What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Aloysium]

Ah, so you are back to your old and boring habit of putting words into someone else’s mouth? :tsktsk: Oh, well, some people never learn…

He asked you a question to which you did not respond.

I have another: Just to clarify, are you suggesting that “NaCl” is more real than saltiness to you?

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Again to clarify, everything in science is ultimately founded on the senses.
That is the purpose of high-tech equipment - to translate processes that are inaccessible directly, into something we can perceive.
We use our minds to organize raw data into something meaningful.
It is all subjective, as it is all objective - we are relational beings.

:twocents:

As any wine connoisseur will tell you, one needs to develop one’s tastes, be it wine, fine dining, art, literature, music or any other form of beauty.
This discussion wouldn’t be happening were it not for the sad state of our educational system which is only interested in putting out cogs in the machine of consumerism. Peasants!

 

[Hee_Zen]

He asked you a question to which you did not respond.

Of course not. Nonsensical utterances - even if they are masked as “questions” - are not to be entertained.

I have another: Just to clarify, are you suggesting that “NaCl” is more real than saltiness to you?

NaCl is “salt”. It is necessary to for some food to be “salty” (though there are substitutes, too). But the amount of salt where one considers the dish “just right” (as the amount of salt is concerned) is subjective from one person to the next. I cannot understand why this simple concept needs to be explained over and over again. I bet a 10 years old child would understand it after the first explanation.

As any wine connoisseur will tell you, one needs to develop one’s tastes, be it wine, fine dining, art, literature, music or any other form of beauty.

And still different wine experts will prefer different wines to be “delicious”. Not to mention that your kind of “elitism” is a pretty sad commentary on your education. As if the “less educated” should not have their “preferences”.

Of course I am glad that the thread came into this unexpected direction. I never thought that the level of “irrationality” can run this “high”. When some people cannot fathom that different people have different tastes, and all of them are correct - for themselves.

 

[Bradski]

I’m equally bemused by this. Is it The Fear Of The Slippry Slope taken to the max?

Mrs Plato: I think this chille is too spicy.
Peter: Oh my God. Morality is Relative! (flash of lightning, peal of thunder, Hee Zen cackles maniacally off stage).

 

[tonyrey]

You have hit upon an interesting point.

The beautiful (as noun not as adjective) can be ontological, existing SYMBIOTICALLY both in the object and in the conscious mind, without being subject to verification by the scientific method. This is why science seems to be really helpless when dealing not only with metaphysical ontology, but also with art and morals. It is for this very reason that the creative intuition of the artist is not expected to be applied to scientific matters. In the rare exceptions of right and left brain duality we see people talented both in science and the arts, but we do not expect them to invoke one side of their brain to justify and validate or confirm the other side.

I agree, Charlie, with the proviso that not all scientists lack creative intuition!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I agree, Charlie, with the proviso that not all scientists lack creative intuition!

Yes, “creative intuition” can be regarded in several ways. For the scientists it involves the intuition of the head. For the artists it involves intuition of the heart.

When the artist allows the intuition of the head to take over the intuition of the heart, his work becomes cerebral and sometimes even gimmicky. When the scientists allows the creative intuition of he heart to overcome that of the head, his work becomes tainted by his deeply felt personal preferences. Andy Warhol’s Campbell Soup can art is an instance of the former. Einstein’s preference for an eternal universe influenced his botched decision to let some else (Father Lemaitre) follow the math of Relativity to where it logically went, the Big Bang theory.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, it would be too salty for me. But a goat would happily lick the salt off it, and then the dog would also happily wolf the steak down. Different tastes, you know. Or “each 'is own”… or “de gustibus non est disputandum”, or “what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander”…

But you are welcome to construct a “salt-o-meter”, which will separate the “too salty” and the “just right” from the “not salty enough” - for everyone! Because that would be “objectively salty”. In the absence of such a machine - we all (except maybe you two) will subscribe to the idea that “saltiness” is subjective.

Goodness me, then what am I too make of my physician’s advice to get salt out of my diet?

Isn’t he my “salt-o-meter”?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m equally bemused by this. Is it The Fear Of The Slippry Slope taken to the max?

Mrs Plato: I think this chille is too spicy.
Peter: Oh my God. Morality is Relative! (flash of lightning, peal of thunder, Hee Zen cackles maniacally off stage).

