What is the definition of quality that does not boil down to "things that people like"?
It's all about evaluating objective criteria.
Take software for example. Let's say we have software X and software Y. You like X, I like Y. There is no accounting for taste. You like what you like. However, there is also an objective component here. Software X has lots of security vulnerabilities, is slower, and lacks many features of software Y. You are free to continue liking and preferring software X, but software Y is objectively superior whether you like it or not.
If you want to argue something, argue which criteria you should use when evaluating quality. I might try to argue that book A is better than book B because the paper and ink it was printed with have a stronger smell. The strength of an odor is an objective thing you can measure, but does that have anything to do with the quality of the book? Obviously not. How about the word count of the book? That's also an objective criteria you can measure. But should the quality of a book be judged by its length? That's debatable.
What's a definition that doesn't relay on an Argument from Authority?
And while we're at it, why is it that so many people who claim to be looking at something objectively to assess it's quality come up with a result that seems to fit in nicely with their opinion, and yet, other people who claim to be assessing it objectively come to an entirely different "Objective result"?
It's something that really shits me - when people carry on about objective assessment of something(anything, really), when the assessment they give as objective is really just their personal opinion tarted up in it's Sunday best.
The idea of other people getting items that gave them a competitive advantage in TF2 was and is a major deterrent for me going back to it. If I want to deal with "gearing up" (via timesinks or additional money) I'll resubscribe to an MMO, thank you very much. When I want some fair, quick and fun FPS nowadays, I go for Quakelive. I'm also eyeing up Global Agenda again, as I had a lot of fun playing it last summer.
What's a definition that doesn't rely on an Argument from Authority?
The problem with this line of reasoning is that defining your terms prior to discussion necessitates an exercise of authority. Go to the dictionary to find the definition of a word? The dictionary is an "authority," and you are basing your argument in it. Two people - experts or not - who define a term for the purpose of a discussion? They've created an authority and then base the discussion in it.
It's not a fallacy to use argument from authority when the entire argument is rooted in a given authority. That's what we're goddamn well talking about.
So anyhow, before you talk about whether a thing is "good" or "bad," you have to decide the criteria which will constitute "good" and "bad." And there are rarely widely agreed-upon criteria which constitute "good" or "bad."
By some definitions of good, it was a good movie. By other definitions of good, it was not a good movie.
That's why I prefer to break it down a little, even though that doesn't really change much, it does help a little. For me, at least.
For example, Twilight has great cinematography, and a great musical score. Fucking terrible plot, dialog, and so on, and barely, barely passable acting - though I suppose they were basing it on the book and using actors who were in it for motivations other than making a good movie(For example, Stewart took an attitude of "Well, dollar is a dollar" and Pattinson is not only open about his distaste for the books, but that he did it pretty much entirely for the chance to work with Stewart), and you can only polish a turd so much.
By some definitions of good, it was a good movie. By other definitions of good, it was not a good movie.
Well played!
This whole "argument" is mostly pointless. Like a good flame war, this will only devolve into "Well I like red!" "Well I like blue!" "Blue sucks! *insert reason why*" ad infinitum into a spiral of shit.
Everyones subjectivity crawls in when evaluating entertainment. It just happens. It's not something quantifiable, like science, where you can determine one thing is obviously better than the other as in Scotts programming example.
And while we're at it, why is it that so many people who claim to be looking at something objectively to assess it's quality come up with a result that seems to fit in nicely with their opinion, and yet, other people who claim to be assessing it objectively come to an entirely different "Objective result"?
It's something that really shits me - when people carry on about objective assessment of something(anything, really), when the assessment they give as objective is really just their personal opinion tarted up in it's Sunday best.
Except that there are many times when I like crap (Initial D, Angry Birds) or dislike greatness (the game of Go), but nobody pays attention to that.
You can't have both functional solipsism and elitist views on art.
