I think this post underestimates the possibility for mis-communication on the “fact” level.
First, facts are hard to figure out. This is a fact (heh) worth repeating again and again in a community like this one. When one claims to search for objective truth, one must be held to a very high standard.
Second, two people operating at the ‘fact’ level might misunderstand each other if they are making observations on different conceptual levels. Russel never accepted Godel’s incompleteness work because he was unwilling to engage with Godel’s meta-level interpretation of certain Principia Mathematica expressions. Both were looking at the same expression, but each saw different true facts about it.
Third, many discussions here and in the real world are about facts about values.
When everyone is operating on the level of facts, they are detachedly trying to discover the truth about a certain subject.
I’m not saying that we can’t rationally discuss values, but the idea that we can do so detachedly is less obvious. We should have values, and we should be attached to them (I value values!). If you disagree with me about that, are we disagreeing about facts or about values?
Where does the OP say we are trying to discuss values objectively? If you are signaling your own values, obviously you are attached to them.
If there are objective facts about values, they can be discussed objectively on the fact level. Whether or not in practice anyone can objectively discuss facts about their own values is another question.
I think this post underestimates the possibility for mis-communication on the “fact” level.
First, facts are hard to figure out. This is a fact (heh) worth repeating again and again in a community like this one. When one claims to search for objective truth, one must be held to a very high standard.
Second, two people operating at the ‘fact’ level might misunderstand each other if they are making observations on different conceptual levels. Russel never accepted Godel’s incompleteness work because he was unwilling to engage with Godel’s meta-level interpretation of certain Principia Mathematica expressions. Both were looking at the same expression, but each saw different true facts about it.
Third, many discussions here and in the real world are about facts about values.
I’m not saying that we can’t rationally discuss values, but the idea that we can do so detachedly is less obvious. We should have values, and we should be attached to them (I value values!). If you disagree with me about that, are we disagreeing about facts or about values?
Where does the OP say we are trying to discuss values objectively? If you are signaling your own values, obviously you are attached to them.
If there are objective facts about values, they can be discussed objectively on the fact level. Whether or not in practice anyone can objectively discuss facts about their own values is another question.