Sure, but that's a different thing though. I haven't claimed that there is a rational explanation for that; I am claiming that Einstein's discoveries involved abductive reasoning, that is involved thinking of new possibilities, theories, that he conjectured might turn out to be explanatory of what is observed.
For example a newly conjectured hypothesis or theory might be explanatory of anomalies that Newtonian physics could not explain, such as the observed procession of the perihelion of Mercury. — Janus
You can be a moral realist and deny the categoricity of moral norms and values. — Bartricks
You can be a moral nihilist and affirm the categoricity of moral norms (most do, in fact) — Bartricks
You can be a moral realist and affirm the categoricity of moral norms. — Bartricks
You're just ignorant and don't understand the difference between moral realism and the claim that moral norms are categorical. — Bartricks
And as for empirical data - go and read some moral philosophers writing about morality.
IN other words, I refer you to moral philosophy. — Bartricks
You're just ignorant and don't understand the difference between moral realism and the claim that moral norms are categorical. — Bartricks
How do you know this? I've asked you several times now to justify your claims of intellectual superiority, — Isaac
I am a moral realist, yes. That, I think, has never seriously been in doubt. Your point?
For I said that most moral philosophers agree that moral norms and values are categorical. I did not say that most moral philosophers are moral realists (although they are that too - even the contemporary ones). — Bartricks
I know more than you do about how value works. — Bartricks
hat is exactly what "isomorphic" refers to. It does not mean that two things are identical.
It just means that the mapping is structure preserving with regards to particular operations on both sides. For example, a Google map is isomorphic with the territory that it depicts, with regards to connecting points on both sides and measuring distances. If a one-inch line on the map corresponds to one mile in the territory, then a two-inch line will correspond to two miles.
So, a language expression is meant to be isomorphic with a belief with regards to logical operations that you could perform on both sides. — alcontali
I know more than you do about how value works. See my argument for details (although take a course in logic first or it won't make sense) — Bartricks
I'd appreciate it if you would type it syntactically in first order predicate logic and define your domains of variables (or constants as the case may be) — Happenstance
Happenstance
No, I can't do that. — Bartricks
No, those aren't beliefs. You can call them beliefs, but that won't make them beliefs. — Bartricks
So are you now saying that beliefs aren't literally a part of expressed language? — Terrapin Station
So again, address my argument not me. — Bartricks
I am not sure I understand your question. None of our values - that is no valuing of ours, no valuing activity that we may be engaged in - are moral values. That's what the argument established. What we sometimes call 'a person's moral values' are just what we think that person takes to be morally valuable. — Bartricks
1. If my values are moral values, then . . . . — Bartricks
"What would be any reason to believe that value could obtain independent of an individual valuing something?" — Terrapin Station
We've all, in various guises, been told we don't understand the terminology, the opinion of other moral philosophers, or sometimes even just logic itself. On no occasion have you provided a shred of evidence to support your assertion that you have the 'right' interpretation in these disputed cases, and you've repeatedly failed to respond substantively to any of my counter-arguments (the moral realism of your premise, the epistemic peer argument with regards to disputed reasoning, the selective use of appeals to authority) and yet here you are talking about my approach instead. Hardly leading by example in the "address the argument not the person" stakes are you? — Isaac
The argument is more interesting than me. — Bartricks
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.