Maybe this person is just trying to approach something extremely obscure. — I like sushi

Yes, i think so! Makes it quite hard to know where the competence ends for myself too lol

It's questionable whether pain is properly a sensation rather than a sort of idea. This is because pain crosses all the sense types. Generally we think of pain as a type of touch, but sharp sounds can be painful, bright lights can be painful, even the tastes and smells which we judge as very bad can be painful. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand it being questionable, but I do not understand actually thinking this. Pain is a sensation of touch with varying degrees to it - high-enough, and you experience a sensation. The aversion response is certainly an emotional/psychological aspect of pain, but that aspect is not necessary to describe pain. It is the ideal response to pain (well, pain accurately alerting one to an injury anyhow).
Loud-enough noises vibrate elements of the ear in "painful" ways such that the physical vibrations send the signal to "stop/avoid this noise" to the brain to avoid damage but often, these go either unheeded emotionally, or are overwhelmed by more, or higher-degree sensations (think about wtf someone needs to turn the music down to read road signs correctly).
Similarly with other senses - smells - some chilis are physically dangerous to smell due to the chemical composition of the air which carries the aroma in question - they can destroy cells in the nose/sinuses. These are, in the cases you've pointed out, anyway, the same thing(i.e a sensation) under different levels of description - but they are not 'different' ways of accessing the same mental phenomenon. For completeness, you mention taste - but 'painful' taste is that which is actually harming the tastebuds (bloody chilis do not like humans!!) Though, i take pain to be just that, anyway so perhaps 'idea' is actually correct anyway? Sensation, as best I can tell, is the mental percept resulting from a sensory stimulus. They can, in that way, simply be wrong if our machinery isn't calibrated to accurately convey the local issue (injury) to the brain for review.

Notice the use of "or" which allows ambiguity. — Metaphysician Undercover

If 'pain' can be characterised as a mental phenomenon, the 'or' is only indicating the cause (i.e what triggered the c/a-fibers). I'm unsure this allows for any per se ambiguity in the concept. The one exception here would be "emotional pain" which I think is incorrectly labelled pain rather than discomfort - which can, acceptably, be left very vague and subjective. "sensation" per se is not-well defined, i'll grant you - but it seems pretty obvious that a "bodily" sensation must be a the result of the senses. This then gets into how mental phenomena such as pain are merely triggered by the senses and so pain, within a dream, could not properly be described as sensation, but an idea. One which is triggered by the senses in some way, would be a sensation. Does that at least track with the delineation you're outlining?

The second definition — Metaphysician Undercover

I would say this is a good example where a word is referring to two obviously different things and we can jettison that second def. for the purpose of this discussion. I take it to be a metaphorical extension of the first, in any case, to apply to 'the body of persons' involved in the 'sensation' caused. As if humans were atomic parts of a whole. So, it seems irrelevant to discussing 'bodily sensation', as we seem to be doing.

what happens with the conscious awareness of pain. and consequently the use of the word "pain", is that it becomes a concept which we use to refer to a type of "sensation" which is emotionally based, rather than being based in sense perception — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think this is right, but I do think that this does happen, wrongly. The above responses go some way as to why. Emotions often conflict with the sensation of pain. I believe pain is, like vision, a result of sense perception but is simply open to the all the aberrations vision is open to, being that we never "view" the actual object in the visual field on this account. Pain is rightly not conceptualised as something 'taken in' from without, via the senses, but something produced by the sense-data of touch interacting with the sense organ (in this case, pain receptors/skin variously described as such under particular conditions of intensity, locality etc.. receiving pressure, angle, surface coverage, angle-of-motion etc.. to inform the signal to be sent). All senses are indirect in this way as I understand them both on the empirical, process related information, and the conceptual coherence (or, incoherence, really) involved. And they are all open to being wrong. I think holding a 1:1 concept of the internal representation of sensory data is probably wrong.

Pain is commonly contrasted with pleasure — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is, at best, misleading. The opposite to pain or pleasure is a lack of touch sensation. Nothing to trigger a percept of either. They aren't entirely dispositional states - 'pleasure' can be characterized as uncomfortable, and pain as satisfying.

