When there is an objectively correct option, there is not a 66/33 split. It's more like 99.9/0.1 split.
But quite often there is only a 66/33 split on many scientific ideas. Take Quantum Physics where a survey of scientists on the question
"Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?"
Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows
showed 52% said yes and 48% said no. What you have to consider is that all the examples you gave me once had 66/33 splits. Take climate change. If we go back 50, 30 even 20 years ago you will find more scientists disagreed with climate change. So the split would have even been 33/66. Gradually as the science came in more began to agree.
And the disagreement was settled by presenting the evidence in a clear and rigorously structured language. I have been asking you to do that for morality for ages, and you have refused every time.
But morality is not supported in the same way science facts are. It works in a similar way in that there is an objective and we gradually can come to know that with better understanding.
The North American human slave trade was based on black Africans being a sub species of humans like animals. But we came to understand that all humans are equal. Therefore we came to realize the truth or fact of the matter which enabled us to stop the wrong act.
If we look at Math for example if there was a complex Math equation on the blackboard the majority of people would not be able to work it out. Yet we know that there is a factual or truthful answer to be found. Yet Math is an abstract concept and there is no physical object we can see or test.
The same with morality. Slavery is wrong objectively. We know this is a truth like a law. Any culture who claims slavery is OK is mistaken.
Once again, I will tell you that widespread agreement doesn't mean it is objectively true.
Yes I agree and yet you just gave examples of how widespread agreement supports objective science facts and you have used the how people are conditioned and act like morality is relative/subjective to support your case, same thing.
See how we cannot help but use human experience as the evdience for how morality works. There is no other way to support moral truths than by the way people not only agree about moral truths but actually make then laws like the moral is unbreachable regardless of relative or subjective views.
I'm sorry, what parts of Quantum Mechanics and cosmology are considered fringe areas, and can you show that they are being presented as objective fact?
Yeah "fringe" area was probably not the best word as they are sciences. I meant as a science which has more speculation than other sciences like say physics. Nevertheless being a mainstream science shows that great disagreement can happen there as well.
Though QM is well supported as a theory there is a lot of disagreement about what the findings represent which is part of the theory. ie
Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. The arguments centre on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the difficulties with wavefunction collapse and the related measurement problem, and quantum nonlocality. Perhaps the only consensus that exists about these issues is that there is no consensus.
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia
Cosmology is the same. There are several different ideas about how our universe came to be and there is a lot of disagreement even about the Big Bang even today. But go back 30, 40, 50 or 100 years and you will find continula disagreement until some facts are determined. Sometimes there are wrong assumptions which are found years later like how scientist thought that the universe was eternal. They may have wrong assumptions today.
How the Big Bang Theory Works
Funnily enough, it seems that morality is the only situation where something that you are presenting as "objective fact" needs this alternate way of knowing.
So this tells me you want the same sort of evidence as science has. Well thats not going to happen at least at the moment. Morality is not the only abstract thing that is said to have objective fact or truth about it.
Math is not a physical thing we can test. Yet there are Math Facts. Its a fact that we have consciousness. But something like qualia is not a physical thing we can test. Yet it is real. There is a colour "Red" yet its something we cannot explain or test. We experience music and love as real things yet we cannot pick up and test them. We have justified beliefs which can act as a truth that affects our life. There are other ways to measure fcats and truths.
It's almost like the way we have that we KNOW works doesn't work for showing morality is objective because morality is not objective.
I disagree. We can step back as rational humans and understand there are certain ethical standards we need to have as rules or laws that help us live and get along. Stop the horrible stuff happening. Most nations hold these truths and they could not live without them.
We as humans understand that it is right and best to live as we would be negating our own moral disposotion. So we make these ethical standards like laws using human "LIfe" as intrinsically valuable as the basis.
This is our common agreed basis not because its a matter of agreement alone but because it is what rational and moral humans should do. Anyone who disagrees is mistaken and would be ostrasized.