Talk:Fact-value distinction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merging articles? Bad logic
I don't know why you would want to say that the Fact-Value Distinction is less known, or should be collapsed into 'Is-ought', you got things backwards, really. This article is out on the Internet in many non-wiki encyclopededia, (just do a google search to see) so it has value and should remain as such. The article is directly related to Ruth Ann Putnam's articles with the same title. If people want to expand it- fine- but to merge it is to deprive the work of a useful article, that carries much more currency than just 'Is-ought'. --Mikerussell 16:53, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if this article, and the Is-ought problem article, had links to one another. --saulkaiserman 16:20, 2006 February 22
- why not just add it, as see also, which I did. But to be honest, that article is not very shrply written, it starts with this phrase "seems to be a big difference" between Is and Ought statements. Somebody could probably do a better job describing and explaining what this 'big difference' is. Long time since I read Hume's primary works, but I doubt he used the term 'big difference' --Mikerussell 15:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no difference between the is-ought problem and the fact-value distinction; they're very slightly different ways of referring to an identical problem. A fact is an is-statement. A value is an ought-statement. Both articles cover the problems of deriving a value (ought-statement) from a fact, (is-statement,) and a well-written encyclopedia article on one should be almost identical to one on the other. (With perhaps some differences in information about historical usage.) Both articles are quite rambly and unencyclopedic - I'll try to clean one up, but before starting I think it's worth deciding which one, to keep. Inebriatedonkey 09:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naturalistic fallacy
The naturalistic fallacy refers to a faulty belief people make that VALUES can be deduced from FACTS or vice versa, not what the recent editor was suggesting in the text, "confusing the fact-value distinction". Maybe more should be added to that section to make things clearer, but all one really has to do is hyperlink to the Naturalistic fallacy article to get an idea. The 'Fallacy' part is the idea throughout history, peoples thought values were determined by facts or science, which the fact-value distinction does away with- or is the intellectual 'cure' for that misguided belief, at least according to those who subscribe to the fact-value distinction. The 'Natural" part of the concept refers to the fact that peoples who did not understand the F-V distinction thought that values could be found 'in nature' or that Natural Law was a philosophically sound concept. This why Hume is called a skeptic- for he and others came to undermine the centuries old belief, found most plainly in Christian theology and philosophy since St. Augustine through Luther, Calvin and Hooker, that a rational examination of nature could produce a natural order or law applicable everywhere and always --Mikerussell 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)--Mikerussell 22:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, but the DISTINCTION is not a FALLACY. Making the distinction is not fallacious; confusing it is. Let's try to say it correctly, and not just revert to the previous error.
- WRONG, you cannot interject your own opinion into the article. This a black and white thing, the very definition of the fact-value distinction is that it is a FALLACY. If you disagree- so what? The concept, centuries old say it is fallacious. Have you consulted the texts that are cited in the bibliography? (Putnam's especially) If you want to start another article about how you think Facts and Values do exist independently, and people just confuse them at times, then do so; however, this is the very thing that marks the concept in distinction to modern social science. If you cannot grasp this don't try to ruin a valid article. The fact-value distinction and/or Naturalistic Fallacy does not refer to CONFUSING facts and values- rather it says facts and values DO NOT EXIST INDEPENDENTLY, they are not natural, but constructions created for particuliar purposes in particuliar times and places and the use of these terms mask a deeper appreciation for the actual ground of human understanding. Whether or not most people recognize this, or even most social scientists teach this (which of course they don't since it would call into question much of their research and approach to understanding the phenmena they study) is irrelevant to this point. Sorry if I am overbearing but this article is completely useless if you consistently try to re-interpret the concept to fit your limited opinion. Whether this is true, you can argue in philosophy, but it is a valid concept centuries old and has a place here. --Mikerussell 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PoV
The first definition ("The fact-value distinction is a concept used to distinguish between arguments which can be claimed through reason alone, and those where rationality is limited to describing a collective opinion.") is PoV and must therefore be changed. Velho 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- You will need to explain your comments more fully, at least for the benefit of me. In all honesty, I think there is not a shred of POV in the definition, it is widely accepted as the definition of the fact-value distinction. I am perplexed at the comment? I don't think it needs to be changed in the slightest. Please explain your comment.--Mikerussell 05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry for the delay! The assertion that, regarding value, "rationality is limited to describing a collective opinion" is commited to one of the several "relativisms" and/or to one of the several "anti-realisms" in value matters. See, for instance (!), Raz's more or less recent The Practice of Value: Berkeley Tanner Lectures (Joseph Raz, et al, Clarendon Press, 2003); or Putnam's The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays (Harvard University Press, 2002); or SEP's's article on moral reasoning. It also confounds descriptive and "normative" perspectives of value.
- The assertion that arguments of fact "can be claimed through reason alone" seems to me pre-Kantianly wrong.
- Best, Velho 04:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Velho PoV issues
Quite frankly, I don't think we are on the same page with this, so I welcome you to alter the article- or anybody else too- if you see where your improvements or additions will remedy what you consider to be POV. As I read your remarks, you seem to be taking this article as scientific proof of the difference, as opposed to describing the basic concept as contructed over recent centuries. There is a big difference between PoV writing on wikipedia, and scientific or philosophic disagreement. Your assertion:
"rationality is limited to describing a collective opinion" is commited to one of the several "relativisms" and/or to one of the several "anti-realisms" in value matters.
is quite correct. But how is that PoV, especially if wikipedia has an article on relativism? "rationality is limited to describing a collective opinion" is relativism. So what? Whether relativism is valid or true, is quite frankly, another matter altogether and beyond the scope of a wikipedia article. I think your claims to Kantian philosophy, and your use of words like 'Moral Philosophy' and 'Moral Reasoning' completely miss the point of the article. I am reminded of the disagreement between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger when the former told the ladder to write an ethics for Being and Time and Heidegger correctly stated that it was a complete impossibility to write an 'ethics'. Rather than pre-Kantian, I think your comments are post-Kantianly wrong. The issue of relativism involves the implicit claim made to matters believed to be (wrongly or not) "claimed through reason alone". 'Morality' itself would NOT speak to an article about the fact-value distintinction. As far as Putnam is concerned, I have no knowledge of him- this Hilary person, the sources cited are from a woman named Ruth Ann Putnam who I believe teaches at MIT in Boston. Your Stanford source is not useful or applicable to my mind especially when it begins a topic line as Moral reasoning is individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do.SEP's's article on moral reasoning. That whole article is inapplicable, it already is written from an ignorance of the fact-value distinction, the mere use of the word 'moral', let alone the rather quaint subheadings like: How Can We Reason, Morally, With One Another?
So we are not on the same page here. I suggest you try to edit the article, it is all well and good to claim something is PoV and then cite your sources, it is quite another to actually assimilate the sources and edit the article accordingly. I would be really interested to see how such an edit would improve and/or expand the current article. However, I would just say that the article in about the Fact-value distinction and not Facts and Values per se. Oh well, lunch is over and I must return to wage-earning activities (which I dearly love- in case my boss is surveilling my computer use).--Mikerussell 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Tag II
This tag has been up twice and no comment has been offered. I imagine if 90 days pass, it is useful to withdraw the tag. I suspect it is not likely to be merged easily and thus can stand as is. --Mikerussell 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
