Alright sport. If you’re unwilling to explain, you can go on being an amateur ethicist and I’ll resume my policy of ignoring the field until something interesting happens.
It turned out you were wrong about this! However you’d like it phrased—you did an experiment that failed to confirm your hypothesis, you need to Notice Your Surprise, etc. - you should update on this information.
What argument? I have so far said little more than that the claim that “morality” is meaningless in ordinary English is unlikely. I don’t need anything more than an ordinary dictionary definition for that.
Alright sport. If you’re unwilling to explain, you can go on being an amateur ethicist and I’ll resume my policy of ignoring the field until something interesting happens.
And I will continue with my policy of not explaining things any adult English speaker knows.
It turned out you were wrong about this! However you’d like it phrased—you did an experiment that failed to confirm your hypothesis, you need to Notice Your Surprise, etc. - you should update on this information.
Refusal to define the key terms that make or break your argument never ends well.
What argument? I have so far said little more than that the claim that “morality” is meaningless in ordinary English is unlikely. I don’t need anything more than an ordinary dictionary definition for that.
… while no two adult English speakers agree on what precisely those things are.
...although they will agree approximately. “it’s not maximally precise from the get go” is a generalised counterargument.
It is not at all obvious that this is a good enough approximation to deal with any interesting situation.