In this way, the emotionally based feeling, or sensation, has a causal object, but the object is a good, as a goal or objective, rather than a sense percept. — Metaphysician Undercover

This, to me, went completely off the rails right before this conclusion. Introducing 'the Good' made this almost impossible for me to wade into, and I apologise as it seems to just not make much sense as a result. I realise that's as likely to be me missing something!

DELETED

If you don't sign any marriage-related government documents, these governments simply won't get involved. — Tarskian

Patently false. But, even so, you've acknowledge that the form of government violates your (1) in those cases. I understand what you're trying to get at, but its simply not the case.

I spent one whole year in Indonesia — Tarskian

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/08/indonesia-new-criminal-code-disastrous-rights Do not get started on Indonesia. Being an atheist is theoretically punishable by death (not the dumbest law on the books, it seems). https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/1/2
https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=ilrev
https://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2008/44.pdf

mandatory charity — Tarskian

Is a complete contradiction. Smelling anything yet?

Again, sexual regulations are based on self-discipline. — Tarskian

No. Regulations are there to curb lacks of self-discipline. And apparently, 'discipline' means doing what the law says. This is a nonsense response.

From your same link (Wikipedia no less!!):
Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen still legally enforce Zakat, and a couple others regulate it at a state level.. Further, your quoted extract simply puts Allah in the place of hte 'local mob overlords' as to motivating factors. To put it in 'wittier' terms, a 'Cosmic North Korea' which ensures you pay your fucking taxes. AND Allah doesn't exist. So this is many many times worse than an enforced taxation system. Can you imagine the mid-east without Oil? Nope. The 20th century would not have been kind.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no country in the world that would try to enforce mandatory charity on foreigners. — Tarskian

What does this have to do with anything?

I personally do not trust the local ruling mafia for that job. — Tarskian

It sounds as if you would trust a Global Theocratic Hegemony tho?

Putting them together in non-duality is very difficult. Maybe i can do it someday — Gregory

Fair enough. I think this might have been what I teasing out. I'm unsure, as I didn't expect anything particular LOL.

Thank you.

Ok cool. That clarifies most of what you've said, and makes a couple of things more opaque :sweat:
But, thank you - my confusion is now slain.

Oh, I see where you've come from now.

Hmmm, I do not think that is the case. I don't think Europe will actually tolerate what underlies your point there (which is a valid one).
"no tolerance for intolerance no more". We have enough (and dare I speak vaguely semi-almost positively here..) hard-line anti-non-western types to hold hte fort, I think. And most of them love guns!

Most governments outside the West are acceptable to me and generally meet my requirements. — Tarskian

No, they don't. The majority of governments outside of the west violate either (1) via religious/sex-specific regulation or violates the underlying deception in your response to tax questions. For example, interest on capital is against Sharia - but if a Sharia country asked you to 'donate' you'd be doing the same thing as paying a tax. It should be clear though, that tax is not illegal under Sharia - it is just worded in esoteric terms (you can have a read here - pay attention to statements such as "The State achieves this by imposing taxes upon the Muslims such that these needs and interests are met without being exceeded. These taxes should only be taken from people’s surplus wealth." and its inferences.

The problem there, then, even if you are find with the interest-less tax system, is swallowing theocracy dedicated to a clearly illogical, unsubstantiated story about pedophile warlord.

Emergent consciousness is certainly a fact psychologically. We develope in stages thru life. The philosophical aspect is different for me. — Gregory

Yes, I think this is a fairly clear take on how the difference obtains - your underlined doesn't relate to the philosophical issues much. But in practical terms, this is what we're trying to explain.

I think these other ideas are fertile, but incomplete (as to concepts) the way you've put them forward. An eg:

The self is certainly a substance in that the human body is a substance. — Gregory

This seems to require mind-body dualism, or a solution to the interaction problem immediately. So, to get around this, I would say lets be a bit more careful:

The body is an object. The 'self' is a being (ontologically) but consists in something over-and-above the body. Again, I don't accept this theory - But i think this formulation gives you room to clarify what you are taking to be "the self" aside from the physical body - acknowledging we are more than the body. (that's a thinly veiled question to you! LOL).

Wittgenstein enthralled himself with ambiguity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ain't that the truth. I think this makes a lot of commentary on him redundant, too. Russell obviously had some insight, and the original translators too but overall, so much murkiness due to his ambiguous language (ironic, lol) as to what's being discussed.

