3 ms·
> Is champagne higher-quality than coca-cola? Of course it is Hm. I don't think I'd use the normal definition that way. I see it, but I wouldn't compare them.
by bulatb 4y ago
> Is champagne higher-quality than coca-cola? Of course it is
Hm. I don't think I'd use the normal definition that way. I see it, but I wouldn't compare them.
But maybe that's why I'm suggesting this weird definition. The thing that people point to with the word, even in your example, is a bundle of traits that either stops existing or becomes irrelevant when you remove the speaker's preference. I don't think there's anything in "quality" except that normative aspect, because we can articulate the other stuff by just describing the champagne.
- a4isms 4y ago"Quality" may be hard to pin down in super-objective terms, but that doesn't mean it has no value as a word or a concept. To paraphrase, "Quality is like art. I know it when I see it." Sure, you and I might have slightly different ideas of what quality is, but in various fields, we find established consensus on these matters. I happen to know a little about music. But surprise, surprise, while I listen to Bach, I also listen to Cameo. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't presume that Bach's music can't be considered of higher quality just because it's hard to write an algorithm to score quality, or just because Cameo were more popular than Bach in the 80s and early 90s.
- bulatb 4y ago> "Quality is like art. I know it when I see it." I think that's the minimal repro. The thing objectively will have those traits, but you can just enumerate them. Labeling them "quality" adds information about you, not the thing.