Bradski, you do understand that spicy denotes the presence of spices, typically pungent ones that can be detected by the human sense of taste.

The problem here is that Hee_Zen (and you, apparently) cannot see the difference between

1. the taste capacity for detection of spices which either are or are not objectively present - and not a matter of mere “taste” in the sense Hee_Zen has argued - AND
2. any individual’s tolerance for particular spices which is what is subjective and what is being expressed when someone claims a food is “too spicy.”

See the difference? See the ambiguity Hee_Zen is playing on? No?

There is a difference between a slippery slope and simple imprecision or ambiguation

No matter, caricatures and ambiguities will only get you and Hee_Zen so far.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Goodness me, then what am I too make of my physician’s advice to get salt out of my diet?

Isn’t he my “salt-o-meter”?

Of course not.

First, a physician would never advice to take salt out of the diet (completely), the advice would be “do not use too much salt” - and maybe tell how many milligrams of salt he recommends in your diet - based upon your physical condition. That is an objective advice. But this is again not the point! Does the specified amount of salt TASTE salty or does it TASTE bland… Truly, you guys are amazing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The PSR cannot be “absolute”, since that would lead to an infinite descent. The chain of “explanations” must stop somewhere. At that point we have a “brute fact”, which has no explanation, which does not need an explanation - which just IS.

What is ironic here is that a “brute fact” functions, for you, in the same way that a “gap” functions for a fundamentalist theist. That “stopping point” for the fundamentalist is what gets him to God to fill the gap, but gets you to “no god” as a matter of brute necessity. Apparently, your fundamentalism is showing as the flip side of the fundamentalist believer’s coin.

Perhaps you need to be reminded that “matter can neither be created nor destroyed” was a “brute fact” of science… well, until it wasn’t any more.

Which brings me back to my insistence that the PSR is a much better principle for carrying on a quest for knowledge and certainty than resorting to “brute fact” claims when the going gets difficult.

Again, self-evident claims are not merely brute facts without explanation, but bear evidence in themselves (are self-supporting) and, therefore, need no further explanation in terms of the specific conclusions they are - at the moment - being used to support. That, however, does not mean “self-evident” entails they fully explain their own existence. “Self-evident” is a placeholder of sorts that functions in the same way that a premise does in a logical argument. Self-evidence is a “granted” or “accepted as given” in order to see where it gets us and what else it allows to be explained, if it is granted as a given.
That does not mean “self-evident” requires no further explanation nor does it mean it is necessarily true.

Again, you are playing fast and loose with ambiguous terms.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Bradski, you do understand that spicy denotes the presence of spices, typically pungent ones that can be detected by the human sense of taste.

The problem here is that Hee_Zen (and you, apparently) cannot see the difference between

1. the taste capacity for detection of spices which either are or are not objectively present - and not a matter of mere “taste” in the sense Hee_Zen has argued - AND
2. any individual’s tolerance for particular spices which is what is subjective and what is being expressed when someone claims a food is “too spicy.”

See the difference? See the ambiguity Hee_Zen is playing on? No?

Oh I bet he understands it just fine. It is you and your cohorts who **try to bring in ambiguity **into the question by intentionally confusing “spicy” with “too spicy” or “not spicy enough”. The amount of salt or spice can be measured via objective, physical epistemological methods. The dividing line between the “too spicy” and “bland” - which (of course) represents the person’s tolerance and preferences - cannot be measured.

No matter, caricatures and ambiguities will only get you and Hee_Zen so far.

Ah, the good old “caricature” argument. A caricature is a distortion which enhances certain features of the subject - not to make it unrecognizable, but rather to make it more readily recognizable. To declare an argument to be a caricature is an admission that the argument cannot be refuted - because it is “too precise” or “cuts to the bone”. Many times the person, of whom the caricature was taken is astonished, and asks: “is this how I look”? The answer: “yes, it is”. Just like when you first hear your voice back from a tape recorder, you do not recognize it.

 

[Hee_Zen]

What is ironic here is that a “brute fact” functions, for you, in the same way that a “gap” functions for a fundamentalist theist. That “stopping point” for the fundamentalist is what gets him to God to fill the gap, but gets you to “no god” as a matter of brute necessity. Apparently, your fundamentalism is showing as the flip side of the fundamentalist believer’s coin.

