Dammit, I demand feedback!

[andrewducker]

I know my writing is imperfect.

I know that sometimes I'm unclear.

I know that sometimes I'm wrong.

I know that most of you are damn smart.

Dammit, I demand more feedback on the long-winded articles I write!

Nick - cheers muchly for all the feedback. You're da man.

Comments

[cleodhna.livejournal.com]

I beg forgiveness. I am too analytical, and endeavor never to give an answer where I cannot give a considered answer, and when things effluviate all over the place, it is far too much work for me.

[andrewducker]

Dammit, it was you the comment was aimed at.

Darn philosophy doctors without enough time.

[cleodhna.livejournal.com]

I suspected as much. Hence the pounce.
It's not so much not enough time-- I always read through your posts, and often more than once. Yet, like I say, I'm of a very analytical turn of mind, and I don't like to offer comment where it isn't informed, and when the discussion os of matters so far ranging as categorisation and linguistic custom-- about which I have read enough to know that I have only the barest beginning of a background in the historical formulation of the issues-- I prefer to read and be silent. Anyway, I have a fault in that I often forget that my technical terms are technical terms, and think other people will understand precisely what I mean when I use a particular turn of phrase, when in fact the term means nothing to people outside my field or something quite different colloquially, and I've never learned the colloquial meaning because I'm such a turtle.
Also, I may be a doctor of philosophy, but that hardly matters unless you're talking property supervenience. A lot of other people reading your posts are in much better positions to answer, and perhaps not being so concerned with the partial rememberings of temporally distant confusions and the need to clarify them through much reading before they feel competetent to comment, by which point the discussion will have moved on to something entirely different, will do so.
So, you see, it's really just me. ;)

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

*grin*

I make no promises on weekends I have company over, but I'll try to do better, honest, really, truly I will!

*laugh*

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

One question.

What do you mean by objective? What things do you think are objective?

Do you mean things like scientific laws and stuff?

[andrewducker]

Having no factor of interpretation involved. Nothing which requires the perspective of a person. Nothing where you're saying "it seems X to me"

So, no aesthetics whatsoever, nothing to do with quality or anything like that.

Saying that Adam is 6'6" is objective. Saying that he's "tall" would be subjective unless accompanied by a definition stating that "Tall, in the context of humans means over 6 foot in height", and even then you're basically defining an arbitrary point and saying "over this seems tall to me."

I wouldn't use the word science (although one of the general aims of science could be taken to get as close as possible to objectivism by allowing anyone to perform the experiment, thus allowing the different subjectivities to theoretically cancel out, but that's endlessly debatable), but if you can measure it technologically it's more likely to be an objective measurement ("Brown" is generally a subjective observation, a wavelength of light is more objective, due to the fact that it's inarguable and precise.

Basically, I'd say that the less you can argue with something and the less interpretation there is involved in it, the more objective it is.

So, for instance, your definition of Industrial earlier "Anything put out by Industrial records" would certainly count as an objective criteria - a record either is or isn't put out by the label. The second you get to arguing about whether it "sounds industrial", you're basically saying "it sounds industrial _to me_" and that's subjectivity.

I don't believe that we have access to objective facts, when you get right down to it, as everything is filtered through our perceptions and preconceptions, neither of which are terribly accurate.

There ya go, one wishy washy, beating around the bush answer.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

"Anything put out by Industrial records" would certainly count as an objective criteria

Being put out by industrial records makes it a fact that something is industrial. It is the criteria which you can test the industrial-ness of something against.

"Basically, I'd say that the less you can argue with something and the less interpretation there is involved in it, the more objective it is."

This makes no sense. You can't draw a line between misunderstand/not know all the details/other factors.

If you say Adam is 6'6", I can misinterpret or argue with that in quite a few ways. So it's not nearly as objective then?

How, in your world without definite meanings, draw a line between me not knowing what your measurement system, its notation, your idea of Adam and you not previously knowing the proper definition of industrial? You weren't aware of the correct system of generic notation, just as -I- might not be aware of the proper system of measurement and notation.

Adam is 6'6"

Records released on the Industrial Records label are albums of industrial music.

How is one subject to more interpretation than the other?

but if you can measure it technologically it's more likely to be an objective measurement

WHY?

If you can't fully trust perceptions, how precisely are you reading your technology?

There have been points where systems of measurement and the devices that were used have become obsolete, are you SO sure this is absolutely as far as we can go and that you won't be proved wrong?

wavelength of light is more objective, due to the fact that it's inarguable and precise

For this to be true, surely quite a lot of faith has to be had in measuring systems, your counting system, the technology used to measure it, the physics theory behind it?

Why is that in any way objective?

I could make a tool to scan album covers for the Industrial Records logo.. Presumably this would have to make industrial a more objective category


Nothing where you're saying "it seems X to me"
This is a joke, right? Scientific theories are -never- based on observations or measurements, then? Because ALL they are is saying "it seems X to me".

[broin.livejournal.com]

Nyeh. Heard them all before.

=)

[aberbotimue.livejournal.com]

oh yes..

more..

bravo...
this is finally a well written piece...

More more

I do like the "I know that most of you are damn smart" bit..
oh yes..

more pl;ease