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

[Charlemagne_III]

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, of course what he said was not get salt entirely out of the diet, but get the salt out of your diet that is not already in the foods that usually contain salt. In other words, cut the potato chips, popcorn, salted peanuts, etc. A superhuman effort for me.

Yes, we are amazing, We get that a lot!

 

[Hee_Zen]

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.

So words have different meanings based upon the context and the intent? The meaning of the words is not “absolute”? Who would have thunk it?

Here in the Deep South, if one says: “she is so ugly”, or “you are so dumb” would be an insult… but by adding the words “…bless her heart”, or “…bless your heart”, the sting of the words is gone, and it is not an insult any more.

Many posts ago I already said that the amount of “salt”, or “sugar”, or “loudness” can be measured objectively, but the assessment of “tastes too salty” or “tastes too sweet”, or “the music is too loud” all refer to an unmeasurable subjective opinion. I was hoping that eventually it will “sink in”, but obviously it did not. Which part of “tastes” don’t you understand?

Yes, we are amazing, We get that a lot!

The word “amazing” also has several meanings. The one I used is not a “praise”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Yes, we are amazing, We get that a lot!

The word “amazing” also has several meanings. The one I used is not a “praise”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The word “amazing” also has several meanings. The one I used is not a “praise”.

Yikes! I got the wrong meaning? :doh2:

 

[Aloysium]

Yikes! I got the wrong meaning? :doh2:

No, “amazing” is a subjective term. You can impose whatever meaning you wish. So, you can’t get it wrong. At least that’s the argument that is being made, that there is no objective “amazing” quality.

 

[Aloysium]

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

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
You can’t be suggesting that we cannot determine if someone suffers from psychosis.
This makes no sense. It is done all the time by psychiatrists.
The criteria involve the overall capacity of reality-testing.
I order to determine if the person is out of reality, one must understand the person’s experience and have a sense of the actual reality that he is distorting.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

At least that’s the argument that is being made, that there is no objective “amazing” quality.

O.K., guess that’s an **Amaaazzing **argument! :juggle:

 

[Aloysium]

O.K., guess that’s an **Amaaazzing **argument! :juggle:

“Amazing” is actually amazing. :whacky:

It means something like causing great surprise or wonder.
And, that is what this is all about isn’t it?

This existence is amazing! :bounce:

Even with all the suffering, the disappointments, the hurts.
It’s like, wow! What is pain that it hurts?! It is so real!
And, death! Really? This that is, ends?

:hug3: Your beloved, you are kissing one day,
and the next, you do not want to go on another day without her. :bighanky:

Rocks, NaCl, that I can fathom. I can conceptualize as things. But the reality of reality?!
Love?! How is that possible?
How is this all possible?
Wonder fills the universe. The hugeness that cripples the mind trying to comprehend. :hypno:

Amazing! Utterly, totally, completely AMAZING!! :newidea:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Amazing G. K. Chesterton! Enjoy.

As an aside, here at u-tube are several voice recordings (totaling eight minutes) of G.K. Chesterton reading monologues in the 1930s.

youtube.com/watch?v=zJjtJrvo87I

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Sure, and people use the word “sick” in lots of subjective and objective ways depending upon their intent and message. Does that mean a physician is compelled to think the way s/he uses the word sick is the same as the way a mouthy adolescent does?

Again, in case you missed my point about the distinction between preference claims, judgements and factual claims, you need to go back and bone up.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12627280&postcount=808

Words that attempt to express how individuals feel or think about qualities MAY BE mere expressions of subjective preference, but those words do not, thereby, necessarily have to be mere claims of subjective preference, NOR are those words necessarily intended to be mere expressions of preference by anyone who uses them, NOR can an argument be made that merely because those words CAN be so used that the qualities associated with those expressions must necessarily be subjective expressions of preference.

I’ve explained how words like salty, spicy, heavy, etc., CAN BE preference claims and even BE intended as solely that kind of claim, but they do not, therefore, NEED to be merely preference claims. The individual could, just as legitimately be making a factual claim, such as when someone on a low salt diet states that the food is too salty and even expresses that claim as a particular food “tastes too salty.”

Merely because some individuals think that claims about beauty or ethics amount to nothing more than claims about their preferences does not, in itself, make all claims about beauty or ethics reducible to mere preference.

That is what Hee_Zen has been claiming despite the fact that it has been demonstrated over and over again that even his paradigm “de gustibus” claims such as “too spicy,” “too salty,” “too heavy,” etc., do not all reduce to being MERELY preference claims.

That was the premise of his argument - that “taste” is subjective and therefore tastes in beauty and ethics are also subjective.

Clearly, he has no argument to speak of, since none of his claims have stood up to even the most cursory analysis.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I’ve explained how words like salty, spicy, heavy, etc., CAN BE preference claims and even BE intended as solely that kind of claim, but they do not, therefore, NEED to be merely preference claims. The individual could, just as legitimately be making a factual claim, such as when someone on a low salt diet states that the food is too salty and even expresses that claim as a particular food “tastes too salty.”