Can you see something (relatively simple 'something') that could be a difference between pain and colour as sensations? Or a way in whcih one is not a sensation the way the other is and therefore supporting Witty's endless assurances that our language is hte problem, and not hte problems. LOL.

West meets Islam. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel is on the fringes of 'the West' to be fair, though. It's not as if the we're going to scramble to her defence in a religious conflict. I think this is partially why many have just stayed out of it and commented only on aid efforts.

Could it be that both have more than "meets the eye"? — Gregory

Certainly could., and I personally don't quite have positions on those. "The self" to me needs to align with identity, which i essentially do not think is coherent (in terms of 'persons'). Tricky to say...

LMAOOOO. Fair enough

There's a bit of an identity crisis here. — creativesoul

Ah, no (after reading your response), this is my bad. "any given red pen" should have been the phrase, because it matters not what instance we're talking about. Either pens can be red, whether or not we know they are, or they can only be red in virtue of our experiencing them as red. One must trump the other, save for lower-level disagreements.

So, yes. — creativesoul

Okay. This may clarify some of what I was confused about in your different phrasings and descriptions.

I wouldn't say that. — creativesoul

What do you take the pen to be when it isn't being perceived. Red? Or Red-causing? What element of it is red, when not being perceived? This is what I am not able to ascertain in any of these realist accounts. What makes the pen red "out there" (we know that 'use' is what makes it a pen, so I'm halfway in understanding the position).

the real world issue of why transport planning is in a bind. — apokrisis

I see this as an intractable problem. I think 'your' side, as it were takes the "just get on board already" take. If not, fair enough - it feels as if your solution would be to (legislate?) regulate against either single-user or less-than-five-user motor transport, so that cycling and hte like can flourish. I think this is misguided and a bit of a reversion, in terms of historical development (note: that does not make it bad).

But in the end, I had the choice. That makes a big difference. — apokrisis

This is likely relevant, but when i did have the choice I had actually saved a fund to leave (unexpected child as spanner, in this story).

But since the late 1990's, we've begun to resemble the US in as much as we borrow their identity politics and right wing tropes. — Tom Storm

The left in Australia has taken after the US far more than the right.

Ok, right, so then there's a Yes/No answer here:

Are you suggesting the Red Pen is actually out there, in the world, whether or not it is perceived?

And that the mind merely does the perceiving of a mind-independent red pen? Yes? No?

Above pls LOL

This skips over what I am asking you to point out - which is how that actually is the case if we're saying "red pen" is a phenomena of the mind.

You aren't adequately addressing the question. It is not plain or clear what you mean, because your claim relies on several things i am wanting clarity on.

If I am entirely misapprehending you, and you actually hold the position that "A red pen" exists out there, on the table, regardless of any facts of perception then my response is entirely inapt, and this goes back a few pages... That seems plainly wrong to me. But you're holding that there is a red pen in one instance, and not the other two. I want to know why you think that... not jus reassert it?

NB: The I responded when all you had said was "Too bad". That certainly seemed like bad faith, no?

So are there countries where you would be sure that you would hate them less? — apokrisis

I can't be sure, obviously (i'm sure from without, i'd think this about NZ! My family certainly did). But, on best-estimations: Ireland, Italy, USA(parts thereof), Canada (parts thereof), Japan (parts thereof), Hong Kong, and many others.

Again, public transport is not a particularly large factor. You seem to be thinking that it is, and then assuming I have some utopia in mind. I don't. I just hate living in NZ. The rest can be ignored, it seems. Their travel habits don't matter to me, other than noting things like getting around NYC was infinitely easier, more fun and fulfilling than is getting around AKL (or WGT when im there). My opinions on public travel (which, in this case was specifically about the bad attitudes of cyclists who think they are paragons of morally-informed social justice or something to the point of being routinely abusive) aren't all that relevant to my hating NZ, or preferring elsewhere. Clearly, this is no longer apt for this thread. If you care, feel free to PM with any questions, but I assume its uninteresting in the extreme to you. FAir enough too.

We already drew and maintained the distinctions between seeing, hallucinating, and dreaming?

Those still hold. — creativesoul

Am I am asking for a justification. Intuitively, I am (and have been) agreeing with you. They are clearly different experiences. My point in these last two comments has been to tease out what you see as different between them, if what we're happy to say is that all three obtain in the mind.

