This seems to be dominating my thinking and conversation today. So it’s going to dominate my posting too.
I am so sick of every issue in the world – from the question of league v union, the question of musical taste, through to the question of morality and “evil” – being turned into a murky pot of subjectivity where claiming objective knowledge of an absolute is frowned upon.
You can’t even call Hitler evil anymore.
Things just are. They either are, or they aren’t. The question of which game you prefer (league, or union) is subjective. The question of which game is better is objective.
Signing up for an “objective” assessment requires pretty clear terms of reference. Which is almost impossible because of this desire to be “relative” in all things.
Comments
Nathan
You are so awesome and wise. Trying to parallel music taste and morality is ingenious, cutting edge and mature.
You just called Hitler evil and that is fine. He was and so are we.
When it comes to Music and Sport what is the measure that you evaluate it against it is your personal judgement call.
Morality is governed by God we don’t get a say.
When you judge something like music or sport you set the standards for example music are lyrics more important than the song, high pitch, low pitch, change in pitch key.
All of those things and more affect your stance on how you judge it.
Morality is set by God.
EDIT BY NATHAN – This comment, and subsequent comments forced me to institute my commenting policy laid out in this post… and described below:
Sorry, but this world is murky and a thousand shades of grey. Would be nice and simple if it wasn’t, but it is.
Which sport is better is subjective because there are no set rules that dictate what makes a sport good or bad, except that people enjoy it; and people enjoy different things.
There are, however, set rules that dictate (in terms of morality) what is good and evil; it’s just that today’s world wants to ignore those rules and pretend everything is subjective.
Chris,
You need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the fundamentals of english.
If I say “Rugby Union is the best sport” I am making an absolute claim. It is subject to the same standards of proof as any moral standpoint.
If I say “I prefer Rugby Union” then that is a subjective claim. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the argument that it is a superior game. And my problem is often (with reference to Leah’s point) related to the framework people set for making such a judgment on the matter in question.
Amy,
I agree that there are shades of grey – there are however no shades of white. There are some instances where two competing “rights” may cloud an issue – like what charity to give money to – but I think there is actually a “best” answer in these matters which involves finding the right balance.
I think there are clearly things that are right, and pure. And I think there are things that are not. These things that are not involve a degree of complexity.
If I say “Rugby Union is the best sport” I am making an absolute claim. It is subject to the same standards of proof as any moral standpoint.
Nathan are you saying here that the standards to judge what is “best” are the same for sport, music and morals? If so I not going to waste my time.
If I say “I prefer Rugby Union” then that is a subjective claim. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the argument that it is a superior game. And my problem is often (with reference to Leah’s point) related to the framework people set for making such a judgment on the matter in question.
A superior game is still judge subjectively when people make that claim. It is judged by what they consider more important in their set criteria – most of the time this is subconscious.
It is interesting that you argue the line of subjective and objective when you are also willing to tell people what they should and shouldn’t listen to and watch sports they should or shouldn’t enjoy.
“Nathan are you saying here that the standards to judge what is “best” are the same for sport, music and morals? If so I not going to waste my time.”
Yes. It’s a standard of truth. And if you make a claim like that (an absolute) it needs to be with some sort of reference to something measurable.
I would argue that in the case of morality you measure this against God’s word. Are the actions in question consistent with God’s revealed will?
I would argue that in music you might say “Matt Bellamy is the world’s best guitarist because he plays faster than anyone else across the broadest musical range”. You can then agree or disagree with other people who play faster or more broadly. This is different to a claim that Matt Bellamy is my favourite guitarist. You can’t measure that. It is subjective.
That is what “burden of proof” means. The burden of proof is the same for trivial matters and matters of significance. It is the importance of proof that changes with these things. It is more important to be right about morality than to be right about musical taste (the claim). Because the consequences are greater (the proof). Despite the similarities a lifetime listening to U2 is not the same as an eternity in hell. Even if it’s only a question of time.
“It is interesting that you argue the line of subjective and objective when you are also willing to tell people what they should and shouldn’t listen to and watch sports they should or shouldn’t enjoy.”
I’d like to think that when I do that I include evidence to back up my opinions. You don’t have to be right on any of these matters. Neither do I.