And these “factual claims” about a “low salt diet” OBVIOUSLY belong to the field of aesthetics… How could I have missed that aesthetics incorporates medical science, too? Sheesh…

 

[Hee_Zen]

Let’s see what else did I “learn” now?

Suppose someone exclaims “I made a pretty penny on that deal” and MAYBE he refers to the artistic “beauty” of the coin and not the financial advancement… Or when the doctor exclaims: “that is a very ugly cut you have here” is not making a medical assessment of the damage, but an aesthetic disappointment seeing the sloppy (uncultured) character of that laceration. After all, if the dietary concern now belongs to the field of aesthetics, then the reverse is also true.

Let’s see what kind of nonsense can you come up with next time?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And these “factual claims” about a “low salt diet” OBVIOUSLY belong to the field of aesthetics… How could I have missed that aesthetics incorporates medical science, too? Sheesh…

You seem confused. Now you are resorting to hashing together different claims in a bizarre attempt to discredit them. You know the above misrepresents what I claimed.

The point you seem to keep missing is that where “taste” is concerned, claims may be subjective (as in when someone likes or prefers the taste of a flavor of ice cream) but claims may also be objective (as when someone claims the meal is too salty.) The determination of whether the claim is an objective or subjective one depends upon the intent of the one making the claim and whether their claim is ABOUT objective reality or ABOUT their own subjective preference.

What I am saying is that aesthetic claims may have a similar “ABOUTNESS” to them. Many people, especially those not trained regarding aesthetics may simply mean their claims ABOUT beauty are intended to be merely subjective claims, but that does not rule out the possibility that objective claims regarding aesthetics could be made by someone with sufficient knowledge or the wherewithal to make competent aesthetic claims ABOUT objects rather than merely expressing subjective preferences.

Similarly, someone with sufficient knowledge of ethics may be competent to make objective moral claims, while others with insufficient knowledge may, in fact, be merely expressing a subjective moral preference.

The mere fact that different individuals have different views regarding aesthetics or ethics does not, in itself, nor simply by the fact that different views exist make your case that aesthetics or ethics are subjective, despite your ongoing insistence that you have made that case.

Your entire case rests on the fact that:

1. Subjective preferences regarding tastes exist and are different between individuals.
2. Aesthetic and moral preferences can be expressed by individuals.

So what?

1. Objective statements about tastes can also be made, such as when someone says “This steak is too salty,” meaning they detect too much salt and should not be eating salty foods.
2. Aesthetics and ethics are properly philosophical and academic areas of study and legitimate theories of ethics and aesthetics exist and can be defended rationally and logically.

It is objective ethical and aesthetic claims that need to be considered on their own merit and argued against, not merely relegated by dogmatic fiat to the status of subjective expressions, just 'cause you say they are.

 

[inocente]

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
You can’t be suggesting that we cannot determine if someone suffers from psychosis.
This makes no sense. It is done all the time by psychiatrists.
The criteria involve the overall capacity of reality-testing.
I order to determine if the person is out of reality, one must understand the person’s experience and have a sense of the actual reality that he is distorting.

Did you miss the smiley? I’m no expert but I think psychiatrists wouldn’t say “properly functioning subjectivity” to mean lack of psychosis. According to psychology.wikia.com, “Subjectivity refers to a person’s perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unsubstantiated personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.” So telling someone that their subjectivity is not functioning correctly, i.e. their opinions, feelings, beliefs and desires are wrong, would only be classed as a medical condition in Soviet era gulags. I think in philosophy, “subjectivity” is used to mean things such as what-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat.

 

[inocente]

Sure, and people use the word “sick” in lots of subjective and objective ways depending upon their intent and message. Does that mean a physician is compelled to think the way s/he uses the word sick is the same as the way a mouthy adolescent does?

Again, in case you missed my point about the distinction between preference claims, judgements and factual claims, you need to go back and bone up.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12627280&postcount=808

Words that attempt to express how individuals feel or think about qualities MAY BE mere expressions of subjective preference, but those words do not, thereby, necessarily have to be mere claims of subjective preference, NOR are those words necessarily intended to be mere expressions of preference by anyone who uses them, NOR can an argument be made that merely because those words CAN be so used that the qualities associated with those expressions must necessarily be subjective expressions of preference.

I’ve explained how words like salty, spicy, heavy, etc., CAN BE preference claims and even BE intended as solely that kind of claim, but they do not, therefore, NEED to be merely preference claims. The individual could, just as legitimately be making a factual claim, such as when someone on a low salt diet states that the food is too salty and even expresses that claim as a particular food “tastes too salty.”