There are no red pens in hallucinations and/or dreams thereof. — creativesoul

I think this is incorrect, depending on your response to what the difference would be between these and the "seeing" instance. That's all I'm asking... I would call it incorrect if we cannot pick out a feature of hte 'actual' seeing of a Red pen in contrast to the other two. I hve to say, this seemed clear to me rereading the exchange.

The other things you've replied seem to assume something other htan the above, so ill wait for a response here before approaching them, if the seem relevant at that point :)

Hmmm, what would that have to do with what I've said? The claim is, roughly: Whether or not one takes the media seriously is based on whether it supports their current pet point-to-be-made".
The source is irrelevant unless you want to talk about bias in picking one's sources (even more obvious there, in the main as Ground News shows with statistical analysis of most articles it posts as to who is publishing/reading those stories/takes).

Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen in general? I have given an example (which more starkly illustrates this, as the source doesn't align, but the content does, with expectation).

Heres another
And another
Another
More

This seems a fairly obvious phenomena no? I'm not using this to impugn anyone in particular.

When 'you' have biological machinery close enough to our own. — creativesoul

This is unfortunately, quite unhelpful. That obtains in all three cases and provides no basis to delineate.

What difference are you drawing/maintaining? If it's unacceptably weak, then why mention it? — creativesoul

None. This is literally something I am asking you to address. You drew the distinction. I would like a conceptual analysis of the difference between the three cases. If that distinction is unacceptably weak (I am questioning whether it is and asking for clarity)) why did you mention it?

I see the distinction you made as weak - I am trying to have you explain what it is in your mind, so we can talk about it.

Never said it was; — Mww

self’s consciousness of it, which just is the quality of his state. — Mww

This is a circle my guy. Not uncommon in Kant, it seems. Onward..

So a cat born in a barn is not a cow? Curious. Food for thought. — Lionino

LMAO, nice.

I blame your utter insanity. — unenlightened

unenlightened it is :P

Don't be ungrateful to the country that allows you to reside there. — javi2541997

Are you joking, or just being weird again? This country doesn't "allow" me to reside here. It is legally obligated to accept me here.

you cannot have that animosity with New Zealand — javi2541997

Yes. Yes I can.

Do your kids feel insecure when they come back from school, for example? Is the system so corrupt that it is impossible to manage things with public administration? — javi2541997

I don't know why, or what exactly you're asking. It has nothing to do with me disliking, very strongly, living in New Zealand. It is not, in any way, relevant, to you find other faults with a different place. Dislike my attitude all you want mate.

Cars are a trap to make people feel the fallacy of 'freedom' — javi2541997

Right-o mate. Can't get on board with this type of attitude :P

So, don't be ungrateful to NZ. — javi2541997

This is inappropriate. This entire exchange is bizarre. It is not on others to influence or inform how i feel about the country in which i've lived in for 28 years.

So it decided to just plunge in and get it done how it could. — apokrisis

Which is not the worst thing in the world. (not that you've suggested this..) I've not intimated NZ is the worst country in the world. I just hate it here. That's all. Various reason, largely biases and personal disposition. Not sure what's controversial getting you lot up in arms.

Now the elegant villa in the tree lined street can suddenly find two three storey apartment blocks - made of shit panelling and with a concrete pad for half a dozen cars - looming over it within a year. — apokrisis

This seems to illustrate you're operating from the same place as i am. That's fine. You like NZ and see hopeful ways forward. I would prefer to let this country stew in its predictable small-pondedness and go elsewhere for better pasture (in many ways - public transport is low on the list - its just the subject of the thread).

Amadeus complained about New Zealand public transport, but how many people in Teruel or Jaén would give for some of it! — javi2541997

This is exactly whataboutism.

Are implying that there is a world beyond appearances that can somehow be known? — SophistiCat

A "world beyond appearances" in this case, is just the world. It is not veridical to claim the stars and Sun orbit the Earth. It is a cheap and cheerful heuristic - probably to ensure correct directionality when reading stars. We now have telescopes, and better thinking. Does this mean it was true then, but not now?

