Do you try to rate "objectively"?
Satyr_icon said: inim said: You do not decide what is a "grammatical error", James Joyce does. You still put your own subjective opinion above both author and other consumers of art. Oh no, now he pulled a Finnegan's Wake on me BWAHAHAHAHAH Ok, I understand you objectively don't like how I think, but do come back when you learn how to cordially discuss your thoughts with others without resorting to diatribes. You realize there's no objective standard to grammar right? Those are just arbitrary rules written by a bunch of dudes in a office. The grammar didn't originate from the nature. When you apply some arbitrary rules, that doesn't make your judgement objective just because you're relying on a guideline. |
| I'm not sure how you can rate "objectively". Someone may tell me Clannad is objectively good, but I hated watching it. |
Hrybami said: You realize there's no objective standard to grammar right? Those are just arbitrary rules written by a bunch of dudes in a office. The grammar didn't originate from the nature. When you apply some arbitrary rules, that doesn't make your judgement objective just because you're relying on a guideline. Sure, but if a book is written under those guidelines, isn't it ok to judge said book under them? Flowers for Algernon starts with a lot of bad grammar that's appropriate to the story, but then, it's intentionally written this way. What's to say about a book that follow those guidelines but has a lot of grammatical errors that are not intended? |
 |
Satyr_icon said: Yeah but it's still entirely subjective so what's the point in using the term objective at all. You would just constantly be referring to a subjective notion of what is good and bad (edit: or to be more precise in this context, what is generally acceptable/unacceptable).Kaasfondue said: @Satyr_Icon I think it's very simple tho. What you call bad animation, is objectively, just animation that's not what we have agreed upon is acceptable. Similarly, a text full of grammatical errors, is objectively, what we have agreed upon is not acceptable. But neither of that makes them ''objectively bad''. That would imply they are bad regardless of anyone's opinion, but the value you ascribe to it is entirely based on opinion. I agree, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "bad" as it rustled some jimmies here. But still, we can agree that things like missing frames and bad grammar are 'objectively' not within the range of what's acceptable according to general conventions, right? Whether we think it's bad or not? |
KaasfondueMar 29, 2021 1:01 PM
 |
Satyr_icon said: Feel free to judge a book based on any criterion you want. Just do not assume that to be anything but subjective. There is no "guideline for art". Also, you once again tell the author what they intends to do.Hrybami said: Sure, but if a book is written under those guidelines, isn't it ok to judge said book under them? [...] What's to say about a book that follow those guidelines but has a lot of grammatical errors that are not intended?You realize there's no objective standard to grammar right? Those are just arbitrary rules written by a bunch of dudes in a office. The grammar didn't originate from the nature. When you apply some arbitrary rules, that doesn't make your judgement objective just because you're relying on a guideline. |
 |
| I'm gonna asume that by "objectively" OP means critically, I don't think there are people left on MAL that still believe in objectivity, if there are, then that sucks. It all comes down to personal perception, the more you notice good or bad things about something, and the more you give importance or not to them, that ends up defining the overall opinion you have about it and the score you give it to a show or movie. Then another person might come with stuff you didn't notice on your own and you either changed your perspective or treat that as nitpicking or something, it's all about own perception based on own expectations and biases, and enjoyment to at least some degree. |
| There are « objective » criterias that can be analyzed to determine what can make a show be perceived as good or bad. However, there are no « objectively » universal way to determine how these criterias may influence the enjoyment of a show. As such, all matter of « objectivity » goes down the drain the moment you start applying a score to those criterias or to the show itself. However critical you think you are, it's still a subjective rating. This should have been a poll with the « enjoyment » and « critical » choices to prevent confusion. |
automaweebMar 29, 2021 1:37 PM
 |
CaptainKenshiro said: I'm gonna asume that by "objectively" OP means critically, I don't think there are people left on MAL that still believe in objectivity, if there are, then that sucks. It all comes down to personal perception, the more you notice good or bad things about something, and the more you give importance or not to them, that ends up defining the overall opinion you have about it and the score you give it to a show or movie. Then another person might come with stuff you didn't notice on your own and you either changed your perspective or treat that as nitpicking or something, it's all about own perception based on own expectations and biases, and enjoyment to at least some degree. No... by Objectively I mean Objectively. There are people left on MAL who believe in Objectivity. Source: This thread Just look at the poll lmao. I made it clear what I meant in the poll so I doubt anyone got confused. |
