If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). There are facts, therefore there are objective values. — AJJ
Facts are ways that the world happens to be. States of affairs. — Terrapin Station
Would you say the above is a fact? And would you say we ought to believe it? Is there anything we ought to believe? If you say no to the last two questions, ought we to believe that?
It goes on forever. — AJJ
Do you understand the difference between what "fact" refers to and what "thing we ought to believe" refers to? — Terrapin Station
I’m saying there are thing we ought to believe, we ought to believe them because they’re true, and that true things are facts. — AJJ
That's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with the problem with the argument you presented.
The argument you presented went like this:
"If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). "
That only works if:
(1) Objective values and facts are supposedly the same thing, or
(2) "Things we ought to believe" and facts are supposedly the same thing
OR, if
(3) "If there's a fact, then necessarily it has objective value" is true, or
(4) "If there's a fact, then necessarily there's something we ought to believe" is true
(1) and (2) are not conventional definitions of "fact." As unconventional definitions, that could work, though it would be vacuous (as a tautology--"There is no x if there's no x") and it wouldn't have any rhetorical weight, because the rhetorical weight of the argument is gained by appealing to the conventional sense of "fact." — Terrapin Station
That's not (2) it's (4). (2) would be "The conventional sense of 'fact' is thing we ought to believe."If the conventional sense of fact is “something that is true”, and we ought to believe true things, — AJJ
In other words, you're not saying that the definition of fact is "thing we ought to believe." You're saying that it follows from something being a fact that we ought to believe it.
But claiming that something follows requires an argument. — Terrapin Station
By the way, does it follow from a fact that we ought to believe it if humans had never appeared?
Can we not have facts in the absence of humans? — Terrapin Station
Obtuse? this is as simple and straightforward as we can get while still doing philosophy. — Terrapin Station
Imagine the following. Someone gives this argument:
P1: Facts are true things.
P2: We ought not to believe true things.
C: We ought not to believe facts.
Are there any problems with that argument? — Terrapin Station
Terrapin Station
9.2k
↪AJJ
Obtuse? this is as simple and straightforward as we can get while still doing philosophy.
Imagine the following. Someone gives this argument:
P1: Facts are true things.
P2: We ought not to believe true things.
C: We ought not to believe facts.
Are there any problems with that argument? — Terrapin Station
AJJ
215
↪Frank Apisa
Believe it or not, I wasn’t interested in having this type of argument. If there’s a clear objection to the argument in my original post, I would love to here it. So, please could you explain your comment, rather than simply assert it with a “Just sayin’!” on the end. — AJJ
If there’s a clear objection to the argument in my original post, I would love to here it — AJJ
Terrapin has been attempting to do that...to little avail, AJJ.
What do you mean when you use the word "believe" the way you did in the OP? — Frank Apisa
This could be resolved if we just eliminated the word "believe" from the English language. — Frank Apisa
Obviously AJJ is using that word in one of its least desirable, least useful, idiosyncratic forms. — Frank Apisa
Facts in no way generally hinge on us or anything about us. — Terrapin Station
If we never existed, there's obviously nothing we ought to believe. But there are still facts. — Terrapin Station
AJJ
216
Terrapin has been attempting to do that...to little avail, AJJ.
What do you mean when you use the word "believe" the way you did in the OP? — Frank Apisa
No mate. Here’s what you said:
This could be resolved if we just eliminated the word "believe" from the English language. — Frank Apisa
So you should first of all explain that. And...
Obviously AJJ is using that word in one of its least desirable, least useful, idiosyncratic forms. — Frank Apisa
You should explain how I was using the word, since you’ve claimed to know, and then explain what the correct way to use it is, in your view. — AJJ
If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). — AJJ
You’re just getting objective and subjective mixed up here. Whether facts ought to be believed or not doesn’t depend on us if they’re objective. — AJJ
Stephen R.L. Clark’s God, Religion and Reality — AJJ
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last [i.e. 'most important'] consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
Facts don’t depend on whether or not we believe them, sure, but I don’t see how that has a bearing on whether we ought to believe them. — AJJ
It has a bearing, because not accepting facts has consequences. If you're an engineer, and you measure something wrongly, or enter a wrong value, then your bridge will collapse. It has nothing to do with belief - belief doesn't even come into it. And I don't know if 'accepting a fact' is the same as believing that such and such is the case; matters of empirical fact are simply thus, whether you believe it or not. — Wayfarer
I suppose you can say that you ought to accept facts on the basis that not accepting facts has deleterious consequences. But I still don't see much of an argument here. Should I cheat in this exam? Should I take that office stationary for my own use? Should I give this stranger a ride? These are all questions which involve what you ought or ought not to do, but which don't necessarily resolve neatly to matters of fact. You can't say that as a matter of fact, you should never pick up strangers; a lot depends on the circumstances. And there are innumerable such instances in day to day life. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.