Hmm. I agree prima facie with your formulation. But, this presents a bit of an issue to me.
When do you actually 'see' a Red pen?
Given that we only call the pen 'red' by convention, can this particular difference (realistically, the proximity to the trigger (whereas dreaming is far askance)) really do much lifting?
In all three cases we're experiencing the event of 'looking at an object we apprehend as a pen which will write with red ink", right? We're trying to delineate between them with levels of 'world-aptness' to ascertain whether colour obtains within, or without.

(Aside: deception also causes an issue with Banno's account quite directly - hand me that red pen. *hands you a "blue pen' which is coloured Red externally* - can you see the muddle here? Not rhetorical - if I'm missing or overthinking, please help! lol)

If the result of all this is that we never 'actually' see a red pen, when contrasting several obviously different experiences I'm unsure where that would leave us.. Uncomfortable, no doubt lol. And the question is no longer open to us. Some of this is linguistic though. When I say "see" I only mean to say that I currrently "mentally apprehend that which I have come to believe is X". Beyond this, I can't say i'm "seeing" any objects. Looking at them, sure.

LOL fair enough then mate.

The US is not the democracy it defended in world wars. Both the Republicans and Democrats are promising to take care of us, leaving us nothing to do but obey and be thankful we are so well cared for. — Athena

Yes, I see this. But there is a tenuous, speculative connection to fascism involved in the analysis. Is there something deeper being indicated here?

I'd love to think myself so clever that I pierced this complex philosophy, but I find that hard to believe. — Hanover

Witty's? You need only be about a 16 year old who is not on Tik Tok to understand that he is full of it, most of hte time, and wants to upend things because its fun. Clever is what he was. I would want to be clear. Something he seemed entirely incapable of.

Phenomenally, there isn't. But I don't think he picked up what you were asking. Which is, cause (otherwise, his answer is a complete one and presents no issues). The cause differs in the three cases (the second two, its possible they don't at-base, but they are related experiences anyway).

And I am sorry you wasted your money on a vacuous education in a field that has all but been abandoned. — Constance

You seem to be ignorant to the entire world of philosophy. And a dick.

https://againstprofphil.org/author/z/
https://academic-sexual-misconduct-database.org/person/robert-hanna

This is the company you're keeping. Reflect.

This is what hierarchies ought aim for? — Moliere

I think what's being said is that, unless hijacked from without, this is what hierarchies do as a matter of course, rather htan an aim of them. It is their function. I - in a rough and ready sense - would agree. Though, it's a flimsy agreement LOL

With respect, this is an obviously wrong, and obviously biased interpretation of what is going on in these scenarios (acknowledging many of those 'types' DO do what you've suggested.

Entertaining possibilities is not an appeal to ignorance. Point blank period. Entertaining possibilities is how we figure out what goes in the gaps. That you are apparently reticent to admit yourself to a discussion of (what currently appear to be) super/supranatural explanations for phenomena we simply have no clue about is a similar type of commitment to thinking that something science cannot explain will fill the gap - as that is an appeal to ignorance quite directly. What Wayfarer is doing is canvassing options that may eventually fall to science to explain but are currently not in it's gaze. If what you are trying to get at is that certain options under the light are not logically possible and so would require an epistemic supernaturality, I can't see how this is what's being discussed, but accept all you say in that light. Good stuff.

If you are not open to this game, why bothering commenting on the players? Let them have their game.

consciousness is nothing more than the qualitative state of the human subject — Mww

Hmm. It seems to me consciousness is not a quality and cannot be conceptualised as a quality (so, in turn, a "qualitative state" is also inapt. It is the basis for quality to enter into experience). Consciousness is a quantity which instantiates qualities (it seems), so while your approach is logically pragmatic it seems to both not capture what we understand about htese phrases for ourselves, and doesn't deliver us any clarity.

if taken literally, perfectly true, as anyone can attest*. — SophistiCat

I can't see the * comment, but this is plainly a misuse of 'literally'. If taken 'literally' it is, after investigation, entirely false. If taken as a description of appearances (i.e not to be taken literally) then it goes through.

The basic point I would make is that colour is not entirely in the mind of an individual, but also functions at a social level. I think that pretty well undeniable. — Banno

Apparently, you read about a 10/10000 of what anyone on the opposite side wrote. This has been attended and move past multiple times. You trying to drag this back is what's mucked up the flow. The discussion otherwise was interesting.

are difficult to maintain on close examination — Banno

Perhaps for you. That would explain why you cannot move past a distinction that doesn't touch on the conflict being worked out.

