I think measurable/non-measurable *is* a vital distinction and one I wished I'd thought about in other arguments, but I don't think it's the one I was trying to make here.
Look at my original example. I say some things are WRONG. Some other things may or may not be wrong because we don't know enough, but I don't think that devalues the idea. So, for instance:
Factual (in my sense): ice-cream is cold. Moral (in my sense): dying early is bad Factual but false: ice-cream is hot. Factual and probably true but we're not sure: Eating *too much* ice-cream will make you fat, and more likely to die young. Moral and probably true but we're not sure: Therefore eating *too much* icecream is a (morally-)bad thing to do.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-05 03:42 pm (UTC)Look at my original example. I say some things are WRONG. Some other things may or may not be wrong because we don't know enough, but I don't think that devalues the idea. So, for instance:
Factual (in my sense): ice-cream is cold.
Moral (in my sense): dying early is bad
Factual but false: ice-cream is hot.
Factual and probably true but we're not sure: Eating *too much* ice-cream will make you fat, and more likely to die young.
Moral and probably true but we're not sure: Therefore eating *too much* icecream is a (morally-)bad thing to do.
Does that make any more sense?