| I gave up on character of the week since it takes too much thinking. I'll just change my forum pfp to whoever I want every week lol. |
| half and half, it depends on the program, I also do it for its scenes with the greatest impact, an example is steins; gate, the first half is very boring, however, the second part had many exciting, sad and shocking scenes that make me forget what bad. Also for the story in general and how it progresses. Obviously, my enjoyment in the first part also counts, so I must rate it, but, without giving it much merit like other points. Then, there are other programs that I rate them in a very subjective way, angel beats, 100-man stranding and others, I consider them very bad and I gave them a 1 for their stories, their execution of this, the animation, and especially the enjoyment. |
Leoradiuju2004Mar 29, 2021 1:19 PM
 a wise user of MAL said: Just to clarify, adaptations should absolutely stand on their own |
| I never vote objectively, I'm not a professional critic so why would I care |
 |
| No. I don't care how others score their favorite animu. |
  |
| I rate shows based off my personal enjoyment. Rating them objectively is almost impossible for me because everyone has DIFFERENT TASTES. Some shows that are considered good may not always be good in other people's view. I have no comment for people that rate their shows objectively. They just have a different rating system that works for them. And I won't judge em for it. |
 |
| Why are you guys bashing @perfect10 ? He was just having fun... More on topic, the objective vs. subjective rating debate was pretty much already dead to anyone who really cared with the realization that intersubjectivity is a thing. The overwhelming majority of us, without so much as thinking about it, compare our own experiences with those of others who watched the same thing. From there some people try to establish agreed upon standards to more intricately observe anime with, while others just continue trying to find simple enjoyment, but aside from a few extreme exceptions they do so intersubjectively. If no one cared about what others think, then half of the threads here wouldn't be whining about other people's ratings. Heck, no one would care about ratings & recommendations in the first place if it were all either subjective or objective. |
Satyr_icon said: There's not much to say about objectivity when it comes to personal taste, but saying there's no such thing as objectivity is a stretch. For instance, it's an objective fact that episode 8 (I think) of Tsuki Ga Kirei was badly animated. A case can be made for the background CGI — it's one of the worst I've seen, even when compared to other terrible CGI, but other people might not care about it — but episode 8 it's not up to discussion: there are even missing frames in more than one scene, which is a clear sign of sloppiness in production. Incompetence is something that can be assessed and it's not just up to subjectivity. Now, whether you like episode 8 of Tsuki Ga Kirei, or even its animation, is up to subjectivity, but saying it wasn't badly animated is plain ignorance. Just as well, whether the style of animation is good or bad is up to discussion. Is Ping Pong's animation good? Is old animation like Gundam or Versailles no Bara bad? There's no true objective answer to this, but a close analysis of its style can also lead us to tell scenes where the animation was subpar compared to the rest of it. You can also talk objectively about separate elements of a story. For instance, character: how much development did they get? Are they three-dimensional characters? Are they just clichéd archetypes? Whether or not the answer to these questions is good or bad is up to subjectivity, after all "complex" characterisation is not always a good thing, but these are all things that can be assessed as well. The only true subjective question is: did I like it or not? There's a lot that can be analysed under an objective lens through comparison with other works or through the study of narrative in literature and cinema, but whether this lot suits one's taste is completely up to subjectiveness. The problem is that sometimes flaws do not outweigh how good a show is. To take your example of CGI backgrounds, the show might be so good that that flaw doesn't bother me. In that case I won't drop the score just to meet some imaginary criteria of objectivity that exists in my head. This is especially true of older shows that "objectively" might have worse animation or sound. |
| Shoot first, think never. |
AniMarter said: There is no such thing; ratings are inherently subjective. +1, rating "objectively" is nonsense |
 |
| Of course I rate objectively. Everything I ever say is pure fact and those who disagree with me just can't let go of their bias |
| Stuff in the streets, Stuff with drip in the sheets |
