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

[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".