As always your arguments are non sequiturs. — Michael

Not quite. He's trying to argue for a point neither of us(I don't think) would deny, and applying to a different problem. Standard for him, but not a non sequitur I wouldn't say.

:up: Seems a few of these around at the moment here on TPF.

I'm sorry, but at this stage I am pretty sure you are incapable of rational discourse with another person.

I have read two/three of those books. I have called your bluff on Tractatus, and I have treated your writing with dedicated time, patience and thorough analysis. If your only response is an appeal to the texts I have already read, with a view that I must not have read them if I do not agree with you is honestly pathetic. That is a clear indication you do not understand what you are talking about and do not respect the discursive process.

You clearly have a bent, and one you are unable to look beyond. I say you are trapped in a room. The door is waiting for you to walk through it. Perhaps reading some analytical philosophy will help (i am joking).

Go well.

Above.

a fact about the world, say, electrolysis, — ucarr

Unfortunately, this seems to have ignored the vast majority of what I've said, and run right into the same confusion i teased apart earlier (agreement/disagreement notwithstanding).

Electrolysis is a method for achieving the aim of (usually) electroplating metals. The resulting object would be a fact about the world (or, just to give related examples " X is currently electrolysing Y". A description of the process would be "science about science" where the fact that the process does what it does would be a "science fact". So, you can tease this into:
Electrolysis can destroy follicles achieving an aesthetic hairlessness - A fact about science. In this case, the science of aesthetic electrolysis. It can be gleaned from the basic observation of watching hte process happen.

However, "electrolysis(in this context) is the process of destroying hair follicles by running a charge through a tiny wire under the skin (and all the rest)... " is science fact. It's a description of a scientific process not apprehendable by bare observation. It requires the scientific method to deduce. THe former does not(though, you can argue that both are simply the same thing at different levels - I think we know what we're talking about. If not, Okay - we have more work to do between us :P )

We are allowed to segregate facts about the world into different categories, are we not? — ucarr

Sure. My point is to say that some facts in science are 'theoretical' not instantiated anywhere in-and-of themselves. The speed of light would be one. Whereas, "light takes x time from Sun to Earth" is fact, borne from the scientific method, that stands alone, instantiated "perfectly" in an aspect of the world.

the discovery, when made, lies outside of science? — ucarr

I think this is a slight misstatement, but overall, yes, I'd agree. The hair curler is not an object of science, as eg. But how it works, is (well, assuming that's a relatively settled description lol... I don't know it).

How can this be a non sequitur to a discussion when it responds to a topic you introduced into the discussion? — ucarr

Not so. What you brought up was the "meaningless"ness of the Tony Awards, without the performances they are given. This seems both incoherent (they are interdependent - teh awards are not given for no performance) and a non sequitur, because I made no comment at all abouthe meaningfulness of something. "The Tony Awards" still means "The Tony Awards" if no performances have been considered. They just will not be awarded to anyone. And so you can (hopefully) now see, that you brought in something I did not intend to be spoken about. My intention was to point out that The Tony Awards do not consist in the performances in any respect. They simple are not given sans performances. "meaningful"ness isn't relevant, as best I can tell. It's confusing meaning with meaningful.

How is it you're not confusing relevance with identity? Give me an argument that shows how an award for an acting performance doesn't relate to the acting performance.How can one thing be an award, i.e., recognition, for another thing it doesn't relate to? — ucarr

You are not responding to what I've said. Obviously the award relates to the performance for which it is given. My saying "I am a legal executive" relates to my legal training. They are not, in any way, overlapping elements of the world. A baseball cap is related to the manufacture process, but they are not at all the same thing. I think its possible you are confusing identity and relevance - yet reversing the onus of clarity. It certainly feels that way in your posts. For hte bolded above, I think I'll need to you pedantically explain how you got to that question. I dont assent to it, because it doesn't relate to what I've said, on my terms. I cannot answer, because it appears irrelevant and asks me to defend something I did not say.

