Whatever I know what you mean and you know what I mean - that's a good outcome, isn't it?

I have to admit that maybe you're right; the problem might be I don't always see the same consensus on what is 'good' and 'bad' than I do for more strictly defined terms; their definitions seem to have more of a personal character... But I see what you mean: if it's raining outside, I'll probably agree with everyone that there's 'bad' weather, even if I don't mind at that moment. That doesn't necessarily make it 'bad' weather for me, so the word has lost all its meaning, but I can at least talk about it using a common standard.

Now I'm confused...

I see the problem in this discussion is just your own prejudice against the terms 'good' and 'bad'. I consider them normal terms, defined by humans, just like 'schizophrenic'. Again, the same 'translation rules' I mentioned before apply: someone set standards for a term which people agree on. 'Schizophrenic' has been defined at some point and so was 'good'. They're on the same level.

No, because he means the term schizophrenic in a way that does not hold any good or bad connotation, although prejudiced people may interpret it as having a bad connotation. Scoring someones IQ is something subjective, but diagnosing someone is not, or at least was not meant to be.

It is the same, because a psychologist would close his/her report by stating "because of the observations stated before, this person can be considered schizophrenic". That is a judgement, just like my judgement about a game being good or bad. The psychologist used 'scales' which had been defined before to analize the objective observations. The observations might have been "patient talking in different styles" and something like that. Completely objective. But then the subjectivity kicks in: standards set by humans which this psychologist adopted. These standards serve as a 'translation table' between observations and conclusions. From whom these 'translation rules' come doesn't matter. Mine are are good as Freud's or yours.

What I'm saying is, when you by your standards define a game as 'good', that's not the same as a scientist who concludes a report by using whatever scales he wants but limits his conclusion to observing invariable relations of the cause-and-effect type that we call 'laws' over here. For example: a psychologist would never conclude a report by saying: "We now have reason to accept that people we call schizophrenic are bad, and people we call sane are good".

Edited by The Mole at 22:39 on January, 04th 2003

Mole: Every scientific report contains judgements and conclusions. Now guess what these are based on: the facts derived from standards which have been more or less randomly chosen (like for example temperature scale). That is exactly the same way I'm doing it, as pointed out before. Without making prerequisites first, no measurement could ever be possible!

Pada: Maths isn't objective (by your definition, it is by mine) at all. It is a a common myth that it is - but nothing but an urban legend. If you look carefully at it, you'll see that it is based on assumptions (all basics of maths are assumptions based on observations/statistics) and prerequisites (usage of certain scales,....).

Edited by Mr Creosote at 22:13 on January, 04th 2003

I am saying that there is utter objectivity but a human being cannot base himself on this objectivity but only on his subjective perception about this objectivity... therefor any judgement a human makes concerning taste is always totaly subjective... we can only use objective facts in a formal system like maths. as soon as you try to use an objective fact in something like taste, you nolonger use this fact but your perception of this fact which is subjective... therefor all I said is logical (if maybe somewhat incoherent)... I have to go now but I'll explain it more clearly when I get back...

Detail, definition of shapes, use of the harware are indeed points on which you could compare games but still, concluding from that comparison that a game has good graphics is subjective... The standard you choose to call 'quality' remains subjective, whether it was defined by you, or happens to be one millions of people agree on. Standards and comparisons can be very useful, but do not guarantee objectivity.

Mr Creosote: Yes, those circumstances are arbitrarily chosen but Pada1's sentence remains a fact simply because it contains no 'judgement' whatsoever. It would be subjective if he added a qualitative opinion about water, which he didn't.

This is going in circles. Dizzy summed up what I've tried to say about the basics all the time almost perfectly. Thus my conclusion about objectivity: standards set by oneself, but followed strictly. If you'd just accept this (even if only for the sake of an argument), you'll see everything I said is completely logical, because then, I can perfectly use objective facts as reasons.
That is exactly what I've been saying from the start. Why did you try to deny it then?

Pada & Mole: your arguments are simply not consistent! First, you're both saying there is only subjectivity. Then, you're claiming there is complete and utter objectivity. Again in your last posts:Please decide what you're trying to say. As a student of several fields of engineering, I can tell you there is nothing like 'exact measurement', thus any 'definition' cannot be compared and used completely objectively. I know the definition you're referring to, it does include some 'natural constants' though which are only randomly chosen and rounded numbers. They're not objective by your definition. By my definition however, they are, because I can safely make some prerequisites like "my conclusions are based on the assumption this number is 100% correct". That is exactly what I'm doing about games, too: "my conclusion is based on the assumption hand-drawn is positive".

Edited by Mr Creosote at 21:53 on January, 04th 2003

I think you are confusing quality with taste. Quality can be objectified, whereas taste is inherently subjective. In fact, it is possible for the perceptions of quality and taste to contradict each other within the same individual and in relation to the same object.

