Forum Settings
Forums

TBH, it doesn't feel right completely separating enjoyment from your score.

Pages (4) « First ... « 2 3 [4]
Post New Reply
May 20, 5:50 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2281
thewiru said:
HyperL said:
Many people are straight up afraid of relativism for some damn reason (must be the JP effect).

We gotta accept that many 'things' in so called 'existence' are indeed relativistic in nature, most especially those related to quality evaluation.


"His [Walter Block's] thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos.

The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict.

The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities."


Objective criteria are nescessary, otherwise there will be no way to discriminate (Make a value judgement) between something good and something bad, so the quality of such thing would go down.
I know it is already a jaded example... but just look at post-modern art.


That's assuming I even agree with half of this Block guy's assertions.

I agree that we need criterias in order to make a quality evaluation. Btw, I'm considering quality and value as different things here.

I disagree, however, on the notion that any of these criterias are de facto objective, or in other words, inherent in its value or status as a parameter of evaluation.
Thinking of sending me a friend request?

Before you do it, please check the 'Friend request' section of my profile.
 
May 20, 5:52 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12418
RogertheShrubber said:
katsucats said:
No, that's the rules of a ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics)

Note: Not a field, my mistake.

Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system.

Rigor is irrelevant when it comes to axioms because they are by definition self-evident. X=X has to be true, and it cannot be proven to be true.



"Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system."

Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand.
I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems.

What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective.

Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
May 20, 5:58 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12418
HyperL said:
thewiru said:


"His [Walter Block's] thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos.

The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict.

The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities."


Objective criteria are nescessary, otherwise there will be no way to discriminate (Make a value judgement) between something good and something bad, so the quality of such thing would go down.
I know it is already a jaded example... but just look at post-modern art.


That's assuming I even agree with half of this Block guy's assertions.

I agree that we need criterias in order to make a quality evaluation. Btw, I'm considering quality and value as different things here.

I disagree, however, on the notion that any of these criterias are de facto objective, or in other words, inherent in its value or status as a parameter of evaluation.
And Block doesn't say anything in that excerpt that could reasonably lead anyone to conclude that "objective criteria are necessary" -- which is a failure to discern the meaning of words. In fact, subjective criteria are necessary, by the definition of what it means to discriminate based on one's values. One's values cannot possibly be objective, since something manifestly born of the subject cannot be free from the subject.

The problem here is half the people posting in this thread have no idea what objectivity means, yet they want to reject what the dictionary and the past 1000 years of philosophy has to say on the matter.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
May 20, 6:02 PM
Online
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 45667
can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and loose/informal definitions
Modified by deg, May 20, 6:08 PM
 
May 20, 6:05 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 266
katsucats said:
RogertheShrubber said:


"The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not."

There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic)
Notice your use of the word "derived". One must ask derived from what? Models of physical observations, or personal opinion? Clearly, the former. That has been repeatedly stated to you that logic in itself does not make something objective. It has also been stated that logical derivation from physical facts are tautological, by definition. The word tautology means that they mean exactly the same thing. So that a logically derived theorem cannot be independent from observation. Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Quantities itself is measurable by definition."

Not necessarily, only within certain axiomatic systems.
I see that you conveniently deleted my following statement so let me restate this for posterity. Countable quantities are measurable by definition, and uncountable quantities are a function of countable quantities. That is, we can show a quantity is uncountable by proving that it is not countable.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Rigorous logic does not make something objective."

mathematics is objective, if you agree then you must agree that rigorous logic makes something objective.
This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar:

"Bananas are yellow. (Bananas are also a fruit) If you agree then you must agree that fruits are yellow." -- the venerable @RogertheShrubber

This is clearly false.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Premises that are independent of individual judgment"

in mathematics they are not, axioms are informed by intuition.
Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment, unless you mean to suggest that science is not objective, or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible. In other words, either you are falsifying science with this line of reasoning, or you are trivializing it.

RogertheShrubber said:
If you were to show that 1. there is a valid justification for why action anime are good (that which is self consistent) and 2. that SAO is indeed an action anime then yes this would be a rigorous and thus objective case. Although this would likely do little to convince many people.
Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor.


"Notice your use of the word "derived". One must ask derived from what? Models of physical observations, or personal opinion?"

That is inconsequential, the theorem has no measurable justification, it rests exclusively on it's logical rigor. A implies B is still a logical argument even if A is empirically justified.

"This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar: "

I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence.

"Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified."

I never said they were, my point is science is typically empirically justified whereas mathematics is never empirically justified however both are logically rigorous.

"Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment"

Why does this distinction matter? there could just as easily be an intuitive (i.e. non deliberate) judgment that a certain quality of art is valuable.

"or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible."

You would only say this if you havn't understood me. It is clearly not equivalent to the judgement of HOW MUCH a person enjoys monet or the bible but it is indeed equivalent to the judgement of FOR WHAT OBJECTIVE QUALITIES of those works would make them enjoyable to a person with identical value metrics.

"Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor."

I was operating under the assumption that rigor and soundness are synonymous, if they are not then simply replace everywhere I said "rigorous" with "both rigorous and sound".
 
May 20, 6:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12418
deg said:
can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions
I wouldn't mind that if this confusion is literally, in my opinion, destroying the quality of anime reviews. People strive to be "objective" in a mistaken sense that causes them to talk about "enjoyment" in cognitive dissonance. It also causes them to attempt to summarize authoritatively character, story, sound, audio, etc., when that is a very contrived format for a review. I have never seen a review from any other medium, nor people, that seem to think this is a good idea. No professional reviewer writes in this format. Countless anime discussions are polluted by people purporting to be objective, and also purporting that subjective analysis are worthless, when they are the only kind of analysis that's worth something.

Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language.

The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
May 20, 6:20 PM
Online
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 45667
katsucats said:
deg said:
can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions
I wouldn't mind that if this confusion is literally, in my opinion, destroying the quality of anime reviews. People strive to be "objective" in a mistaken sense that causes them to talk about "enjoyment" in cognitive dissonance. It also causes them to attempt to summarize authoritatively character, story, sound, audio, etc., when that is a very contrived format for a review. I have never seen a review from any other medium, nor people, that seem to think this is a good idea. No professional reviewer writes in this format. Countless anime discussions are polluted by people purporting to be objective, and also purporting that subjective analysis are worthless, when they are the only kind of analysis that's worth something.

Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language.

The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says.


i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete

and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public

so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it
 
May 20, 6:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 266
katsucats said:
RogertheShrubber said:



"Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system."

Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand.
I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems.

What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective.

Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without.


"I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems."

Yes I agree with this, the fact that they contradict does not preclude objectivity. In fact I have been making that point since the beginning.

"What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument."

On what logic are we to assume the premise of an artistic review is arbitrary? I made it quite clear that is was necessary to justify this premise as to ensure it is constructive and self consistent.

"Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective."

And why can this premise not be presumed? There could just as easily be an artistic value metric which is informed by intuition as there are axioms which are informed by the same.



"Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without."

As you may remember there was another definition of Axiom, Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. This is not necessarily self evident, it is merely something which is accepted as true. This also does not imply that it must be accepted by everyone but rather accepted only within the subset engaged with that particular axiomatic system. A good example of this would be philosophy, there are distinct philosophical schools of thought which are self consistent and logically rigorous, within these schools of thought there are premises which are accepted as true, these premises are therefore axiomatic.
Modified by RogertheShrubber, May 20, 6:27 PM
 
May 20, 6:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 11
it's mostly just a bunch of psueds who think they're masters of analysis. It's possible to be more objective by using evidence to justify your analysis, but a 100% unbiased take that actually has any weight as a statement isn't going to happen
I run a small discord community link is in bio
 
May 20, 6:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 355
deg said:
katsucats said:
I wouldn't mind that if this confusion is literally, in my opinion, destroying the quality of anime reviews. People strive to be "objective" in a mistaken sense that causes them to talk about "enjoyment" in cognitive dissonance. It also causes them to attempt to summarize authoritatively character, story, sound, audio, etc., when that is a very contrived format for a review. I have never seen a review from any other medium, nor people, that seem to think this is a good idea. No professional reviewer writes in this format. Countless anime discussions are polluted by people purporting to be objective, and also purporting that subjective analysis are worthless, when they are the only kind of analysis that's worth something.

Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language.

The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says.


i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete

and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public

so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it


Yeah, the critics sometimes have a different perception of the "public" (I guess you mean majority in this case), because they have a different baggage (regarding theory, media exposure, media knowledge, personnal tastes, experiences) with which to experience a work. In fact, everyone does. When you say "professional critics", you're using a quite small sample size, but when you say "public", you generalize and don't look at the individual perceptions each person has about it. It's just critics share more similar baggage amongst themselves than with the "public".




"If you throw your life away, you won’t even have the capacity to feel regret."
 
May 20, 6:36 PM
Online
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 45667
Aastra343 said:
deg said:


i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete

and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public

so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it


Yeah, the critics sometimes have a different perception of the "public" (I guess you mean majority in this case), because they have a different baggage (regarding theory, media exposure, media knowledge, personnal tastes, experiences) with which to experience a work. In fact, everyone does. When you say "professional critics", you're using a quite small sample size, but when you say "public", you generalize and don't look at the individual perceptions each person has about it. It's just critics share more similar baggage amongst themselves than with the "public".


i will add with those Academy Awards that usually give awards to like unknown movies most of the times that the public/majority does not care about, but ye recently they started giving awards to popular movies too

and not exactly related to your comment but i will just add this too for the sake of this thread
https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1674906
if there is objectivity in anime how come only few anime finds success especially profit wise?
objectivity is about facts and facts are OLD good tried and tested things so its against the human tendency to want something NEW
 
May 20, 6:37 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 2281
deg said:
can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and loose/informal definitions


In this case the so called loose definition fails to encapsulate true "hard" objectivity and allow for scenarios in which tecnically subjective concepts (by the standards of hard objectivity) are passed as hard objectives.

You can already observe the consequences of such equivoquence everywhere, including this site.
Thinking of sending me a friend request?

Before you do it, please check the 'Friend request' section of my profile.
 
May 20, 6:41 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1073
@katsucats

"You seem to be confused as to the difference between proving something and being objective. Objectivity starts with an empirical premise (i.e. sensing, as opposed to perceiving). It involves no judgment. All character traits involve judgment. You can't see something and derive a trait without thinking about it. At the same time, "characters" do not exist in media, your mind constructs them through the combination of audio and visuals. For example, if audio sparsely correlates with the movement of a certain 'shape' of pixels, you might think that a "character is shy". However, this is several steps removed. Shyness itself involves interpretation. You might think a character is shy, but another person could have latched on to another aspect of the character, and called him boisterous. Another person could assert that it's not a character at all, but metaphorical representation of insecurity, and that the plot isn't actually happening. The discerning behind these 3 possibilities occur 100% in subjectivity -- defending them requires explaining how a person arrived at the conclusion with his line of thought. They all saw the same pixels, and describing the pixels amount to redundancy."

