3 ms·
right, and i completely agree on that point. the counter-point is that everybody uses the "taste is subjective" as a bludgeon for there being not quantifiable
by LesZedCB 4y ago
right, and i completely agree on that point.
the counter-point is that everybody uses the "taste is subjective" as a bludgeon for there being not quantifiable difference in quality between offerings.
- lisper 4y agoOf course there are differences. But, with a very few exceptions, none of those differences make one product objectively better than the others.
- diffeomorphism 4y agoThere are lots of "objectively better" cases, you just have to fix what you want to measure. If you dislike bitter, then some coffees will be "objectively less bitter". Or Kraft Mac and cheese vs pricy one: one uses "objectively better quality ingredients", one tastes "objectively closer to your childhood". Or dark roasted coffee that is basically burnt is "objectively worse" than non-burnt at being coffee, but might be "objectively better" at being a roasted-tasting beverage.
- lisper 4y ago> If you dislike bitter This is a disagreement over the meaning of "objectively better". To my way of thinking, "objectively better" is something that can be considered to be better without reference to anyone's personal preferences. Sugar is objectively better than arsenic. If you prefer arsenic to sugar there is really something wrong with you. Beyond that there are very few examples of things that are objectively better in the realm of things that humans consume.