report some fact about an object, but do not.  Instead, misreporting a fact about a subject.  

I think we can agree on this.

So much for the terms scope and context and truth in context referring to facts.  That they refer to collections of personal opinions and utilitarian advantange is pretty explicit above.  Additionally, it's useful to reiterate that under subjectivism, purportedly moral objective statements are not "true in context" - they are false..because..... they fail to accurately report those facts they purport to report - even if they do report some other actual fact.

Well, was the fact of the world's flatness an opinion or a matter of utilitarian advantage? Or did people just "know" shit that wasn't true? In fact, they knew it so convincingly that they might either have laughed you out of the room or burned you at the stake for suggesting a spherical world.

In this kind of case, people have essentially created a kind of welfare equivalent of the Matrix, where they've isolated themselves from reality with a convincing collection of narratives and mutually-affirmed "knowledge."

Here's a question, though-- how sure should WE be that we aren't in exactly that same boat, and that what we are fully convinced represents Facts™ isn't just Flat Earth mk. II?