For instance when it comes to games: you can objectively say that a game has good graphics because there is a standard for it: you can observe the detail of the textures, the definition of shapes, you can judge how effectively the hardware on wich the game is running has been used and compare it with other games. Through all of this you can measure the quality of the graphics and, if you were writing a review, you could objectively say if they were good or not. However, even after arriving at the conclusion that the graphics were excellent, you could then say I don't like them, and you wouldn't be contradicting yourself because then you would be issuing an opinion which is the result of a judgment that takes all those objective factors into account but then is heavilly influenced by your own subjective taste: what appeals to you personally, what makes you tick, and that is something that cannot be measured or objectified.

That's something that happens to everybody at one time or another, I guess. You can recognize the quality of a game, a movie or a piece of music, you can even say why it is good, yet subjectively it does nothing for you: you cannot bring yourself to like it.

"In normal circumstances" is strictly defined in physics as at atmosphere pressure etc. so the name might be subjectively chosen, but the conditions are a fixed whole, it is quantified and measurable, so Pada1's statement is a fact. And I still think every 'reason' is merely subjective 'construction' made from a fact. Like Pada1 says; facts themselves are not reasons.

I'm merely trying to point out that a human being is unable to be truly objective about his perception and therefor you cannot base yourself on objective facts but only on your subjective perception of this objective fact...

"Being hand drawn" is indeed a fact, but not a reason to like something by itself; the fact that you choose to call that a reason to like something instead of disliking it, for the same fact, or even not letting your decision be influenced at all by that fact, makes it - in my opinion - subjective. So it only becomes a reason after a subjective decision by you.

Haha, don't get me started on:

a) Statistics (ask Pada1, I can bitch for hours about that)
b) The immense foolishness of everyone, including me

So I couldn't care less about people not supporting my theory for several hundred years, because people aren't perfect and people are easily influenced by all sorts of crap (once again, this counts for me too of course).

I could quote myself again with the same statement now. I am aware that the quote you picked contains a subjective component! The reason given is a purely objective observation though! That is exactly what I said before: objective facts do influence the overall view in one way or the other. Are you really trying to deny that? Sorry, but that is incredibly stupid.

Oh, and by the way: your example about water is far from being consistent. You said "in normal circumstances" - isn't that subjective, too?

Edited by Mr Creosote at 21:20 on January, 04th 2003

if you say: "I like this picture because it is hand-drawn" you automaticly include a subjective sentiment into this sentence because that would mean you prefer hand-drawn work above calculated drawing... it is objective to you perhaps but it isn't objective because you as a subjective entity have judged one over the other as nicer, more likeable or whatever... If this statement was truly objective, I and everybody else would have to agree with you that hand-drawn work is nicer then calculated work... a truly objective statement would be that water is liquid at 20 degrees celcius in normal circumstances... this is something nobody can deny whitout being in contadiction of reality (or at least, our perception of it)...

Why can't I like something because it was made by a certain artist? I could also says "these graphics are good, because they're hand-drawn and not calculated by software ( = maths)". "Being hand-drawn" is a fact. So there we are with the reasons for liking something being objective. Drawing the conclusion out of this that the overall product is good would of course be hasty - it is only one argument, but an objective one (just like the artist, the type of colours and a lot more). All these objective observations combined do influence the 'subjective' overall decision, that is why I don't think anybody can honestly claim his/her decision is purely subjective.

Mole: I didn't say it's better because it's newer, the pure mass on one's own side makes it easier in an argument though If nobody supports a theory for several hundred years, that is almost a statistical miracle...

Edited by Mr Creosote at 21:04 on January, 04th 2003

You, of all people, should know that newer doesn't necessarily mean better.

k, got me on the sun-sentence... simply forgot to include the celcius... my bad but my point there is still valid...

And as I have said quite a few times myself, I disagree with this statement...

I'll go through it piece by piece in order to be as clear as possible:
I cannot agree with this because of "the most part"-part... An overall decision will always be 100% subjective. eg: MI: I like the graphics because they are pleasing to my eyes (subjective), not because they were written by a certain programmer (objective) or whatever...Cannot agree with this either because why you like or dislike something isn't based on that fact/statistic/... but on your perception of that fact/...

Perfect example to prove my point: 'degrees' isn't defined the same by everyone - so according to the scale used (e.g. Kelvin, °C, °F or even a scale invented by me), the meaning of your "the sun is xxxxxx degrees" is different.
I've not 'admitted' anything, I've repeated what I've been saying all the time (how many times should I quote this?):

Using the edit function this time to balance the post count out again
Mole: you're right in saying this leads to the philosophical question of objectivity and common standards. As far as I know, Immanuel Kant was the last 'important' philosopher to claim there are such standards which are valid for everyone, so for several hundred years, there hasn't been an opinion towards your definition

Edited by Mr Creosote at 20:46 on January, 04th 2003