The objective starts and ends with the proof itself. You don't need to count the pixels in order to be objective in that case, that's an extreme form. What happens within that scene is objective in so far in what you were visually shown. Now you can interpret and draw to different conclusions, but if they aren't supported by what's shown you reached a wrong conclusion. Take saying a mute character is loud despite not talking in the show, you'll likely be wrong unless you show a scene where they make a lot of noise some other way. If there are no scenes like that, then the person would be wrong since nothing objective supports it.

"But not objective. None of what you are discerning can be scientifically measured. There is no definition of clumsiness that isn't culturally derived, and by relative comparison to the norm. I could say the character is an attention whore falling on purpose, and you'd have no decisive evidence to prove me wrong by any standard besides opinion."

Not everything objective is scientific, there are other forms. There is a definition on what counts as clumsy though, it may be a comparison type thing, but it is something that can be proven using the definition.

I could point to a scene where they were yelling and crying due to all the attention they were receiving. That would be decisive evidence that contradicts the claim.

"Subjectivity is not just what's good or bad, but also what's clumsy. What you need is a dictionary before you continue this conversation"

I wasn't defining subjectively. I just said to subjectively explain what is good or bad. I never told you what subjectively explain means. What you need to do is actually read what I said before you dismiss me.

"... subjective fact."

That's an oxymoron though if it's subjective than it isn't a fact something known or proven to be true.

 
May 20, 6:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 266
katsucats said:
deg said:
can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions
I wouldn't mind that if this confusion is literally, in my opinion, destroying the quality of anime reviews. People strive to be "objective" in a mistaken sense that causes them to talk about "enjoyment" in cognitive dissonance. It also causes them to attempt to summarize authoritatively character, story, sound, audio, etc., when that is a very contrived format for a review. I have never seen a review from any other medium, nor people, that seem to think this is a good idea. No professional reviewer writes in this format. Countless anime discussions are polluted by people purporting to be objective, and also purporting that subjective analysis are worthless, when they are the only kind of analysis that's worth something.

Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language.

The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says.



"It also causes them to attempt to summarize authoritatively character, story, sound, audio, etc., when that is a very contrived format for a review. I have never seen a review from any other medium, nor people, that seem to think this is a good idea. No professional reviewer writes in this format."

I am not arguing for this review format, in fact I find it unbearably pointless. No review can be boiled down to five or six talking points, or if it does it missed the point entirely.


"Countless anime discussions are polluted by people purporting to be objective, and also purporting that subjective analysis are worthless, when they are the only kind of analysis that's worth something."

I agree, people who use objective truth to mean categorical truth are my biggest pet peeve. I would say however that an Exclusively subjective analysis is worthless, and I would argue that this subjective appeal should be presented in an objective manner whenever possible.

"regardless of what any fake physicist says"

I have my bachelors in physics and I'm working towards my masters in quantum mechanics. Feel free to think what you like but fuck off with the ignorant taunts.
Modified by RogertheShrubber, May 20, 6:52 PM
 
May 20, 6:46 PM
Online
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 45667
HyperL said:
deg said:
can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and loose/informal definitions


In this case the so called loose definition fails to encapsulate true "hard" objectivity and allow for scenarios in which tecnically subjective concepts (by the standards of hard objectivity) are passed as hard objectives.

You can already observe the consequences of such equivoquence everywhere, including this site.


ye the loose definition of objective is subjective too anyway and a lot of critics/reviews on this site alone preach their pseudo-objectivity as some hard facts or the readers of those critics/reviews treat is as hard facts too

the internet is serious business thats all

 
May 20, 6:46 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 355
deg said:
Aastra343 said:


Yeah, the critics sometimes have a different perception of the "public" (I guess you mean majority in this case), because they have a different baggage (regarding theory, media exposure, media knowledge, personnal tastes, experiences) with which to experience a work. In fact, everyone does. When you say "professional critics", you're using a quite small sample size, but when you say "public", you generalize and don't look at the individual perceptions each person has about it. It's just critics share more similar baggage amongst themselves than with the "public".


i will add with those Academy Awards that usually give awards to like unknown movies most of the times that the public/majority does not care about, but ye recently they started giving awards to popular movies too


As a professor of mine once said: film elitists love to circle jerk their ego to their own "refined" taste.

But their audience was dropping year after year and if there's something that will wreck one's ego is threatening their finances.




"If you throw your life away, you won’t even have the capacity to feel regret."
 
May 20, 6:49 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12418
RogertheShrubber said:
katsucats said:
Notice your use of the word "derived". One must ask derived from what? Models of physical observations, or personal opinion? Clearly, the former. That has been repeatedly stated to you that logic in itself does not make something objective. It has also been stated that logical derivation from physical facts are tautological, by definition. The word tautology means that they mean exactly the same thing. So that a logically derived theorem cannot be independent from observation. Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified.

I see that you conveniently deleted my following statement so let me restate this for posterity. Countable quantities are measurable by definition, and uncountable quantities are a function of countable quantities. That is, we can show a quantity is uncountable by proving that it is not countable.

This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar:

"Bananas are yellow. (Bananas are also a fruit) If you agree then you must agree that fruits are yellow." -- the venerable @RogertheShrubber

This is clearly false.

Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment, unless you mean to suggest that science is not objective, or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible. In other words, either you are falsifying science with this line of reasoning, or you are trivializing it.

Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor.
"Notice your use of the word "derived". One must ask derived from what? Models of physical observations, or personal opinion?"

That is inconsequential, the theorem has no measurable justification, it rests exclusively on it's logical rigor. A implies B is still a logical argument even if A is empirically justified.
It is, despite what you've said before that you've now contradicted. A implies B might even be said to be objective, presuming A, if it is also valid. However, if A is expressly a subjective statement, then it is unreasonable to presume A. An analysis consists not only of the internal reasoning within the analysis, since that would mean there is no premise besides the conclusion.