I don’t think I’ve ever said “you shouldn’t enjoy” anything. I think I’ve said “this is better than that” and provided reasoning on many occasions.
You are right. Rugby League is clearly a superior game.
I think this is where it comes to the heart of the issue (the difference).
I would stat that your statement “Matt Bellamy is the world’s best guitarist because he plays faster than anyone else across the broadest musical range” is subjective.
The fact may be that he is the fastest but that does not make him the best.
There are not only criteria (ie fastest) but also weightings (is this important). All of these are being judged by the individuals thus making them subjective.
With morals this is easy it is God’s criteria and weightings.
God hasn’t given us criteria and weightings specifically for music (is playing the guitar fast important) but he has given us general instruction – that all things should glorify Him (that to me doesn’t mean that it needs to sing about Him), that it should be pure and edifying, etc.
Using Izaac as an example he is fine to say that and so is Robyn to say it of Rugby Union because their classifcation of what is superior is different based on their criteria and weightings.
I think the one thing that postmodernism does have going for it is that it is okay now to have shades of grey. Unfortunately, it also means there is an idea that all things are in shades of grey. And they are not, they can’t be. That’s just logic. Probably why you find more postmodern theories in the Humanities faculties than the Science faculties.
Chris, I think Izaac and Robyn can so those sports are superior because they haven’t watched enough Aussie Rules, that’s all.
And, Nathan, your comments in italics are very difficult to read.
I have taken a poll Nathan and all in my office agree with me that it is subjective – even to say that X sport is the best / superior. One of my mates is a RL fanatic and is happy for me to say that Rugby Union is the best but for him RL is the best.
His addition comment that I liked was that “Your statement only works in a dictatorship”
I thought you would like that.
I’m confused here.
Nathan, are you saying it’s possible to objectively say a certain sport/musician is ‘best’? Or are you saying it’s not? (ie. a person may say a certain sport is best, but that is their subjective opinion).
The word “best” is an absolute. It means there is no better. If you’re going to make that claim without prefacing it with “I think it is the” then you need to prove it.
If you’re going to say “I think it is the best” you still need to provide grounds for it to be better when someone says – “but I think x is better”. If you’re being honest with your use of an absolute term you need to have some sort of weighting.
It’s like a tendering processing. I can’t approach a tender selection subjectively. I have to be objective. I have to give companies a framework to submit their tender around.
An absolute claim requires proof. Otherwise you’re just talking rubbish.
A subjective claim does not.
“I think rugby league is the best sport” is a very different statement to “Rugby League is the best sport”. The burden of proof is very different.
If I say “Matthew Bellamy is the fastest guitarist in the world” you can measure that with a stopwatch.
If I say “I think Matthew Bellamy is the best guitarist in the world” I can talk about experts who suggest the same thing and many categories where he is superior – three of his songs were recognised by Rolling Stone in the top ten riffs of all time, he is faster than other guitarists, he is better trained, he sells more, etc – all these things are factors.
If I say “Matthew Bellamy is the best guitarist in the world” there is no way I can actually measure that. I don’t know all the guitarists in the world.
When it comes to sport – I can make absolute claims about union and about league when it comes to speed. When it comes to the amount of time the ball is in play. When it comes to the rules of the game. And these are measurable. These things aren’t personal preference – they are measurable factors and grounds for comparison.
In our chat earlier you said the comparison was like “apples and oranges” – you can compare these fruits on the basis of acidity, on texture, on suitability for a dish, on price per gram…
I can’t make comments on your preference for slower stuff – I can only address the points apologists for the other game bring up.
I can’t make comments about your preference for a fruit unless you say “I like oranges because they’re cheaper” and they’re not, or “I like apples because they’re more acidic” when we can look at their ph and demonstrate that this is not true.
Leah,
I think Chris is a little confused and I’m trying to answer his questions.
I am saying the following:
a) You can talk about subjective matters subjectively.
b) There is an objective element to all matters – and you can make claims about things like sport if you set the parameters for objective comparison (eg faster, more time in play etc).
c) Objective statements come with a burden of proof (or a request for faith).
d) It is frustrating when objective matters are treated as subjective.
e) It is frustrating when subjective matters are treated as objective without grounds for comparison/judgment.
f) “best” is an absolute. It means there is none better. It requires proof.
g) preference is subjective.
