Booh-Yah(?): My friends and I have been having a debate with another friend about whether or not things can be objective or subjective that stemmed from one point: Bio-Dome is a terrible movie. I (along with most of the other people in the room) am arguing that it is an objectively ba movie.
Fail: Bryce (the guy who has been arguing that there is no objective and subjective) has been presenting straw man argument after straw man argument. It even devolved into him taking 30 minutes to answer the question "what colour is this bottle" (answer: it is green). He is arguing from a philosophical perspective (which he aknowledged as being bullshit) and we are trying to argue from an empirical perspective.
There was also a point when I asked him the question "what colour is this bottle", his immediate response was "what colour a woman's vagina in real life".
Booh-Yah(?): I have been continuing this argument completely knowing that it is a futile effort, but mostly because it is hilarious and a lot of fun.
Fail: "It is an ideology that I practice" is a phrase that I never want to hear again.
Your problem is that you're arguing in favor of objective quality. There's no such thing. Since one cannot verify the consistency of qualia over a range of people sampling a work, objective qualities (be they the abstracts of good or bad, or concrete qualities like colors or shapes) cannot exist. There is only the overlap of agreement on subjective qualities, ranging from broad overlaps (green being green, sandpaper feeling rough), to narrow ones (whether or not Biodome is good).
Your problem is that you're arguing in favor of objective quality. There's no such thing. Since one cannot verify the consistency of qualia over a range of people sampling a work, objective qualities (be they the abstracts of good or bad, or concrete qualities like colors or shapes) cannot exist. There is only the overlap of agreement on subjective qualities, ranging from broad overlaps (green being green, sandpaper feeling rough), to narrow ones (whether or not Biodome is good).
While I do not necessarily agree with all of their particular choices in regards to giving out awards, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are collectively the definitive voice in regards to quality in film. By using their particular criteria in talking about film, it is very possible to be objective. Sure there are the cultures of each member in play in regards to film quality, but overall, the fact that the rules are agreed upon by such a large group of people, individual views would not necessarily become dogma. They base quality off of observable occurrences in the making of films such as the writing, the cinematography, directing, and acting that is based off of around 100 years of cinema and has been codified. I believe that it is exceptionally easy to understand and apply the idea of objective quality by using these codified stances.
I mostly started this argument through the use of Rotten Tomato and IMDB ratings as a way of being as objective as possible. They are based off of sometimes hundreds of reviews of people who (for the most part in Rotten Tomatoes case) could be considered to be people who know what they are talking about in regards to film. The fact that they are averages of the collective amount of reviews is a way for them to be objective. It is first and foremost based off of the overall statistics of the group rather than each person's individual beliefs.
Now, there is some confusion where you can define a series of subjective terms in an objective manner. For example, if I define "bad" as movies with scores of 50 or lower, then collect the subjective scores, I can say that the movie is "objectively {bad}", but what I've done is created a definition of bad so that I can make that statement. It's a sort of stupid meta-trick that seems to have confused a lot of people with language.
Ryan, that's still subjective quality: the subjectivity is just defined from the viewpoint of a synthesized body of experts. Objective quality doesn't exist; you can't have something that is good or bad by its very nature. That's just not possible.
I think this is a tricky issue and using the words "objective" and "subjective" can often cause confusion. Here's one important point, though: the statements "I like this movie" and "I think this movie is good" mean different things.
I went to the pre-PAX swag bag-stuffing event. Which was in Boston. From New York.
That's two red-eye bus trips and eight hours of manual labor, for a couple crappy Magic decks, a free copy of Magicka, a free mug, and getting to hang out with the Enforcers when it isn't PAX.
Not sure if worth it (probably not).
Boo-Yah/Fail 2: I'm going to be the treasurer for the Science Fiction club next year.
Something can't be "objectively good", just like someone's opinion can't be wrong. We know what you mean when you say it, but it's still not objective.
Something can't be "objectively good", just like someone's opinion can't be wrong. We know what you mean when you say it, but it's still not objective.
In terms of objective quality of artwork: There are certain rules of narrative and form, the breaking of which, though it can occur under the right circumstances, often leads to the work being perceived as poor quality. This does not mean these rules are concrete, merely that it is probably not a good idea to mess around with them too much. When someone says "well, yeah, with art everything's opinion based" I find that a little naive, because it completely discounts centuries of accumulated technique.