Haunt-bot said: The problem is that sometimes flaws do not outweigh how good a show is. To take your example of CGI backgrounds, the show might be so good that that flaw doesn't bother me. In that case I won't drop the score just to meet some imaginary criteria of objectivity that exists in my head. This is especially true of older shows that "objectively" might have worse animation or sound. I know, I never said that bad animation takes away all merits from the show nor that you should drop the score because of isolated problems the show might have. I don't even do that, I just score according to my own enjoyment of the show. All I said is that you can take apart specific sections of an anime and judge it according to pre-established notions of what good animation is; in this case, the episode I mentioned. That doesn't mean you should always do that nor that you're wrong for liking those specific parts. You do you, I have no say in what other people enjoy. |
|
| As people in this site usually just mean by "rating objectively" that I'd rate taking into account other things besides enjoyment, then yes, I guess I do rate "objectively". Hrybami said: You realize there's no objective standard to grammar right? Those are just arbitrary rules written by a bunch of dudes in a office. The grammar didn't originate from the nature. When you apply some arbitrary rules, that doesn't make your judgement objective just because you're relying on a guideline. I guess we're not part of nature lol Of course there are objective standards for grammar. Not every way to spell a word or write a sentence is correct. |
 |
BatoKusanagi said: As people in this site usually just mean by "rating objectively" that I'd rate taking into account other things besides enjoyment, then yes, I guess I do rate "objectively". Hrybami said: You realize there's no objective standard to grammar right? Those are just arbitrary rules written by a bunch of dudes in a office. The grammar didn't originate from the nature. When you apply some arbitrary rules, that doesn't make your judgement objective just because you're relying on a guideline. I guess we're not part of nature lol Of course there are objective standards for grammar. Not every way to spell a word or write a sentence is correct. There's no objective way to spell words. In my country, it's spelled "favourite" while in another country it's "favorite". There's like absolutely no independent standard for measuring how a word must be spelled. |
BatoKusanagi said: English in particular exists in many flavors, BE vs. AE is just the tip of the ice berg. Spelling, vocabulary, grammar also change over time, Shakespeare would fail any modern English test..As people in this site usually just mean by "rating objectively" that I'd rate taking into account other things besides enjoyment, then yes, I guess I do rate "objectively". Hrybami said: I guess we're not part of nature lol Of course there are objective standards for grammar. Not every way to spell a word or write a sentence is correct. You realize there's no objective standard to grammar right? Those are just arbitrary rules written by a bunch of dudes in a office. The grammar didn't originate from the nature. When you apply some arbitrary rules, that doesn't make your judgement objective just because you're relying on a guideline. Most importantly: to creatively play with anything is the prerogative and purpose of art. Treating literature as if it was an A-level exam just isn't right. The whole idea that typos could invalidate a great piece of writing feels contrived and absurd to me. Same for a few glitch frames, which of course do not harm a good anime. This is art, not high school. |
| |
Hrybami said: There's no objective way to spell words. In my country, it's spelled "favourite" while in another country it's "favorite". There's like absolutely no independent standard for measuring how a word must be spelled. Those are...just regional variants. Just because there are different, appropriate and according to the grammatical rules, ways of spelling the same word, doesn't mean that a fantasy spelling like 'faivarite' will not be wrong. Sure, there are words that changed and grammatically wrong sentences that were incorporated to vocabulary over time and even words invented by authors like 'chortle', but unless the novel is experimental in nature or aims to emulate the typical accent of a certain people like Steinbeck's novels, a typo is usually just a typo. There's no shame in admitting that, that's what editors are for after all: fixing mistakes. |
|
Satyr_icon said: Hrybami said: There's no objective way to spell words. In my country, it's spelled "favourite" while in another country it's "favorite". There's like absolutely no independent standard for measuring how a word must be spelled. Those are...just regional variants. Just because there are different, appropriate and according to the grammatical rules, ways of spelling the same word, doesn't mean that a fantasy spelling like 'faivarite' will not be wrong. Sure, there are words that changed and grammatically wrong sentences that were incorporated to vocabulary over time and even words invented by authors like 'chortle', but unless the novel is experimental in nature or aims to emulate the typical accent of a certain people like Steinbeck's novels, a typo is usually just a typo. There's no shame in admitting that, that's what editors are for when they are doing their job right. Do you perhaps think that being subjective means that you can't be wrong? Because it's not. You can be subjective while still being wrong. |
