Epistemological gaps.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Then, what method is the most appropriate at discovering the truth and validity of ethical claims, which philosophy is best known for?

What I think...

It's easier to say that philosophy is morality than that morality is philosophy.

Quoting TheMadFool

It's easier to say that philosophy is morality than that morality is philosophy.

Interesting. So, you're assuming a process based theory. Namely, that the practice of 'philosophy' itself will lead to 'knowing' what is ethical or moral. Somewhat circular but, I get the gist.

Is that right?

Reply to Posty McPostface I mean we're quite sure that philosophy is a ''good'' thing but morality itself seems to be beyond philosophy's reach.

Quoting TheMadFool

I mean we're quite sure that philosophy is a ''good'' thing but morality itself seems to be beyond philosophy's reach.

One of those epistemological gaps manifesting itself in this thread; but, how do we know the practice of 'philosophy' will be a 'good' thing? And, how does one remove the authoritarian tendency of thinking about 'philosophy' in the 'right' way?

Reply to Posty McPostface But surely even a flawless argument is only true if the premises are secure.

So the gap that omniscience would have to fill lies in the truth of what gets assumed as motivation for your premises.

And then when it comes to the general validity of some topic, like ethics, there are the metaphysical level premises that are always going to be open to question.

Is morality objective or subjective ultimately? Either choice is just a necessary leap of faith to secure some definite further line of argument.

So deduction alone never bridges any epistemic gap. The only hope of at least minimising that gap is pragmatic reasoning - a cycle of abduction, deduction and inductive confirmation that can measurable narrow the divide between what was assumed for the sake of argument, and then how that works out in the long run. Given that the question had some purpose.

Quoting apokrisis

And then when it comes to the general validity of some topic, like ethics, there are the metaphysical level premises that are always going to be open to question.

Generally, yes. There is some ambiguity always present in the process of determining what moral truths are generalizable. There have been some outcomes due to this manifest in relativism of moral and ethical truths. However, I do believe that as a species we all have some fundamental desires that can be generalized, such as the golden rule. I guess the divide between the empiricists and rationalists is manifest here; but, we aren't entirely subjective creatures living in our own worlds, so to speak.

Quoting apokrisis

Is morality objective or subjective ultimately? Either choice is just a necessary leap of faith to secure some definite further line of argument.

Both. I don't quite understand the obsession with picking sides with either/or.

Quoting apokrisis

So deduction alone never bridges any epistemic gap. The only hope of at least minimising that gap is pragmatic reasoning - a cycle of abduction, deduction and inductive confirmation that can measurable narrow the divide between what was assumed for the sake of argument, and then how that works out in the long run. Given that the question had some purpose.

Yes, that is again a roundabout way of saying that science can answer these truth per the pragmatists.

Quoting apokrisis

But surely even a flawless argument is only true if the premises are secure.

So the gap that omniscience would have to fill lies in the truth of what gets assumed as motivation for your premises.

Rereading this I find it important that you mention "motivation". Or the desire to do "good". This leads me to believe that science is devoid of this important aspect of incorporating the will to do good or at least is not guided by it. Hence, I return to the question posted in the last sentence of the OP...

Quoting Posty McPostface

Rereading this I find it important that you mention "motivation". Or the desire to do "good"

I only said that pragmatism is epistemically closed by the fact some position works. There has to be a purpose that was thus served.

Whether that desire is for the good is another issue. It becomes part of the meta-ethical question being explored. You could take it as foundational - to the degree you have got a clear idea of its antithesis.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Both. I don't quite understand the obsession with picking sides with either/or.

It’s a corollary of starting a deductive argument. You have to start somewhere. And a foundational fork in the road is the most definite kind of place to start.

And that is also a reason for pragmatism. If you believe reality starts in the vague, then form is what gets imposed by the dialectic. It does still start in the either/or of a foundational act of dichotomisation. But the goal is then a resolution or synthesis.

Quoting apokrisis

I only said that pragmatism is epistemically closed by the fact some position works. There has to be a purpose that was thus served.

You seem to have packed in some concepts quite tightly. Could you expand on the above for my simple mind to comprehend?

Quoting apokrisis

Whether that desire is for the good is another issue. It becomes part of the meta-ethical question being explored. You could take it as foundational - to the degree you have got a clear idea of its antithesis.

Well, it is the whole purpose of philosophy according to Plato, to want and attain the good through the practice of philosophy. I don't see how any progress within the field of philosophy has emerged in regards to that, apart from just squabbles about process based evolution of concepts or dialectics or the comprehension of the platonic forms, which always seem to be fleeting. In some strange sense, it would seem that what people take from philosophy seems always perverted or disguised as snake oil to the betterment of the individual promoting the 'good' in the real world.

Quoting apokrisis

It’s a corollary of starting a deductive argument. You have to start somewhere. And a foundational fork in the road is the most definite kind of place to start.

Pragmatically speaking you are aware that there has been little benefit in trying to state the objective from the subjective. Take the following statement for example to illustrate the futility in trying to do so:

,,There is no objective truth."

Quoting apokrisis

And that is also a reason for pragmatism. If you believe reality starts in the vague, then form is what gets imposed by the dialectic. It does still start in the either/or of a foundational act of dichotomisation. But the goal is then a resolution or synthesis.