RogertheShrubber said:
"This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar: "

I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence.
That's true, pedantically so. It ignores the empirical intuition that inform the rules, whether you define the number line as cardinality of a set or by induction. Math, if defined as a logical system, does not regard the veracity of its premises; yet as we know, the numbers, the premises, mean something that corresponds to reality. So what's absolutely heinous on your part is treating math rigorously and informally when it is convenient. If rigorously, the truth value of the axioms are irrelevant. If informally, the truth value of the axioms is relevant. You cannot have it both ways. If it is irrelevant, why did you waste 2 pages arguing about axioms? If relevant, then what are you talking about here? I think this is just another way for you to score a superfluous "win".

But suppose formal math is just a logical system with arbitrary parameters, which it had been developed into post hoc. Even so, those arbitrary parameters are not the result of any deliberate judgment, insofar that the conclusions relate to the judgment. I'll give an example. In anime, if you say that a character doesn't talk a lot, therefore he is shy, the conclusion rests on the deliberate judgment of the character not talking a lot. However, asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch. Shyness implies something further beyond the inference. It gives new information, perhaps on the motivation. The rules of math does not because it is formally tautological.

Furthermore, while there is deliberate judgment in deciding the rules of math, applying the rules of math itself does not require a similar judgment. Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment, even after the judgment that characters who don't talk a lot must be shy has already been made.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified."

I never said they were,
You did, here
RogertheShrubber said:
There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic)


RogertheShrubber said:
my point is science is typically empirically justified whereas mathematics is never empirically justified however both are logically rigorous.
That clearly wasn't your point. Your point was that you wanted your cake and to also eat it. You wanted to assert science as being free from necessary empirical justification, while being free from the solipsist conclusion yourself.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment"

Why does this distinction matter? there could just as easily be an intuitive (i.e. non deliberate) judgment that a certain quality of art is valuable.
There is not. That is why it matters. The intuition involved in math could be said to be inductive reasoning, classification, etc., all of which can be formally defined and consistently applied. That they began with intuition is not as important as the preciseness in which they could be reasoned.

RogertheShrubber said:
"or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible."

You would only say this if you havn't understood me. It is clearly not equivalent to the judgement of HOW MUCH a person enjoys monet or the bible but it is indeed equivalent to the judgement of FOR WHAT OBJECTIVE QUALITIES of those works would make them enjoyable to a person with identical value metrics.
There are no objective qualities that directly translate into enjoyment. Value metrics, whether quantified or existential, are subjective by nature. While indeed a Monet painting has objective qualities, it is not those objective qualities that a person feels. For example, a person does not usually describe paintings as blotches of blue above blotches of green, but in subjective terms of movement, warmth, and inspiration, etc. YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor."

I was operating under the assumption that rigor and soundness are synonymous, if they are not then simply replace everywhere I said "rigorous" with "both rigorous and sound".
Bullshit. This is a direct contradiction with what you wrote earlier. I quote:
RogertheShrubber said:
I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
May 20, 6:53 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12418
deg said:
katsucats said:
I wouldn't mind that if this confusion is literally, in my opinion, destroying the quality of anime reviews. People strive to be "objective" in a mistaken sense that causes them to talk about "enjoyment" in cognitive dissonance. It also causes them to attempt to summarize authoritatively character, story, sound, audio, etc., when that is a very contrived format for a review. I have never seen a review from any other medium, nor people, that seem to think this is a good idea. No professional reviewer writes in this format. Countless anime discussions are polluted by people purporting to be objective, and also purporting that subjective analysis are worthless, when they are the only kind of analysis that's worth something.

Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language.

The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says.


i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete
The definition of a word has nothing to do with what's scientifically possible. How ridiculous.

deg said:
and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public
The purpose of a review is to explain how the author enjoyed the work, not to predict how the audience would. You're confusing a critic and a data scientist.

deg said:
so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it
No, nothing of what you just said supported your conclusion.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
May 20, 7:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12418
RogertheShrubber said:
katsucats said:
I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems.

What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective.

Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without.


"I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems."

Yes I agree with this, the fact that they contradict does not preclude objectivity. In fact I have been making that point since the beginning.
There is no fact that they contradict since they do not contradict. Your point since the beginning was that football contradicts basketball, which is incidentally irrelevant to the conversation. They do not preclude objectivity because either:
1. They are an axiom, self-evidently based on intuition.
2. They do not require deliberate judgment to apply.

RogertheShrubber said:
"What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument."

On what logic are we to assume the premise of an artistic review is arbitrary? I made it quite clear that is was necessary to justify this premise as to ensure it is constructive and self consistent.
On no logic, but empirical evidence that people have different opinions.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective."

And why can this premise not be presumed? There could just as easily be an artistic value metric which is informed by intuition as there are axioms which are informed by the same.
There has not been any aesthetic metric that could be measured intersubjectively, nor that people could universally agree upon the same standard. Therefore, the premise of any aesthetic valuation cannot be presumed, because it is likely that no audience would precisely agree. What could logically occur here is a red herring. The fact is that it empirically has not. Perhaps, now's your chance to win your Nobel prize for finding the objective basis in opinions.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without."

As you may remember there was another definition of Axiom, Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. This is not necessarily self evident, it is merely something which is accepted as true. This also does not imply that it must be accepted by everyone but rather accepted only within the subset engaged with that particular axiomatic system.
Thank you for reminding me; however, that is not the definition I am using to define an objective premise. Using this definition, I could say "I love the color blue" as a premise for an argument, which would not be an objective statement.

