And as I've said so many times now, these disagreements ended when evidence was presented - evidence which was explainable in a clear and concise way.
You are not able to do this with morality, so don't pretend it's the same sort of thing.
Actually scientists believe they had found the objective facts each time they make a new discovery. They thought the universe was static as an objective fact. They thought the Big Bang was an explosion of some sort as a fact. They thought the Big Bang was a expansion as a fact. Now even the currect theory which is regarded as fact is being questioned.
Science just has an educuated guess based on observations. But the observations and understanding is always limited to the equipment and knowledge. Plus it is limited in what it investigates (physical stuff) so they can never know all the facts. Look at Dark Matter and Energy.
Scientific theories seem to have an expiry date. The history of science, it is claimed, is at odds with scientific realism’s epistemic optimism. It is full of theories which were shown to be false and abandoned, despite their empirical successes. Hence, it is claimed, realists cannot be warranted optimistic about the (approximate) truth of currently empirically successful theories.
Realism and Theory Change in Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And whatever it is, if it is accepted as objectively true, it will be explainable in a clear and precise language.
Actually when it comes to cosmology, physics, and evolution the explainations are becoming increasingly complicated and unclear. So many add on are required to keep the idea within current assumptions that its becoming more complicated to the point scientists begin to doubt the theory.
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
I assume you mean the turn of the 20th century, 120 years ago. Given that we didn't even have the CMBR back then, are you really surprised that there was such disagreement when we had such an incomplete picture?
The CMBR was only one example of what scienctists think is evdience for the BIG Bang model. But as mentioned the Big Bang has many problems so it cannot be considered objective fact. But in the meantime they think they have found the objective facts only for them to be proven wrong again and again.
However, you can't conclude that morality is similarly objective just because you have an example of one non-physical thing which is objective. That's the fallacy of false equivilency.
That wasn't my aim. I was first trying to show that there are non-physical truths/facts in the first place before any attempt to show they are actaully real. Its only taken near on a 1,000 pages to achieve this.
No we don't.
Give me an example of this language of morality then.
I already have many times ie "Rape is wrong" and "it is wrong even if someone claims it not subjectively". Thats pretty clear language. Moral langauge is different to other areas like descriptive language as its normative. But its still pretty clear what it is saying.
Something along the lines of what these pages describe:
"If..., Then..."
1.1 Logical Operations
Moral language cannot be reduced to logic. It is different. The language itself has truth value. A statement like "Rape is wrong" requires an objective determination of it being either right or wrong. Its evaluative and making a judgement. That is different to descriptive statements like in science for which logic is more an appropriate tool.
You seem to be just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. It's almost like whatever position I take, you MUST take the opposite position.
For example, here you are saying, "The point is there is no such thing as colours. Our brain makes them up."
Yet back in post 948, you said, "There is a colour "Red" yet its something we cannot explain or test."
So are colours real or not?
Obviously when I say there is a colour Red that this is omething humans really believe that "there is such things as colours like there are the balls that use those colours. We see the green colour of grass and the Blue sky and believe they are like physical states. But they are not, they are abstract concepts that don't exist. Yet because they really exists as abstracts that influence reality they are regarded as abstract facts. So there are facts/truth about the world that are not physical.
I've said many times that the reason we have our moral views the way they are is because those are the views that helped our societies survive. It's not the "Oh, we'll just choose our morals at random and oh look, they just coincidentally happen to match what we need to keep our societies going" idea you seem to think it is.
OK then you are acknowledging that we don't subjectively choose morality because "Consensus of choice" alone doesnt make morality normative. It has to have some basis and the agreed morality is based on protecting people and society. Thats an objective basis.
Otherwise if its just "Consensus"alone then any sub-culture or forigne culture who has different morals even if immoral to us have equal moral values (though different) and cannot be wrong. Its just their relative view and should be tolerated.
Therefore we would have to say if another culture just happened to agree on killing old people to save resources or treating women like 2nd class citizens that we would have to say they have to say that is just their relative view and each culture has a right to their own moral truths and therefore we should tolerate these immoral acts. That to me makes no sense.