| Does semi-objectively count? I rate based on different criteria: Plot, Plot Development, Characters, Character Development, OST, Voice Acting, Animation, Enjoyment, etc. And then a series gets the average of them all. I will admit though that when I REALLY hate something (such as the characters in a series) I will put a negative number which affects overall ratings (the last series I did this to was Mushoku Tensei because I DESPISED so MANY characters! It got an overall 3 rating in my list, but if I did ratings based off enjoyment like so many others then it'd be a 1. I was just using my rating system and trying to be semi-fair. Still despise the series though). |
 |
Satyr_icon said: Covfefe. Quark. The Urban Dictionary is living contradiction to this claim. Language permanently mutates and evolves. You haven't really read much recent literature, did you? Hrybami said: There's no objective way to spell words. In my country, it's spelled "favourite" while in another country it's "favorite". There's like absolutely no independent standard for measuring how a word must be spelled. Those are...just regional variants. Just because there are different, appropriate and according to the grammatical rules, ways of spelling the same word, doesn't mean that a fantasy spelling like 'faivarite' will not be wrong. Satyr_icon said: Mildly amusing how you prioritize the ability of a brain dead thing such as Word's spell checker over creativity. When a good text is not 100% proof read, or an anime director decides to rather rush animation to buy time for the writers to improve the story - who are you to tell them they are wrong? Anything man made is imperfect, and the degree to which that hurts your enjoyment is ... fully subjective. I personally give a flying shit for animation quality, I'm a character driven story telling person.There's no shame in admitting that, that's what editors are for when they are doing their job right. |
| |
Hrybami said: Do you perhaps think that being subjective means that you can't be wrong? Because it's not. You can be subjective while still being wrong. Then I don't know if I get your point. First you say there's no objective standard to grammar nor spelling and they are just invented rules, but how do you determine that something is wrong if you don't care for an objective set of rules and standards in the first place? |
|
| I don't rate any anime I have watched objectively. I believe that your own anime list should reflect how you feel about the anime you have watched so rating anime objectively goes against that. And truthfully, even if you say you rate an anime objectively, you are still influenced by your feelings since the answer to a question like "Is this anime good or bad?" cant be answered with straight facts and only ones opinion on the matter since many people have diverse feeling towards the anime. A great example of this would be SAO. I personally think that the anime is very enjoyable to watch despite the clear flaws it has, meanwhile I know a lot of other people would never use the word good and SAO in the same sentence. As for how I feel about people who say they only judge anime objectively, I think they only say they do to make themselves look better and to make a point that their opinion is more valid since it is based on "fact" rather than their own opinion which like i said before would most likely be false. (No offense to anyone who does rate anime objectively) |
 |
| I swear we have this same discussion like, every week. How many threads do we need about this? |
Satyr_icon said: Hrybami said: Do you perhaps think that being subjective means that you can't be wrong? Because it's not. You can be subjective while still being wrong. Then I don't know if I get your point. First you say there's no objective standard to grammar nor spelling and they are just invented rules, but how do you determine that something is wrong if you don't care for an objective set of rules and standards in the first place? Maybe you should try to dissociate what's objective from what's agreed upon. Creating a set of rules isn't about creating objective concept. The objective concepts cannot be created (Mathematics, Matter, Temperature, Size). Subjective concepts which are invented by people and used only by people and are subjective. This include everything art-related and the language. So if a certain spelling must be like that and is only accepted as such, then writing it differently would be in dissonance with the rules which means that the spelling is wrong or incorrect according to what was agreed upon. However, the concept of spelling in itself remain subjective no matter if you follow the rules or not. Following the rules doesn't make a subjective concept go objective. |
