3 ms·
It seems in this example you do accept that there's an objective reality (beauty) that isn't affected by space dust? If so, I don't understand why you say that
by dsizzle 5y ago
It seems in this example you do accept that there's an objective reality (beauty) that isn't affected by space dust? If so, I don't understand why you say that doesn't matter, and instead attach significance to the camera noise or whatever measurement artifacts that space dust causes. A central goal of science -- and making sense of the world more generally -- is to distinguish between such measurement artifacts and more interesting theories that describe what's really out in the world.
I would reserve the usage "X affects Y" to where there's an interesting theory involving both, and I had the impression the OP did as well.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> It seems in this example you do accept that there's an objective reality (beauty) Think about why I might have picked beauty for the example.
- dsizzle 5y agoI don't know, I did think it was an odd example, but you also referred to beauty in an objective sense twice. Are you saying... everything is subjective?
- perl4ever 5y agoObjective vs. subjective is a slippery concept. Everybody can have different opinions on a given quality of a set of things. Is this art attractive. Is this product worth more than it costs. But those "subjective" opinions can all be functions of objective, measurable properties. And if you poll or interview everybody, you can construct an average, a statistical distribution, a model, etc. which is objective in the sense that it describes the opinions, which objectively exist and are about objective reality.
- dsizzle 5y agoYes, I agree that even "subjective" topics like beauty are nonetheless based on object qualities and aspects can be studied in an objective way through surveys etc.