I would say that beliefs are different from opinions. Opinions occur on a topic that has not yet been objectively/scientifically proven whereas beliefs are everything you think is right and real. The Flat Earth Society is a belief; trickle-down economics is an opinion.
I'd have thought an opinion is just how you relate to something.
1) A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. 2) The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
Something can't be "objectively good", just like someone's opinion can't be wrong.
What if someone opines that the Earth is flat? Then their opinion is in fact wrong, is it not? Opinions can definitely be wrong.
That's a claim, as it's a falsifiable statement. An opinion is on something that can only be subjective.
That's not the usual definition of "opinion" - see here. "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"
"belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge"
What definition are you using? An example of what you'd call an "opinion" would also help.
I'd define an opinion as something along the lines of "a belief about something non-factual (meaning not dealing with fact, not untrue)". Generally an opinion would be anything that is not measurable, even in theory. For example, aesthetics are opinion if you say "she is beautiful" (there is no way to turn measurements of various physical qualities into a measure of beauty) but not if you say "she elicits sexual arousal from men" (assuming you have a measurable definition of sexual arousal).
But really, the definition of opinion doesn't really matter to my argument. My argument is that "good" is not a measurable quality. There is no way no measure the attributes of a work and find a value "good". The metrics commonly used are not part of the definition of "good". They're merely convention.
Apparently Barack Obama's religion is a matter of opinion.
#ShitMyDad'sGirlfriendSays
But seriously... you can have an opinion about something before you know the actual facts. That just makes your opinion wrong. There are opinions about subjective things and opinions about objective things; it's just that at some point you can have proof of the legitimacy of the opinion about the objective thing.
A wholly subjective opinion on a wholly subjective thing can still be "wrong" in the sense that it is indefensible. "Poor" is probably a better descriptor than "wrong" in this case, but the point stands.
A person who hold, say, a conservative opinion, but is unable to back it up in the face of even superficial scrutiny, holds a poor opinion.
A person who may hold the same opinion, but is able to defend it reasonably (even if the defenses themselves are poor), has a better opinion.
A subjective opinion can also be wrong if it's self-contradictory, based on false or insufficient information, or formed without giving any real thought to the matter. In other words, any opinion that you would change if you had the full facts of the situation and took the necessary amount of time to consider it is, in fact, wrong.
The other important point is that, regardless of whether it's "objective" or "subjective", at the base level there is still plenty of common ground between people with regards to things like aesthetics and morality.
For example, aesthetics are opinion if you say "she is beautiful" (there is no way to turn measurements of various physical qualities into a measure of beauty)
But really, the definition of opinion doesn't really matter to my argument. My argument is that "good" is not a measurable quality. There is no way no measure the attributes of a work and find a value "good". The metrics commonly used are not part of the definition of "good". They're merely convention.
They're more than just convention - they are the result of common ground that is shared between humans on what it actually means for a work to be "good". As Emily said,
In terms of objective quality of artwork: There are certain rules of narrative and form, the breaking of which, though it can occur under the right circumstances, often leads to the work being perceived as poor quality.
Granted, these things are probably not objective in that an alien probably wouldn't care about our concepts of narrative and form, but they are nonetheless far from being simply "matters of opinion".
Context is everything. On some level, we don't know anything objectively. All we have are observations, we can't actually know whether any of our observations measure a thing objectively. But there are clearly some base assumptions we make in order to make a statement objective within the normal context of conversation. I do find it interesting that using those same principles, we seem to now be conversing about making other things contextually objective by figuratively climbing the rungs of the ladder to get out of the void of the unknown with statistical and probabilistic conjecture.
And that was about the craziest paragraph I've typed in a while. I'm not even sure it's right at the moment, but I'm just going to leave that here.
Fail: My cholesterol is not stellar. Not Wyatt bad, but not great. Doctor wants me to avoid red meat and pork, eat poultry and fish instead (especially fish), and do aerobic exercise (sweating exercise, which I hate). Boo-yah: He suggested I drink 2 glasses of red wine a day. ^_^
George, the key is smaller portions of more expensive meat.