RogertheShrubber said:
A good example of this would be philosophy, there are distinct philosophical schools of thought which are self consistent and logically rigorous, within these schools of thought there are premises which are accepted as true, these premises are therefore axiomatic.
Axiomatic within those systems. Look, you can presume your own opinions are true all you like, but that doesn't mean the rest of us won't roll our eyes.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
May 20, 7:26 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12418
Peaceful_Critic said:
@katsucats

"You seem to be confused as to the difference between proving something and being objective. Objectivity starts with an empirical premise (i.e. sensing, as opposed to perceiving). It involves no judgment. All character traits involve judgment. You can't see something and derive a trait without thinking about it. At the same time, "characters" do not exist in media, your mind constructs them through the combination of audio and visuals. For example, if audio sparsely correlates with the movement of a certain 'shape' of pixels, you might think that a "character is shy". However, this is several steps removed. Shyness itself involves interpretation. You might think a character is shy, but another person could have latched on to another aspect of the character, and called him boisterous. Another person could assert that it's not a character at all, but metaphorical representation of insecurity, and that the plot isn't actually happening. The discerning behind these 3 possibilities occur 100% in subjectivity -- defending them requires explaining how a person arrived at the conclusion with his line of thought. They all saw the same pixels, and describing the pixels amount to redundancy."

The objective starts and ends with the proof itself. You don't need to count the pixels in order to be objective in that case, that's an extreme form. What happens within that scene is objective in so far in what you were visually shown.
Scenes are not objective to begin with. The only objective basis of a scene could be the abrupt color distance of pixels compared to a prior moment. What happens from then on is based on your interpretation, which is inseparable from your being. There is no measurement or precise definition of a scene from which it is viewed from the media. You derive that a scene has occurred from your personal understanding of how stories are told, how animation is made, and how your mind infers the movement of the pixels according to your own biases.

Peaceful_Critic said:
Now you can interpret and draw to different conclusions, but if they aren't supported by what's shown you reached a wrong conclusion.
They aren't supported by what's shown, they are supported by how well you can articulate your reasoning, based upon your subjective interpretations.

Peaceful_Critic said:
Take saying a mute character is loud despite not talking in the show, you'll likely be wrong unless you show a scene where they make a lot of noise some other way. If there are no scenes like that, then the person would be wrong since nothing objective supports it.
It would be hard to reason that effectively, but since there is no objective evidence for the existence of a character, never mind a character being mute, the 'wrongness' comes from inductive as opposed to deductive reasoning. That is to say that the person either made a strong or weak case for his opinion, and it is not absolutely right or wrong.

Peaceful_Critic said:
"But not objective. None of what you are discerning can be scientifically measured. There is no definition of clumsiness that isn't culturally derived, and by relative comparison to the norm. I could say the character is an attention whore falling on purpose, and you'd have no decisive evidence to prove me wrong by any standard besides opinion."

Not everything objective is scientific, there are other forms. There is a definition on what counts as clumsy though, it may be a comparison type thing, but it is something that can be proven using the definition.
Science is the means to determine the objective, empirical reality. There is no other form. There is no definition of clumsy that could be measured and independently confirmed. She fell 4 times, so she is 6.4cd (clumsy density), whereas he is 5.4cd. No. The fact is that the word 'clumsy' doesn't even arise within culture as any specifically measurable components, so no one would agree to such a classification.

Peaceful_Critic said:
I could point to a scene where they were yelling and crying due to all the attention they were receiving. That would be decisive evidence that contradicts the claim.
No, that would be evidence that you're interpreting things differently than someone else.

Peaceful_Critic said:
"Subjectivity is not just what's good or bad, but also what's clumsy. What you need is a dictionary before you continue this conversation"

I wasn't defining subjectively. I just said to subjectively explain what is good or bad. I never told you what subjectively explain means. What you need to do is actually read what I said before you dismiss me.
I have, I've read it so well.
Peaceful_Critic said:
Now I am able to apply it to the context and explain subjectively why it's good or bad, but I should still support the things I'm saying.
When you say "but" you should be able to support what you're saying, you are contrasting the support against the subjective explanation. You mean that the support must be objective, otherwise, you would use "and, not "but". You also mean that the support should be in addition to explaining what's good or bad. In fact, you did say a character being clumsy would be objective, here:
Peaceful_Critic said:
If I say a character is clumsy then I show you that they fall or trip all the time and I can show you several scenes to support that then I am objectively right.

You see, I am quite impervious to these half-assed attempts to lie.

Peaceful_Critic said:
"... subjective fact."

That's an oxymoron though if it's subjective than it isn't a fact something known or proven to be true.
You're right. I used 'fact' as a proxy. Perhaps, 'statement' would be more accurate, yet the meaning is still evident. However, the use of 'fact' here is not an accident. A person could articulately express his opinions and subjectively support his subjective opinions with other subjective opinions that expand on the topic so as to communicate a more thorough picture. We can conclude then that he has perceived some kind of a fact, even though it is not conclusive, but the best evidence points in that direction until someone else gives another opinion. However, both opinions are in effect testimony and both subjective.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
May 20, 7:36 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 266
katsucats said:
RogertheShrubber said:
"Notice your use of the word "derived". One must ask derived from what? Models of physical observations, or personal opinion?"

That is inconsequential, the theorem has no measurable justification, it rests exclusively on it's logical rigor. A implies B is still a logical argument even if A is empirically justified.
It is, despite what you've said before that you've now contradicted. A implies B might even be said to be objective, presuming A, if it is also valid. However, if A is expressly a subjective statement, then it is unreasonable to presume A. An analysis consists not only of the internal reasoning within the analysis, since that would mean there is no premise besides the conclusion.