There is a vague and superficial similarity, all right. However, there is a huge difference between the two approaches. The universe, which is the “collection of all there is” can be experienced by all of us. Its existence is “self-evident” and it serves as the ontological foundation of all explanations. It can be examined. One can make a hypothesis, and it can be verified or falsified. The hypothesis of some “god” is not of this kind. It is not self-evident, it cannot be experienced and it explains NOTHING.

Again, self-evident claims are not merely brute facts without explanation, but bear evidence in themselves (are self-supporting) and, therefore, need no further explanation in terms of the specific conclusions they are - at the moment - being used to support.

It is you try to distort the real meaning of “self-evident” and “self-explanatory” which are perfectly defined in the dictionaries. Just like your attempt to confuse “spicy” with “too spicy”.

The concept of “self-supporting” brings up two images. One is an attempt to lift oneself by trying to pulling one’s own hair - see Baron Münchhausen’s adventures. The other is two snakes start to each one another by the other one’s tail, and at the end there is nothing left. That pretty much sums up the nonsense of “explains itself”. But I make a non-scientific prediction. You will continue this incorrect phrase.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course not.

First, a physician would never advice to take salt out of the diet (completely), the advice would be “do not use too much salt” - and maybe tell how many milligrams of salt he recommends in your diet - based upon your physical condition. That is an objective advice. But this is again not the point! Does the specified amount of salt TASTE salty or does it TASTE bland… Truly, you guys are amazing.

Well, no, Hee_Zen, the “amazing” appellation applies to you in spades. Intellectual honesty or rigor should have led you to concede the point rather than argue against it.

A person who claims a dish is “too salty” may, in fact be making one of several possible claims, made very obvious fom your example above.

Suppose they are on a salt restricted diet. If that were the case, then the person stating that the dish is “too salty” for them is making an objective claim that eating what has been set before them is likely to be bad for them, health wise - their taste buds being used as a rough gauge for the quality of “saltiness.”

If the person has no salt restrictions then they, in fact, may be making a preference claim that they prefer a less salty configuration to their meals.

In other words, “too salty” could be an objective claim or it could be merely an expression of subjective preference. That was obvious from your example and yet you glossed over it hoping we would miss it, it would seem that way, anyway.

Go back to my post on the distinction between preference claims, judgements and statements of fact. “Too salty” could mean a preference, but it could also be a judgement by the person in terms of the amount of salt being too much for their health to bear.

Likewise, “too spicy” could be a preference claim, but it could also be a statement of judgement or fact that eating the dish will almost certainly result in heartburn or indigestion for them. “Too spicy” is not automatically a claim of subjective preference. In fact, it makes sense for someone to say "I prefer or like spicy foods, but my digestive system cannot bear it. A claim of “too spicy” would, then, be objectively grounded and not subjective, at all, contrary to your last post.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, no, Hee_Zen, the “amazing” appellation applies to you in spades. Intellectual honesty or rigor should have led you to concede the point rather than argue against it.

A person who claims a dish is “too salty” may, in fact be making one of several possible claims, made very obvious fom your example above.

And the pushing of the goalposts just continues. When the word “TASTE” is included, it should be obvious that we are not talking about spurious “health considerations”, the question is: "is this food pleasantly palatable with the amount of sugar, salt, spices, vinegar, etc… " being in it. When the word “BLAND” is included it points directly to the preference of the person.

The truth is that I continue this line out of sheer curiosity. I keep wondering how many attempts of changing the goalposts can you try. And you have the nerve to talk about intellectual honesty, when your only aim is to divert the conversation to some unrelated and different topic.

If someone says that this music is “too loud”, it is an expression of a subjective assessment. If someone says that this weight is “too heavy”, it is a subjective opinion. When someone complains that the bridge is “too far”, he expresses a subjective point. Sure, the loudness can be measure in decibels, the weight in pounds, the distance in yards… but that is NOT what the phrases “too loud”, “too heavy”, “too far” are all about.

I wonder, if this will eventually sink in… I doubt it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If someone says that this music is “too loud”, it is an expression of a subjective assessment.