Merely because some individuals think that claims about beauty or ethics amount to nothing more than claims about their preferences does not, in itself, make all claims about beauty or ethics reducible to mere preference.

That is what Hee_Zen has been claiming despite the fact that it has been demonstrated over and over again that even his paradigm “de gustibus” claims such as “too spicy,” “too salty,” “too heavy,” etc., do not all reduce to being MERELY preference claims.

That was the premise of his argument - that “taste” is subjective and therefore tastes in beauty and ethics are also subjective.

Clearly, he has no argument to speak of, since none of his claims have stood up to even the most cursory analysis.

Your salty fish example works against you.

You said ‘“This fish tastes salty,” is a factual claim which can be checked by whether salts exist in the composition of the fish.’

But the fish may taste salty to you and yet not contain salts: Your taste-buds could be malfunctioning or firing in response to something which tastes like salt but isn’t, just as saccharine tastes sweet but isn’t sugar. Tastes don’t even need the presence of food - just a tiny electric current is all that’s needed, e.g. medicalnewstoday.com/articles/269324.php

Or the fish may contain salts but not taste salty to you: “Different salts can elicit all five basic tastes, e.g., salty (sodium chloride), sweet (lead diacetate, which will cause lead poisoning if ingested), sour (potassium bitartrate), bitter (magnesium sulfate), and umami or savory (monosodium glutamate).” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_%28chemistry%29#Taste

So the taste of the fish to you may or may not coincide with whether the fish really contains salts.

And that’s a case where we can independently use machines to analyze the chemical composition of the fish. But with beauty there is no independent measure, there is no testable analysis.

We could rightly say that all healthy humans probably share some concepts of what is beautiful and moral, just by virtue of being human, but that’s a long way from claiming that Pink Flood’s greatest hits are more/less beautiful than some other aging pop combo’s, or even that their whale ditty (Echos?) is more/less beautiful than a wolf pack extemporizing under a full moon. If there’s no way to make objective comparisons then the claim that beauty is objective would seem to have no legs.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t believe anyone has said that.

People do not always admit - or even realise - the full implications of their statements. Some give the impression that science will dispense with all non-scientific - particularly religious and metaphysical - explanations. After all, materialism is the prevailing ideology in our secular society…

 

[tonyrey]

Your salty fish example works against you.

You said ‘“This fish tastes salty,” is a factual claim which can be checked by whether salts exist in the composition of the fish.’

But the fish may taste salty to you and yet not contain salts: Your taste-buds could be malfunctioning or firing in response to something which tastes like salt but isn’t, just as saccharine tastes sweet but isn’t sugar. Tastes don’t even need the presence of food - just a tiny electric current is all that’s needed, e.g. medicalnewstoday.com/articles/269324.php

Or the fish may contain salts but not taste salty to you: “Different salts can elicit all five basic tastes, e.g., salty (sodium chloride), sweet (lead diacetate, which will cause lead poisoning if ingested), sour (potassium bitartrate), bitter (magnesium sulfate), and umami or savory (monosodium glutamate).” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_%28chemistry%29#Taste

So the taste of the fish to you may or may not coincide with whether the fish really contains salts.

And that’s a case where we can independently use machines to analyze the chemical composition of the fish. But with beauty there is no independent measure, there is no testable analysis.

We could rightly say that all healthy humans probably share some concepts of what is beautiful and moral, just by virtue of being human, but that’s a long way from claiming that Pink Flood’s greatest hits are more/less beautiful than some other aging pop combo’s, or even that their whale ditty (Echos?) is more/less beautiful than a wolf pack extemporizing under a full moon. If there’s no way to make objective comparisons then the claim that beauty is objective would seem to have no legs.

Do you think any **normal **person would regard an unfortunate woman with one eye half an inch higher than the other as physically beautiful?

Those who do illustrate how science is often believed to be the only type of valid explanation…

 

[inocente]

People do not always admit - or even realise - the full implications of their statements. Some give the impression that science will dispense with all non-scientific - particularly religious and metaphysical - explanations. After all, materialism is the prevailing ideology in our secular society…

I decided to be scientific and check up on that. In your neck of the woods, the UK, it seems most people are not materialists. They believe in the supernatural but are not members of organized religions.

The BBC says 55% believe in heaven, 53% in life after death, 70% believe in the human soul, 39% in ghosts, 27% in reincarnation and 22% in astrology. A company called YouGov found that 23% say they are religious, 28% have felt the presence of a supernatural being and 9% say they have communicated with the dead.

 

[inocente]

Do you think any **normal **person would regard an unfortunate woman with one eye half an inch higher than the other as physically beautiful?

Those who do illustrate how science is often believed to be the only type of valid explanation…

If the woman is a mother, I can imagine her husband and children see her beauty, why wouldn’t they?

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

• Isaiah 53

 

[tonyrey]

Do you think any **normal **

You have overlooked an adjective…