Art has no right/wrong value. Art has no moral content — ucarr

No. This is not correct(not quite relevant here), nor the right extrapolation of what i've said. What I've said relates to the fact that you cannot, as an artist or otherwise, call a piece of art "right or wrong". You can only indicate whether, by your subjective lights, its "good or bad". This distinction does not remove moral content. It removes the ability to judge art morally. They are very separate things.
You can, as a scientist or otherwise, call a scientific proposition "right or wrong" (i suppose this is getting to t vs T, so maybe if so we should shut it down there for another time to avoid getting weedy). You cannot call it "good or bad". Where that happens, people are using art criticism to impugn scientific validity (think Charles Murray. His actual robustness isn't relevant. the Bell Curve was judged like an exegesis). And then where people proclaim art is "bad art" they are trying to use scientific judgment schemes such as "correct" or "accurate" which is not apt.

So, with this clarity, I see that what i wrote means precisely what I had intended it to :)

Things are ⇒
⇒
facts, or truth. — ucarr

I'm unsure I agree to this. Some things are feelings. Some things are ranges. Some things are variations. Some things are multiply realized. There are pieces of art which contain scientific facts as a basis for their aesthetic quality. But only on analysis would this become obvious, and you'd assess that basis with scientific rigour, but hte piece of art overall with a critic's scheme. Truth isn't relevant to the overall picture, but it may be that the truth of the included science fact is relevant to the aesthetic of the wider piece. This changes nought here, just quite an interesting little conceptual russian doll.

How sentient beings respond to truth introduces morals. — ucarr

I outright reject this, unless what you're getting at is that somehow we can inherently tell shit from shinola. I don't think that's the case, and I think morals mainly come from reacting to events and feelings that follow them. Sometimes they are assented to on a social basis, rather than an analysis of any kind - but mostly, truth isn't relevant to morality Imo unless you're after an objective morality, which I reject.

I'm unsure of the meaning of "cross-culturalism" in this context. — ucarr

Science, the method, transcends culture. No, it is not a 'Western' idea, it is not 'chauvanistic' to think careful observation and measurement is how we come to robust conclusions about hte world. It works wherever it is carried out, and in whatever context.

The social sciences do not respond this way to the world. Carrying out an analysis of, let's say, gender divisions, will require different methodologies among the Objibwe, in Mali, in Dublin, in Tehran etc.. etc... You can't carry the same assumptions around with you to get accurate data. But you can with 'science'. Publishing though - ooof. The same compartmentalisation and disagreements occur there.

It's not the case simplicity of theory is a strategy for achieving the best outcomes? — ucarr

Of course. You're, again, conflating two quite different inferences. The outcomes don't matter. The method for getting there does. But carrying out hte method correctly means "so be it" as regards the outcome. You seem to be confusing relevance and identity *wink wink*.

I don't think the outcomes of cancer research are matters of indifference to the researchers. — ucarr

as researchers they, at least, should be. You cannot aim at an outcome. You do the work. THe outcome is as it is. Researchers are human though, so obviously they're going to care. This is conflation, again.

Are the plays of Shakespeare culture bound? — ucarr

100% they are culture bound - but I'm unsure I get what you're asking, because this seems silly and you're not. They are based in 16th century Europe. Written in Middle English and refer to humour, politics (geo as well as local), social interactions and institutions of the time. They are completely culture-bound. That other cultures enjoy Shakespeare is a different fact with different interpretations. It could simply be the force of colonialism has hoodwinked other cultures into giving a toss. Who knows. A different conversation. (I suppose what one might want to say here, is that those plays are culture-bound but the themes are not. But then, they will exist in some cultures and not others, so still culture-bound but if a different way).

The culture-bound, policy-driving forces of Mein Kampf aren't a problem? — ucarr

You're confusing a political (practical) problem with an accounting problem. My descriptions of those two modes of (lets just say) are not problematic. Mein Kampf, ironically, instantiates perfectly what I mean by the distinction - the Bell Curve vs Mein Kampf.

Pseudo-intellectualism is looking like the most probably explanation of this person's writing. — I like sushi

That seems a bit much to me. I think confusing similar concepts is enough to explain. ucarr appears very thoughtful to me, and wanting to engage - I tend to see a lack of wanting to engage with pseudo-intellectualism (couple of other threads active rn are dead-on examples). I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things :P Perhaps I'm a bit sanguine as to this.