Braise a single frenched lamb tip in olive oil with garlic and thyme, and surround it with a large helping of non-meat. Have red meat once a week or so like that. You'll both appreciate it more and miss more frequent consumption less. ;^)
I know, I'll live. It's really the exercise that I'm not keen on. I hate exerting myself. >_> Though if the doc wants me to drink half a bottle of wine a night, I think I'll survive somehow. :P
Having been eating a majority of my food from the sea as of late. Fish Rules, try Swai it's awesome. (in a pan, with olive oil, Wine Vinegar and Garlic Powder and a little butter :-)) It's awesome.
Comments
Fail: Bryce (the guy who has been arguing that there is no objective and subjective) has been presenting straw man argument after straw man argument. It even devolved into him taking 30 minutes to answer the question "what colour is this bottle" (answer: it is green). He is arguing from a philosophical perspective (which he aknowledged as being bullshit) and we are trying to argue from an empirical perspective.
There was also a point when I asked him the question "what colour is this bottle", his immediate response was "what colour a woman's vagina in real life".
Booh-Yah(?): I have been continuing this argument completely knowing that it is a futile effort, but mostly because it is hilarious and a lot of fun.
Fail: "It is an ideology that I practice" is a phrase that I never want to hear again.
I mostly started this argument through the use of Rotten Tomato and IMDB ratings as a way of being as objective as possible. They are based off of sometimes hundreds of reviews of people who (for the most part in Rotten Tomatoes case) could be considered to be people who know what they are talking about in regards to film. The fact that they are averages of the collective amount of reviews is a way for them to be objective. It is first and foremost based off of the overall statistics of the group rather than each person's individual beliefs.
@WindUpBird has the right of that.
Now, there is some confusion where you can define a series of subjective terms in an objective manner. For example, if I define "bad" as movies with scores of 50 or lower, then collect the subjective scores, I can say that the movie is "objectively {bad}", but what I've done is created a definition of bad so that I can make that statement. It's a sort of stupid meta-trick that seems to have confused a lot of people with language.
Here's one important point, though: the statements "I like this movie" and "I think this movie is good" mean different things.
That's two red-eye bus trips and eight hours of manual labor, for a couple crappy Magic decks, a free copy of Magicka, a free mug, and getting to hang out with the Enforcers when it isn't PAX.
Not sure if worth it (probably not).
Boo-Yah/Fail 2: I'm going to be the treasurer for the Science Fiction club next year.
Opinions can definitely be wrong.
1) A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
2) The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
I'd define an opinion as something along the lines of "a belief about something non-factual (meaning not dealing with fact, not untrue)". Generally an opinion would be anything that is not measurable, even in theory. For example, aesthetics are opinion if you say "she is beautiful" (there is no way to turn measurements of various physical qualities into a measure of beauty) but not if you say "she elicits sexual arousal from men" (assuming you have a measurable definition of sexual arousal).
But really, the definition of opinion doesn't really matter to my argument. My argument is that "good" is not a measurable quality. There is no way no measure the attributes of a work and find a value "good". The metrics commonly used are not part of the definition of "good". They're merely convention.
#ShitMyDad'sGirlfriendSays
But seriously... you can have an opinion about something before you know the actual facts. That just makes your opinion wrong. There are opinions about subjective things and opinions about objective things; it's just that at some point you can have proof of the legitimacy of the opinion about the objective thing.
A person who hold, say, a conservative opinion, but is unable to back it up in the face of even superficial scrutiny, holds a poor opinion.
A person who may hold the same opinion, but is able to defend it reasonably (even if the defenses themselves are poor), has a better opinion.
The other important point is that, regardless of whether it's "objective" or "subjective", at the base level there is still plenty of common ground between people with regards to things like aesthetics and morality.
And that was about the craziest paragraph I've typed in a while. I'm not even sure it's right at the moment, but I'm just going to leave that here.
Boo-yah: He suggested I drink 2 glasses of red wine a day. ^_^
Braise a single frenched lamb tip in olive oil with garlic and thyme, and surround it with a large helping of non-meat. Have red meat once a week or so like that. You'll both appreciate it more and miss more frequent consumption less. ;^)