| The whole point of a rating system is that each user gives their input on what THEY thought of the series, not what others expect them to think of it. Rating a series will never be objective. You can claim that you are objective in your rating, but are you really? An artstyle that one may find objectively good is gonna be mediocre or bad in another person's "objective rating". There is no objectivity when it comes to anything that has personal preference in it. People will like different things, and even if some shows are more popular, that doesn't make them objectively better. A show that's perfect to me, will be a 1/10 to many others, and vice versa. I can say that a show like Nana is objectively perfect, but I know a handful of people who will disagree. Does that mean that my "objective" assessment is wrong? The part that's wrong in my statement was assuming that it was objective to begin with. TL;DR: Say what you want elitists, you aren't being objective by rating every show a 2/10 for lacking "objectively good" qualities. Rate on enjoyment instead of seeking validation from others. |
 |
Hrybami said: Do you perhaps think that being subjective means that you can't be wrong? Because it's not. You can be subjective while still being wrong. The point of being subjective is that it's your opinion, so how can you say that someone's opinion is objectively wrong? You can disagree with someone, but you can't say that they're wrong for thinking what they think. |
|
Hrybami said: How about replacing the word "objective" with "measurable" for clarity? Objective measurements will turn out identical regardless by whom, where and when they are taken. The objective concepts cannot be created (Mathematics, Matter, Temperature, Size). Subjective concepts which are invented by people There are a few measurable metrics in art, e.g. word count of a novel and word frequencies, cuts per second in an anime episode, or average color temperature in a painting. Feeding a lot of those into some neural net AI may even lead to a machine which can predict odds somebody will like similar art. But that's based on mass data and probability. No individual's rating decision can be predicted reliably. Because such a decision is inherently subjective and can't be calculated from any finite set of measurable inputs. |
inimMar 29, 2021 4:15 PM
| |
| Not a chance - I think it is an insult to not only yourself, but to the anime community, the studios who make Anime, and even the creators themselves if you are not 100% honest with your views and opinion on the Anime. I mean what is the point of sitting through like Attack on Titan and thinking "Well I wasn't that impressed this was kinda lame apart from the animation so I "would" have given this a 6... but the community loves it and thinks it is a 8.5 so I guess I need to rate it an 8 instead" |
 |
Clubby said: Hrybami said: Do you perhaps think that being subjective means that you can't be wrong? Because it's not. You can be subjective while still being wrong. The point of being subjective is that it's your opinion, so how can you say that someone's opinion is objectively wrong? You can disagree with someone, but you can't say that they're wrong for thinking what they think. Oh so you've never been wrong in your life before? Because I did, and I know that there are things that I used to believe in the past that turned to be wrong. Still, they were my opinions. And I'm sure I still have some wrong opinions even today. I also never said the term "objectively wrong". The saying is "it's all subjective" and it's applied to all opinions. If we stay in the area of subjectivity, you can never assert that an opinion is objectively wrong or correct. |
| I don't rate objectively at all, I really prefer rating based off of enjoyment. Though sometimes I do rate because the story and characters are just incredible, which can go into both enjoyment and objectively ratings. |
   Has a 8.60 mean score Akasaka > Other Mangakas  |
AnimeLeviathan said: Im geniunely curious to know the amount of people who think like this and what people think of the people who think like this. I rate by a rubric. Now, this may or may not qualify as objective, but at least its a system. As for what I think of people who say they rate objectively, I think nothing of them. They may be rating based on objectively observable qualities or a system, or they might be bullshitting. Until they show me one way or the other, I say nothing about them. |
| There's no inherent right or wrong in this universe, but when we think with emotions rather than logic, we make things so. |
Hrybami said: Maybe you should try to dissociate what's objective from what's agreed upon. Creating a set of rules isn't about creating objective concept. The objective concepts cannot be created (Mathematics, Matter, Temperature, Size). Subjective concepts which are invented by people and used only by people and are subjective. This include everything art-related and the language. So if a certain spelling must be like that and is only accepted as such, then writing it differently would be in dissonance with the rules which means that the spelling is wrong or incorrect according to what was agreed upon. However, the concept of spelling in itself remain subjective no matter if you follow the rules or not. Following the rules doesn't make a subjective concept go objective. I see where you are coming from and can agree with that reasoning, but still, there's really not much practical difference in how humans interact with what you call objective and subjective concepts, merely semantical. Sure, grammar isn't a universal truth like math and it can't be proved through numbers — but then, the fact that 2+2=4 is only known because humans created a system to recognise this mathematical process. While grammar is a subjective concept created by humans, the way its rules apply to language is no different from the way maths apply to the way arithmetics work. From the human perspective, 2+2=5 is just as wrong as writing you're instead of your. |