Or maybe it's just all logical simples at play in logical/state space. Excuse me for that blurt.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Therefore, every logical fallacy arises due to gaps in knowledge.

I can see how you might think this, but it really doesn't tell us anything. In other words, it doesn't get us anywhere. I could say this about any virtually any subject. For example, my errors in mathematics, biology, history, etc, are due to gaps in knowledge.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Thus, the best method at our disposal in discovering objective truths is science.

This is one of the biggest mistakes we make when it comes to knowledge, viz., that science is somehow superior to other methods of knowing. It really depends on what we're talking about. Is science superior to my experiential knowledge of say, the claim that yesterday I tasted orange juice and it was sweet. I don't need science to make the claim, and I don't need science to know it was true. However, science maybe superior when it comes to analyzing what it is about orange juice that makes it sweet, i.e., what is its molecular makeup, or some such thing. So whether one area of knowledge is superior depends on a variety of things.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Then, what method is the most appropriate at discovering the truth and validity of ethical claims, which philosophy is best known for?

There is no one method that works in every situation, i.e., there is no one description or method at arriving at truth that works in every context.

Quoting Posty McPostface

One can start with the premise that if one were omniscient then no logical fallacies would arise in the reasoning process of a person or entity.

Therefore, every logical fallacy arises due to gaps in knowledge.

Thus, the best method at our disposal in discovering objective truths is science.

This conclusion concerning science doesn't follow from your premise. Logical fallacies arise from mistaken logical process. Science is not the appropriate field of study to determine correct and incorrect logical process.

Quoting Posty McPostface

But, science cannot discover the truth or validity of highly subjective ethical or moral claims.

Then, what method is the most appropriate at discovering the truth and validity of ethical claims, which philosophy is best known for?

Morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong, in general, and so this extends to include right and wrong in various logical processes. So the field of study which deals with correct and incorrect logical process, and acts to determine logical fallacies, is a subcategory of morality. This is why Socrates had to ascend all the way to "the good" in order to establish a foundation from which to attack the fallacies of the sophists. The method which supports this ascent is Plato's dialectics. This method involves an analysis of the use of words in argumentation, to determine improper use and the fallacies which follow, in an effort toward producing true definitions.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Could you expand on the above for my simple mind to comprehend?

It’s straightforward. The very notion of something working says there was some purpose being served.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Well, it is the whole purpose of philosophy according to Plato, to want and attain the good through the practice of philosophy. I don't see how any progress within the field of philosophy has emerged in regards to that,

Some people might think ethics is the prime purpose of philosophy. Others might target being. Or reasoning.

Quoting Sam26

I can see how you might think this, but it really doesn't tell us anything. In other words, it doesn't get us anywhere. I could say this about any virtually any subject. For example, my errors in mathematics, biology, history, etc, are due to gaps in knowledge.

The whole purpose in a Wittgenstein'ian sense is to know the limits of one's knowledge as to prevent nonsense from arising.

Quoting Sam26

This is one of the biggest mistakes we make when it comes to knowledge, viz., that science is somehow superior to other methods of knowing. It really depends on what we're talking about. Is science superior to my experiential knowledge of say, the claim that yesterday I tasted orange juice and it was sweet. I don't need science to make the claim, and I don't need science to know it was true. However, science maybe superior when it comes to analyzing what it is about orange juice that makes it sweet, i.e., what is its molecular makeup, or some such thing. So whether one area of knowledge is superior depends on a variety of things.

So, we just need to know when one or some other tool is appropriately used in discovering truths about facts instead of another. I already outlined that science is one tool for discovering certain truths not all. The deeper question looming in my mind that I might not have expressed adequately is what tool does philosophy serve or to what purpose?

Quoting Sam26

There is no one method that works in every situation, i.e., there is no one description or method at arriving at truth that works in every context.

Agreed.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong, in general, and so this extends to include right and wrong in various logical processes. So the field of study which deals with correct and incorrect logical process, and acts to determine logical fallacies, is a subcategory of morality. This is why Socrates had to ascend all the way to "the good" in order to establish a foundation from which to attack the fallacies of the sophists. The method which supports this ascent is Plato's dialectics. This method involves an analysis of the use of words in argumentation, to determine improper use and the fallacies which follow, in an effort toward producing true definitions.

Another epistemological gap manifest here is how do we know that a tool is being properly used in the context of some inquiry to the truth of some matter. The logical process, as you call it, is independent of this function, no?

Quoting apokrisis

Some people might think ethics is the prime purpose of philosophy. Others might target being. Or reasoning.

Thus, why the ambiguity inherent in philosophy, as opposed to the clear cut nature of science, which the positivists cherished, although fallaciously via the inability to verify the verificationist rule.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Thus, why the ambiguity inherent in philosophy, as opposed to the clear cut nature of science,

From a philosophy of science point of view, that statement seems very disputable.

Quoting apokrisis

From a philosophy of science point of view, that statement seems very disputable.

How so? I don't have much to go on about here.

Reply to Posty McPostface It was a joke. If science did in fact believe it served some clear cut purpose, philosophy would feel more "ambiguous" about that - even when supposedly being all about clearing up any ambiguity.