RogertheShrubber said:
"This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar: "

I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence.
That's true, pedantically so. It ignores the empirical intuition that inform the rules, whether you define the number line as cardinality of a set or by induction. Math, if defined as a logical system, does not regard the veracity of its premises; yet as we know, the numbers, the premises, mean something that corresponds to reality. So what's absolutely heinous on your part is treating math rigorously and informally when it is convenient. If rigorously, the truth value of the axioms are irrelevant. If informally, the truth value of the axioms is relevant. You cannot have it both ways. If it is irrelevant, why did you waste 2 pages arguing about axioms? If relevant, then what are you talking about here? I think this is just another way for you to score a superfluous "win".

But suppose formal math is just a logical system with arbitrary parameters, which it had been developed into post hoc. Even so, those arbitrary parameters are not the result of any deliberate judgment, insofar that the conclusions relate to the judgment. I'll give an example. In anime, if you say that a character doesn't talk a lot, therefore he is shy, the conclusion rests on the deliberate judgment of the character not talking a lot. However, asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch. Shyness implies something further beyond the inference. It gives new information, perhaps on the motivation. The rules of math does not because it is formally tautological.

Furthermore, while there is deliberate judgment in deciding the rules of math, applying the rules of math itself does not require a similar judgment. Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment, even after the judgment that characters who don't talk a lot must be shy has already been made.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified."

I never said they were,
You did, here
RogertheShrubber said:
There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic)


RogertheShrubber said:
my point is science is typically empirically justified whereas mathematics is never empirically justified however both are logically rigorous.
That clearly wasn't your point. Your point was that you wanted your cake and to also eat it. You wanted to assert science as being free from necessary empirical justification, while being free from the solipsist conclusion yourself.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment"

Why does this distinction matter? there could just as easily be an intuitive (i.e. non deliberate) judgment that a certain quality of art is valuable.
There is not. That is why it matters. The intuition involved in math could be said to be inductive reasoning, classification, etc., all of which can be formally defined and consistently applied. That they began with intuition is not as important as the preciseness in which they could be reasoned.

RogertheShrubber said:
"or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible."

You would only say this if you havn't understood me. It is clearly not equivalent to the judgement of HOW MUCH a person enjoys monet or the bible but it is indeed equivalent to the judgement of FOR WHAT OBJECTIVE QUALITIES of those works would make them enjoyable to a person with identical value metrics.
There are no objective qualities that directly translate into enjoyment. Value metrics, whether quantified or existential, are subjective by nature. While indeed a Monet painting has objective qualities, it is not those objective qualities that a person feels. For example, a person does not usually describe paintings as blotches of blue above blotches of green, but in subjective terms of movement, warmth, and inspiration, etc. YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor."

I was operating under the assumption that rigor and soundness are synonymous, if they are not then simply replace everywhere I said "rigorous" with "both rigorous and sound".
Bullshit. This is a direct contradiction with what you wrote earlier. I quote:
RogertheShrubber said:
I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence.


"It is, despite what you've said before that you've now contradicted. A implies B might even be said to be objective, presuming A, if it is also valid. However, if A is expressly a subjective statement, then it is unreasonable to presume A. An analysis consists not only of the internal reasoning within the analysis, since that would mean there is no premise besides the conclusion."

that depends on what you mean by "presuming A, if it is also valid". In a philosophical context a valid conclusion is one which must be true if the premise were true. Note this does not mean that the premise must be true for A to be valid it need only follow logically from the premise. For example if pigs fly then they are not restricted to the ground. Obviously pigs cannot fly but the conclusion is still valid since it follows naturally from the premise. Yes A cannot be subjective if B is to be objective but it needn't necessarily be true.

"That's true, pedantically so. It ignores the empirical intuition that inform the rules, whether you define the number line as cardinality of a set or by induction. Math, if defined as a logical system, does not regard the veracity of its premises; yet as we know, the numbers, the premises, mean something that corresponds to reality."

"the numbers, the premises, mean something that corresponds to reality" no we assume this to be true, it's arrogant to assume that this cannot possibly be false.

"So what's absolutely heinous on your part is treating math rigorously and informally when it is convenient. If rigorously, the truth value of the axioms are irrelevant. If informally, the truth value of the axioms is relevant. You cannot have it both ways. If it is irrelevant, why did you waste 2 pages arguing about axioms? If relevant, then what are you talking about here? I think this is just another way for you to score a superfluous "win"."

I don't care about "winning" frankly all I'm trying to do is understand you and be understood by you. The fact that mathematics can depend on axioms whose truth value is indeterminable and yet math is still able to be objective is what I'm getting at. This fact should justify that artistic review can be objective on the basis that a premise upon which the artistic review is based needn't necessarily have to have a determinate truth value in order for that review to be objective as long as it is rigorous.

"But suppose formal math is just a logical system with arbitrary parameters, which it had been developed into post hoc. Even so, those arbitrary parameters are not the result of any deliberate judgment, insofar that the conclusions relate to the judgment. I'll give an example. In anime, if you say that a character doesn't talk a lot, therefore he is shy, the conclusion rests on the deliberate judgment of the character not talking a lot. However, asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch. Shyness implies something further beyond the inference. It gives new information, perhaps on the motivation. The rules of math does not because it is formally tautological."

"asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch." it is a stretch because clearly this is not rigorous, further information is necessary to support this claim. Such as showing that there is not additional motivation for not talking.

"Furthermore, while there is deliberate judgment in deciding the rules of math, applying the rules of math itself does not require a similar judgment. Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment, even after the judgment that characters who don't talk a lot must be shy has already been made."

"Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment"

this is only true if the conclusion is not rigorously shown to follow from the premise. also the premise you gave regarding shyness would not meet my criteria because clearly it can result is self contradictions


"The intuition involved in math could be said to be inductive reasoning, classification, etc., all of which can be formally defined and consistently applied"

So can an artistic value metric. If I present the premise that the lack of plot holes is artistically valuable and i go on to rigorously define exactly what a plot hole is then it would indeed be formally defined and able to be consistently applied.

"There are no objective qualities that directly translate into enjoyment. Value metrics, whether quantified or existential, are subjective by nature. While indeed a Monet painting has objective qualities, it is not those objective qualities that a person feels. For example, a person does not usually describe paintings as blotches of blue above blotches of green, but in subjective terms of movement, warmth, and inspiration, etc. YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy."

"There are no objective qualities that directly translate into enjoyment."

The lack of plotholes for example could (assuming the individual valued such a thing) translate directly to their enjoyment.

"While indeed a Monet painting has objective qualities, it is not those objective qualities that a person feels."

yes but it is these objective qualities which are able to inspire feeling while viewing it.

"YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy."

sure, but i haven't tried to do this, all I'm arguing for is that it is possible.

"Bullshit. This is a direct contradiction with what you wrote earlier. I quote:"

I'm not sure what you mean by this, I'm still not sure of the distinction between rigor and soundness. Do you mean that mathematics is rigorous but not sound? If so then let's go with that.
 
May 20, 7:54 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 266
katsucats said:
RogertheShrubber said:


"I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems."

Yes I agree with this, the fact that they contradict does not preclude objectivity. In fact I have been making that point since the beginning.
There is no fact that they contradict since they do not contradict. Your point since the beginning was that football contradicts basketball, which is incidentally irrelevant to the conversation. They do not preclude objectivity because either:
1. They are an axiom, self-evidently based on intuition.
2. They do not require deliberate judgment to apply.

RogertheShrubber said:
"What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument."

On what logic are we to assume the premise of an artistic review is arbitrary? I made it quite clear that is was necessary to justify this premise as to ensure it is constructive and self consistent.
On no logic, but empirical evidence that people have different opinions.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective."

And why can this premise not be presumed? There could just as easily be an artistic value metric which is informed by intuition as there are axioms which are informed by the same.
There has not been any aesthetic metric that could be measured intersubjectively, nor that people could universally agree upon the same standard. Therefore, the premise of any aesthetic valuation cannot be presumed, because it is likely that no audience would precisely agree. What could logically occur here is a red herring. The fact is that it empirically has not. Perhaps, now's your chance to win your Nobel prize for finding the objective basis in opinions.

RogertheShrubber said:
"Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without."

As you may remember there was another definition of Axiom, Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. This is not necessarily self evident, it is merely something which is accepted as true. This also does not imply that it must be accepted by everyone but rather accepted only within the subset engaged with that particular axiomatic system.
Thank you for reminding me; however, that is not the definition I am using to define an objective premise. Using this definition, I could say "I love the color blue" as a premise for an argument, which would not be an objective statement.

RogertheShrubber said:
A good example of this would be philosophy, there are distinct philosophical schools of thought which are self consistent and logically rigorous, within these schools of thought there are premises which are accepted as true, these premises are therefore axiomatic.
Axiomatic within those systems. Look, you can presume your own opinions are true all you like, but that doesn't mean the rest of us won't roll our eyes.
\

"There is no fact that they contradict since they do not contradict. Your point since the beginning was that football contradicts basketball, which is incidentally irrelevant to the conversation"

No this is not the point I have been making, The point I was making is that they do not have to agree with each other for either or both cases to be objective.

"however, that is not the definition I am using to define an objective premise."

well it's the definition that I am using. And because all i am trying to do is prove that objective review is possible all i need to do is show that there is a combination of definitions which support my claim. You have to prove than no combination exists.

"Look, you can presume your own opinions are true all you like, but that doesn't mean the rest of us won't roll our eyes."

what the hell are you getting at, I'm not so naive as to think that my opinions are true, but they can be valid, that is they can follow naturally from my justified premise through rigorous logic.

"There has not been any aesthetic metric that could be measured intersubjectively, nor that people could universally agree upon the same standard. Therefore, the premise of any aesthetic valuation cannot be presumed, because it is likely that no audience would precisely agree."

Why would people need to agree with it universally. Not all scientists agree that the model of the big bang as it stands today is correct. A scientist might present an objective cases that the big bang is not consistent just as a reviewer might present an objective case that a particular value metric is not consistent. There is no universal agreement in science.
 
May 20, 8:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1073
@katsucats
"You derive that a scene has occurred from your personal understanding of how stories are told, how animation is made, and how your mind infers the movement of the pixels according to your own biases."

Why are you taking it to such a scientific extreme? If you saw a character fall they objectively fell. Yes, technically it is just pixels your brain interprets, but that doesn't mean you judge it 100% subjective or objective though. They do actually represent something. You can call my pic a cat, but you'll be wrong. It isn't like when we watch a show, our experiences are drastically different to the point you could say the character didn't fall. You are seeing and hearing the same thing I am, and whatever you are seeing/hearing happened in the context of the art.

" they are supported by how well you can articulate your reasoning, based upon your subjective interpretations."

You could reason all you want about my pixelized pic representing a cat, you'll still have nothing supporting it. A big part of English(class) is supporting what you say through citations such as the MLA format or quoting a line. You need to show your reader where you got the interpretation from, you can't reason your way out of it by further explaining it. Your testimony isn't supported by your own opinion.

"Science is the means to determine the objective, empirical reality. There is no other form."
What's up with all these other nonscientific definitions then: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective?

"No, that would be evidence that you're interpreting things differently than someone else."

There is no interpretation in that scene when it came to that. The character literally, genuinely said they hated attention.