|
| Nope. I prioritize my enjoyment over it's quality |
 |
Etherius_ZS said: ren0080 said: I don't rate objectively, but I still rate fairly since I have a lot of categories (thanks to my rubric) ranging from the story, characters, animation, music, and enjoyment. This means that I am not biased since if I find one aspect that I didn't like, there should still be an aspect that I would like. One example would be JJK. While the animation is outstanding, the pacing (heck, it adapted 60+ chapters in 24 episodes. For comparisons, KnY adapted 50 chapters in 26 episodes... so yeah, JJK is definitely rush af), characters, and music are pretty below average. Hence why it got a lower rating for me. Bruh, Jjk adapted 64+ chapters? It felt extremely slow. The first few episodes were pretty slow since it took its time. But the latter of the series, it goes full throttle, adapting chapter super fast without slowing. That's why it's pretty rush. |
 I wasted all my time in rewatching to the point of my rewatch total is higher than my overall anime total lmao |
Satyr_icon said: Hrybami said: Maybe you should try to dissociate what's objective from what's agreed upon. Creating a set of rules isn't about creating objective concept. The objective concepts cannot be created (Mathematics, Matter, Temperature, Size). Subjective concepts which are invented by people and used only by people and are subjective. This include everything art-related and the language. So if a certain spelling must be like that and is only accepted as such, then writing it differently would be in dissonance with the rules which means that the spelling is wrong or incorrect according to what was agreed upon. However, the concept of spelling in itself remain subjective no matter if you follow the rules or not. Following the rules doesn't make a subjective concept go objective. I see where you are coming from and can agree with that reasoning, but still, there's really not much practical difference in how humans interact with what you call objective and subjective concepts, merely semantical. Sure, grammar isn't a universal truth like math and it can't be proved through numbers — but then, the fact that 2+2=4 is only known because humans created a system to recognise this mathematical process. While grammar is a subjective concept created by humans, the way its rules apply to language is no different from the way maths apply to the way arithmetics work. From the human perspective, 2+2=5 is just as wrong as writing you're instead of your. Well, mathematics is a language as well. The difference is that mathematics has an objective side and a subjective side. How mathematics is used is purely subjective since it caters to some convention and formulas that were created by humans. The only objective value in mathematics is the final result. The mean to access to this final result depends entirely on the language and conventions applied. Computers prefer to use binary code to compute while humans prefer base ten. A foreign culture without access to modern knowledge would use a different mathematics language. The 2+2=5 is only wrong according to our definition and interpretation of mathematics because we added a clear definition and we adopted a convention to read such symbol. But in reality, 2+2=5 doesn't exist anywhere else in the Universe. This false equation is our own creation. |
Hrybami said: There's no objective way to spell words. In my country, it's spelled "favourite" while in another country it's "favorite". There's like absolutely no independent standard for measuring how a word must be spelled. Yes, there is, which is why you mentioned the only 2 ways it's spelled instead of making up like a hundred and pretending all of them are valid. inim said: English in particular exists in many flavors, BE vs. AE is just the tip of the ice berg. Spelling, vocabulary, grammar also change over time, Shakespeare would fail any modern English test.. Most importantly: to creatively play with anything is the prerogative and purpose of art. Treating literature as if it was an A-level exam just isn't right. The whole idea that typos could invalidate a great piece of writing feels contrived and absurd to me. Same for a few glitch frames, which of course do not harm a good anime. This is art, not high school. Yeah, there a different versions of English... Shakespeare would've also failed any Japanese test. Not sure what this has to do with anything, though. I was talking about grammar not art, and well, "invalidate" isn't the word I'd use, but typos (or whatever other grammatical) issue could be something to consider when rating the work. |
|
