> You can tell the difference because there is no way to tell if a paper is right or not other than by deciding if it sounds right to you, which is no less subj

> You can tell the difference because there is no way to tell if a paper is right or not other than by deciding if it sounds right to you, which is no less subjective than anything else in art. It's true that there is no way to logically prove the value of a work of art (and who says art has or needs "value"?), but lack of proof doesn't mean something doesn't exit; it means it's harder to think about. There is no proof what will happen tomorrow, but we make judgments without it, as we do about most things: Should I take this job? Should I marry this person? Do they love me? Do I love them? Should I ask out the new neighbor? Ubuntu or Fedora? There's no algorithm to understanding art; there are tools, but there is no certainty. Without a logic map, it can be very challenging - in the best way, IMHO, because it brings forth and develops my deepest thinking and compels me to challenge myself and my perspective. I can't prove a Miro is better than your neighbor's kid's drawing ... and I guess I don't really care to; I'm going to study the Miro.