"When you say "but" you should be able to support what you're saying, you are contrasting the support against the subjective explanation. You mean that the support must be objective, otherwise, you would use "and, not "but". You also mean that the support should be in addition to explaining what's good or bad. In fact, you did say a character being clumsy would be objective, here:"

That was more in response to what you said as a contrast to you. The "still" part should've made that apparent. Not to mention, that was me explaining what
think should be done.

I did, and I mean it if I showed you a myriad proof for the claim. A character's traits relate to the objectivity of a scene. No cultures are more clumsy than others, so it shouldn't change that much between cultures that someone would say that the character was elegant due to falling only 18 times within the movie.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, May 20, 8:14 PM

 
May 20, 8:44 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 469
its genetically and biologically impossible for a human brain to view something 100% objectively

if you think otherwise you are wrong don't bother discussing it with me
You son of a .. turtle

 
May 21, 11:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 277
At times I give my ratings on technical grounds. At other times it's mostly about personal enjoyment, though personal significance would be somewhat more correct in my case. I often don't care about stuff other people base the majority of their ratings and vice versa.
 
May 21, 3:25 PM
Hug Addict <3

Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 28355
Anyone completely disregarding enjoyment when scoring an anime is not a human but a robot

A cuddle a day keeps the pouting away~
"Holding hands is just the first step to getting pregnant"
 
May 21, 3:49 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 3946

Pyro said:
It shouldn’t feel right because that’s such a faulty and ridiculous way of thinking. If you completely remove enjoyment from your rating, then that’s basically the same as removing your taste since the personal aspect of appeal is gone. Like you said, there’s no point after that. I, myself do incorporate enjoyment on a lesser degree, but it’s still there. It’s still a key factor. To completely remove it from your summation of judgement is just impractical.

I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who does that and if they are out there, they’re certainly an extreme minority.

Vice-versa rating solely by enjoyment and removing all critical view is ridiculous as well. There should always be a middle ground.


How is rating based on enjoyment ridiculous?
 
May 22, 12:24 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 17598
It's your own personal anime list, do what you want with it, try not to take the opinions of the majority if you like or don't like a certain show they do or don't. Repression is not healthy.
"If you died, would anyone care? Would they really care? Maybe, they'd cry for a day. But, let's be honest no one would give a shit. They wouldn't. The few people that would feel obligated to go to your funeral would probably be annoyed and leave as early as possible. That's who you are. That's what you are. You are nothing to anyone. To everyone."
-Mr. Robot

"I can take another name, and build a new life.. But on the inside I'll always have that instinct, no matter how much I hate it. I'm yakuza through and through. Guile only gets you so far in this game. Remember that. You won't get another chance."
-Kiryu Kazuma
 
May 22, 2:15 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 1803
I only score by enjoyment + maybe +-1 additional point when it feels technically better. But then again: This is subjective. Only things like fps are objective. And you probably wouldn't score by them.

The usual "technical" stuff which people try to score objectively are "animation" and stuff like that. Where less animated on purpose could still be good. (And not always more = better.) Also the anime itself is a composition of design, animation, sound (as in background noises) and music (the ost) and voice acting and directiong (story, pacing).

Hard (or stupid) to score these things individually when combined with each other they could give a totally different impression. (Lilke with the less animation on purpose where it is to create a unique style which could fit perfectly together with all the other stuff. This can only be interesting for "animation fetishits" which purely want to care about animation and need an score only for this seperately because they don't care of overall it is a good anime - as long as the animation is top notch and enough to satistfy them.)
 
May 22, 3:00 AM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1857
Luthandorius said:
I only score by enjoyment + maybe +-1 additional point when it feels technically better. But then again: This is subjective. Only things like fps are objective. And you probably wouldn't score by them.

The usual "technical" stuff which people try to score objectively are "animation" and stuff like that. Where less animated on purpose could still be good. (And not always more = better.) Also the anime itself is a composition of design, animation, sound (as in background noises) and music (the ost) and voice acting and directiong (story, pacing).

Hard (or stupid) to score these things individually when combined with each other they could give a totally different impression. (Lilke with the less animation on purpose where it is to create a unique style which could fit perfectly together with all the other stuff. This can only be interesting for "animation fetishits" which purely want to care about animation and need an score only for this seperately because they don't care of overall it is a good anime - as long as the animation is top notch and enough to satistfy them.)



I don't score them for the most part maybe when it comes to a series where I have read the LN or Manga maybe
 
May 22, 3:02 AM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1857
TsukuyomiREKT said:

Pyro said:
It shouldn’t feel right because that’s such a faulty and ridiculous way of thinking. If you completely remove enjoyment from your rating, then that’s basically the same as removing your taste since the personal aspect of appeal is gone. Like you said, there’s no point after that. I, myself do incorporate enjoyment on a lesser degree, but it’s still there. It’s still a key factor. To completely remove it from your summation of judgement is just impractical.

I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who does that and if they are out there, they’re certainly an extreme minority.

Vice-versa rating solely by enjoyment and removing all critical view is ridiculous as well. There should always be a middle ground.


How is rating based on enjoyment ridiculous?


And critical view how is that more important when pretty much a large % of fans dont know how to and soly fall on enjoyment instead
 
May 22, 3:27 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 1044
Most of the time I score based on my enjoyment and I try to be not so critical but after watching a good amount of shows I can't help but notice that some have better things than others etc etc. For example I watched some shows that I didn't enjoy and thought it was average but I gave it a 6 cause I thought it would be unfair to give it 5 if I think the it had some good arts, animation and soundtrack. I may give some shows higher scores but I never give a show lower score than how much I actually enjoyed it not matter how shitty it is.
 
Top
Pages (4) « First ... « 2 3 [4]