Well, actually, if we go with the full extent of solipsism, then all of my views are necessarily elitist - since I'm the only thing that's real, I am elite.
but nobody pays attention to that.
I think we've given both you and Rym metric tons of shit for enjoying Initial D for years now. It's not that we're not paying attention; it's that the mound of shit is so tall, there's no point in adding to it. I only have so much shit, y'know.
I think we've given both you and Rym metric tons of shit for enjoying Initial D for years now. It's not that we're not paying attention; it's that the mound of shit is so tall, there's no point in adding to it. I only have so much shit, y'know.
The point is that we admit Initial D is bad despite liking it. Yet, whenever we say, for example, TF2 sucks or D&D; sucks, people argue that we only say that because we happen to also dislike them. If I actually liked and played TF2 I would still admit it sucked, as I do with Angry Birds.
I think we've given both you and Rym metric tons of shit for enjoying Initial D for years now. It's not that we're not paying attention; it's that the mound of shit is so tall, there's no point in adding to it. I only have so much shit, y'know.
The point is that we admit Initial D is bad despite liking it. Yet, whenever we say, for example, TF2 sucks or D&D; sucks, people argue that we only say that because we happen to also dislike them. If I actually liked and played TF2 I would still admit it sucked, as I do with Angry Birds.
Because I don't give a shit about your sacred cows, only my own!
ALSO, Meet the Medic confirms that Meet the Sandvich occurs from the BLU Spy's perspective.
Except that there are many times when I like crap (Initial D, Angry Birds) or dislike greatness (the game of Go), but nobody pays attention to that.
I didn't say you, because you're not even close to the worst offender I've seen. I'm speaking in general, and the majority of people who claim objectivity do exactly what I described.
Comments
Take software for example. Let's say we have software X and software Y. You like X, I like Y. There is no accounting for taste. You like what you like. However, there is also an objective component here. Software X has lots of security vulnerabilities, is slower, and lacks many features of software Y. You are free to continue liking and preferring software X, but software Y is objectively superior whether you like it or not.
If you want to argue something, argue which criteria you should use when evaluating quality. I might try to argue that book A is better than book B because the paper and ink it was printed with have a stronger smell. The strength of an odor is an objective thing you can measure, but does that have anything to do with the quality of the book? Obviously not. How about the word count of the book? That's also an objective criteria you can measure. But should the quality of a book be judged by its length? That's debatable.
It's something that really shits me - when people carry on about objective assessment of something(anything, really), when the assessment they give as objective is really just their personal opinion tarted up in it's Sunday best.
Moving on, I find this to be of high quality:
context
Aww yeah, heavy Streisand.
It's not a fallacy to use argument from authority when the entire argument is rooted in a given authority. That's what we're goddamn well talking about.
So anyhow, before you talk about whether a thing is "good" or "bad," you have to decide the criteria which will constitute "good" and "bad." And there are rarely widely agreed-upon criteria which constitute "good" or "bad."
/rant
You can't have both functional solipsism and elitist views on art.
For example, Twilight has great cinematography, and a great musical score. Fucking terrible plot, dialog, and so on, and barely, barely passable acting - though I suppose they were basing it on the book and using actors who were in it for motivations other than making a good movie(For example, Stewart took an attitude of "Well, dollar is a dollar" and Pattinson is not only open about his distaste for the books, but that he did it pretty much entirely for the chance to work with Stewart), and you can only polish a turd so much.
This whole "argument" is mostly pointless. Like a good flame war, this will only devolve into "Well I like red!" "Well I like blue!" "Blue sucks! *insert reason why*" ad infinitum into a spiral of shit.
Everyones subjectivity crawls in when evaluating entertainment. It just happens. It's not something quantifiable, like science, where you can determine one thing is obviously better than the other as in Scotts programming example.
Team Fortress 2 is a mediocre "competition" however.
ALSO, Meet the Medic confirms that Meet the Sandvich occurs from the BLU Spy's perspective.
I might talk a big game, but I'm not that good. Middling.