inim said: Hrybami said: How about replacing the word "objective" with "measurable" for clarity? Objective measurements will turn out identical regardless by whom, where and when they are taken. The objective concepts cannot be created (Mathematics, Matter, Temperature, Size). Subjective concepts which are invented by people There are a few measurable metrics in art, e.g. word count of a novel and word frequencies, cuts per second in an anime episode, or average color temperature in a painting. Feeding a lot of those into some neural net AI may even lead to a machine which can predict odds somebody will like similar art. But that's based on mass data and probability. No individual's rating decision can be predicted reliably. Because such a decision is inherently subjective and can't be calculated from any finite set of measurable inputs. I'm all in for more clarity. But I wish people could stop misusing the word objectivity. Because if such concept was as broad as some people think, the AI would definitely create the best piece of art in the entire world and there would be no longer place for opinions. |
| I'm pretty sure there's no objectivity when it comes to art. I can be critical about what I acknowledge and appreciate, but those are still my subjective thoughts, at the end of the day. I think people who rate based on objectivity could be misusing or redefining the word, on the spot. They could also be treating common encouraged writing practices as some kind of universal law, which it couldn't be, since these practices change over time, and people will always have different opinions over them. |
  |
BatoKusanagi said: Hrybami said: There's no objective way to spell words. In my country, it's spelled "favourite" while in another country it's "favorite". There's like absolutely no independent standard for measuring how a word must be spelled. Yes, there is, which is why you mentioned the only 2 ways it's spelled instead of making up like a hundred and pretending all of them are valid. I don't know how you can find something objective in a language that constantly evolve, modify or adapt itself through the ages. The current convention of spelling isn't permanent. Those spelling were being subjectively decided, not objectively measured. |
| tl;dr: A lot of objectively (sic!) false and hand-waving claims about the nature of math were contained in recent postings. I don't feel this line of argument is leading anywhere. Arithmetic as taught in school is insufficient to discuss math on the level attempted here. To discuss meta-properties of formal systems like math and grammar, college level axiomatic set theory, group theory, computational complexity theory, and formal language theory are needed. But long story short: 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 are both correct, assigning a Boolean value to the expression is already an interpretation w/r to an underlying model. An important feature of metamathematics is its emphasis on differentiating between reasoning from inside a system and from outside a system. An informal illustration of this is categorizing the proposition "2+2=4" as belonging to mathematics while categorizing the proposition "'2+2=4' is valid" as belonging to metamathematics. Satyr_icon said: Apples do not become Oranges because somebody chooses to treat them alike. As pointed out earlier the distinctive quality between objective and subjective is the former's property to be measurable by anybody, anytime, anywhere with identical results. Frame rate or color temperature of an anime won't change. But whether some visual oddity in an animation is considered an "error" or a "creative decision" is merely a tag applied by the beholder, and different beholders will apply different tags. So the difference is not semantic, there is a hard test to tell subjective from objective: repeatable measurement.Hrybami said: I see where you are coming from and can agree with that reasoning, but still, there's really not much practical difference in how humans interact with what you call objective and subjective concepts, merely semantical.Creating a set of rules isn't about creating objective concept. The objective concepts cannot be created (Mathematics, Matter, Temperature, Size). Satyr_icon said: Math and formal languages are structural sciences. Numbers and arithmetic are already results of axiomatic set theory, not the actual math itself. The vast majority of mathematical proof methodology doesn't use numbers at all. Formal grammar theory is used daily for machine translations, of course it exists and works pretty well. The state of the art here is:Sure, grammar isn't a universal truth like math and it can't be proved through numbers