This is nonsensical. “Too loud” MAY BE an expression of subjective assessment, but that does not preclude it from also being an assessment of actual danger to hearing. Ever hear of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL)? There is objective data that demonstrates actual times and decibel ratings which typically bring on hearing loss. Now merely because a subjective assessment is not accurate to the degree that the data is does not mean subjective assessments of “too loud” are merely statements of preference with regard to what the subject desires or wishes to tolerate. “Too loud” may also imply a rough perception of actual danger to hearing.

dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/decibel-exposure-time-guidelines/

 

[Peter_Plato]

If someone says that this weight is “too heavy”, it is a subjective opinion. When someone complains that the bridge is “too far”, he expresses a subjective point. …

I wonder, if this will eventually sink in… I doubt it.

Again, all of these MAY BE subjective statements if that is what the intent of the individual making them is, however, there is just as much a sense that “too heavy” and “too far” are objective judgements.

A truck may, in fact be “too heavy” for a bridge, and a location “too far” to travel in one day by foot. There are senses in which all of these statements can be objectively true, just as they can also be subjectively intended.

That does depend on who is making the statement and whether it was intended to be a subjective statement of preference or an objective judgement which can be verified or not based upon the facts.

This is objectively TRUE. Now, whether you will ever admit that your assessment of the issue is objectively faulty IS completely dependent upon a subject – namely YOU. That, however, is neither here nor there regarding the truth of the matter, which has been pointed out to you over and over again, but still hasn’t “sunk in.”

 

[inocente]

Is science the **sole **source of truth? If so what is the scientific basis of that hypothesis?

I don’t believe anyone has said that.

 

[inocente]

Okay. My testable hypothesis is the following:

If I were to splash paint of random colours all over my house; disfigure the materials and elements such as doors, windows, stonework and siding; leave rusting shells of automobiles and appliances all over the front yard; and begin growing all kinds of weeds and otherwise do my best to “uglify” the landscaping that currently exists there; I predict my neighbours will complain to the city, I will be cited for allowing my property to become insightly and I will be ordered to clean up the mess.

I further predict that my defense that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” will be laughed at by the judge and I will be ridiculed for making such a ridiculous statement as a defense.

Now, I have a reasonable expectation that this will happen as I predict. You, apparently, do not. Why don’t YOU, then, go ahead and test my hypothesis?

I, therefore, make another testable prediction that you will not do so because you don’t really believe the null hypothesis H[sub]0[/sub] to accurately depict reality.

While you are at it, I also predict that if you were to bring your paint by number set of acrylic paints from ‘Goldfish in a Bowl’ to your local art gallery (find a really well known one or three to satisfy yourself that my prediction is accurate) and begin painting over the Renoirs, Picassos and Da Vincis while making the statement that you prefer the colours from your palette to those of the original, I predict you will get arrested, heavily fined and possibly incur a long jail sentence.

Skeptical? You know what to do about that.

Your neighbors wouldn’t like it because it would reduce property values. The art gallery wouldn’t like it because it is vandalism.

Your tests have nothing to do with your hypothesis that beauty is objective. Unless perhaps you equate beauty with money and think a higher auction value means more beauty.

Ho hum. I thought you might be on to something but I guess you’ve decided your hypothesis is a non-starter. Looking at your sig, it would have been interesting to see how you would go about establishing that Pink Floyd’s greatest hits are objectively more/less beautiful than some other ancient pop combo’s dirges but I guess just putting it like that establishes that beauty is determinedly subjective.

And since on a previous thread we established that the Catholic posters were all dyed-in-the-wool Utilitarians, I guess that’s it for objective morality too.

Meaning and purpose are in the eye of the beholder then.

 

[inocente]

inocente;12626998:

Are you claiming that only a trained elite can conceive the true meaning of art?

Yes. I might enjoy a painting but never get into the core meaning.

I am not an artist but scientist and I guess my projection to art is valid.

Nope. Art is different. The greatness of a work of art depends on how well it communicates the artist’s idea. A masterpiece can speak to anyone, a lesser work might only speak to those from the same culture. The outline of a hand produced by spraying pigment around it onto the wall of a cave can speak more loudly across the millennia than any amount of Japanese opera. Just as a joke that needs explaining isn’t funny, a work which needs explaining is no good. It must speak for itself. A bit like Christ. Christ is for everyman, not for an elite.

 

[inocente]

The properly functioning subjectivity of the person is itself an objectively determinable set of characteristics.

That’s a bit dangerous. In the Soviet era people were sent to gulags for not having “properly functioning subjectivity”.