Satyr_icon said: — but then, the fact that 2+2=4 in is only known because humans created a system to recognise this mathematical process. While grammar is a subjective concept created by humans, the way its rules apply to language is no different from the way maths apply to the way arithmetics work. From the human perspective, 2+2=5 is just as wrong as writing you're instead of your. Hrybami said: Both paragraphs contain a lot of fundamental misunderstandings and incorrect claims, too many to correct one by one. But most importantly, 2+2=4 isn't dependent on anything man made. Any alien race in any location of the universe will find the same Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and derive the same arithmetic from it, which includes that equation to be true when interpreted (sic!) in the specific Algebra (ℝ, +, *, 0, 1). They will also find Chomsky's grammar hierarchy in whatever type of languages they use. Their mathematical language will be map-able to ours by merely renaming the symbols of the notation (aka structural isomorphism). I guess that is what you mean by "objective side and a subjective side". However, all of math's machinery beyond notation is objective: The set theoretical structures and the rules to derive valid theorems from axioms or other theorems. Math isn't man made, it's just a tool box to muse about realities existing and not existing. Any interpretation w/r to a particular reality (aka model) is no longer part of math, but of e.g. physics and philosophy.Well, mathematics is a language as well. The difference is that mathematics has an objective side and a subjective side. How mathematics is used is purely subjective since it caters to some convention and formulas that were created by humans. The only objective value in mathematics is the final result. The mean to access to this final result depends entirely on the language and conventions applied. Computers prefer to use binary code to compute while humans prefer base ten. A foreign culture without access to modern knowledge would use a different mathematics language. The 2+2=5 is only wrong according to our definition and interpretation of mathematics because we added a clear definition and we adopted a convention to read such symbol. But in reality, 2+2=5 doesn't exist anywhere else in the Universe. This false equation is our own creation. |
inimMar 30, 2021 7:36 AM
| |
| While I do try to be as objective as a single person can, in my opinion people who rate as objectively as they can lack personality. Subjective rating tells more about the person's taste. While objective rating is a baseless generalisation. My personal belief is that a single person cannot be objective regarding anything. Only a group that has shared the experience can. |
 |
Hrybami said: Clubby said: The point of being subjective is that it's your opinion, so how can you say that someone's opinion is objectively wrong? You can disagree with someone, but you can't say that they're wrong for thinking what they think. Oh so you've never been wrong in your life before? Because I did, and I know that there are things that I used to believe in the past that turned to be wrong. Still, they were my opinions. And I'm sure I still have some wrong opinions even today. I also never said the term "objectively wrong". The saying is "it's all subjective" and it's applied to all opinions. If we stay in the area of subjectivity, you can never assert that an opinion is objectively wrong or correct. I never said I was never wrong. I said that you can't say someone's opinion is wrong because you don't share that opinion. |
|
| Yes, I do try and rate "objectively" - but wait a bit and let me explain. Before you try and tell me "objectivity" is impossible with art or whatever - no need to continue, I already agree with that when using the standard definition of "objective." But in this context, by "objective" I don't mean something that everyone will have the same opinion on, but something that I am taking into consideration outside of my own personal feelings or interests. "Objectivity" here is removal of my personal (subjective) tastes. Which may sound weird or impossible, but I'll try and give an example as concisely as I can. Quick thing to clarify that should be obvious by now: Rating ≠ Enjoyment ≠ Favorites I think there are a decent amount of users who have favorites that they did not give a max score to. For example, one of my favorites is Houseki no Kuni (which I rated 9/10), which is a favorite despite not being a masterpiece due to a slew of factors that align with my personal interests such as 1) gems are cool, 2) the cast is very colorful. But despite how much I like gems and colorful characters, "having gems as characters" and "having many colorful characters" has nothing to do with how good a show actually is (my definition of what makes a show "good"). A crude metaphor would be having a row of cars that are the exact same model but in different colors - the colors have got nothing to do with the functional ability of the car, but you could probably rate from most to least preferred. |
  but you can become stronger... ...でもつよくなれるよ |
More topics from this board
» Guys I did it!TsutanaiFuun - 4 hours ago |
7 |
by LostSpectre
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Let's Hope the Whole "Girls Golfing" Is A New Thing That Keeps Going...simonitro - 2 hours ago |
4 |
by Serafos
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you track anime milestons?zombie_pegasus - 8 hours ago |
15 |
by FanofAction
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» What anime song (intro, outro, j-pop) of the ringtone do you use right now?Kiryotsu - 3 hours ago |
10 |
by Zarutaku
»»
30 minutes ago |
|
» Would you or have you watched anime with your family (1 or more members)?ToastWithNutella - 4 hours ago |
12 |
by Spunkert
»»
33 minutes ago |