You can say that a musician or a sport is ‘best’ if you have criteria by which to judge it.
If the Cowboys were to win the premiership this year (which they’re not, I know, I’m not that ignorant), then they would be the best. Okay, that’s not a sport, but you can apply different criteria to sports to determine whether they are best or worst. Insurance claims would tell you that soccer is the worst sport if your criteria is ’causes the least injury’.
Number of concertos mastered, or degree of difficulty of concertos mastered, in comparison to other musicians would tell you who is the best musician, in regards to concertos at least.
But even if they are the best, not everyone has to like them.
Probably why you find more postmodern theories in the Humanities faculties than the Science faculties.
Science has physics which is so mind-tripping that they don’t need postmodernism…
Serious now though:
I guess the trouble is that the more you think the greyer things are. There are some things that initially you think are clear cut – like death (I’m talking physical death here, not any sort of spiritual/resurrect life). Death should be death – you stop breathing, you’re dead. But… what if my brain is unresponsive and I am breathing with a machine – am I dead? And so on…
(sorry, probably could have just Nathan answer his own question)
Stuss – thanks for the feedback on the italics.
Also, I’m more than happy for other people to discuss these questions – particularly when they concisely make a point that I verbosely made.
“Science has physics which is so mind-tripping that they don’t need postmodernism…”
that made me laugh.
But for your serious comment, Amy, that’s an example of what I meant in my comment on the Nathan’s Hitler post.
Anytime, Nathan. I’m more than happy to join in any discussion if it helps me procrastinate.
“I have taken a poll Nathan and all in my office agree with me that it is subjective – even to say that X sport is the best / superior.”
Clearly you work with a bunch of people who don’t understand the word “subjective”.
For your benefit: making an absolute claim ie a universal truth ie “best” is always “objective”.
The only way around it is to say “I think it is the best” which makes it a matter of relative preference and thus subjective.
So Nathan, for interest – how often do you post something thinking that the comments will go in one direction, and they meander off somewhere else?
I don’t get as many comments as I’d like… but generally I can predict the way things will go.
This is almost identical to the thread of comments after I bagged out U2. And I’m subliminally bagging out U2 again so this is about what I expected. Except that I think Stuss is agreeing with me.
But you never justified your opinion of U2 adequately (for me) last time… (Ha – you knew I’d bite on that).
I am agreeing with you. You’re saying what I was saying in the U2 discussion….
Nope. I’m saying what I was saying.
All of the things I said are similarly consistent with my point here, like:
“Understanding that something is a subjective taste should not stop me objecting to the subjective taste of others.”
Or this one:
““The music you like is bad” is a perfectly legitimate judgment for anybody to make on any number of grounds. Lyrically, morally, musically, politically, socially – there are standards of “bad” in every case. I don’t think it’s wrong to make those judgments. Some music is good, other music is bad – whether you like it or not.
You have great freedom to like bad music, just as I have freedom to embrace bad music and judge you for your taste in what may well be “good”… in any of those categories. “
You can say that a musician or a sport is ‘best’ if you have criteria by which to judge it.
Thanks Stuss – I agree but yet again this is subjective the definition here is the match itself or the season. In other words it is limited it is not complete and therefore not absolute.
I think Chris is a little confused and I’m trying to answer his questions.
Nathan I do believe (happy to be corrected Leah) that she is confused over your stance not mine. Particularly seeing as she is clarifying your stance on the discussion. (Not that I am a clear author).
The word “best” is an absolute.
If a little kid say chocolate ice cream is the best is that subjective or objective? Subjective because they base that on their enjoyment of that flavour.
EG
Matthew Bellamy is the fastest – objective if you have the facts
Matthew Bellamy is the best – subjective
Matthew Bellamy is the best because he is the fastest – subjective
An absolute claim requires proof.
An absolute is complete there is nothing lacking or missing. Therefore you cannot base a best on who is the fastest but require all of the criteria.
More thoughts pending….
If I was Leah I’d be wondering where all your ranting is coming from – it’s not really directed at the post.
“You need to pull your head out of your butt and think about what you are saying sometimes. Trying to parallel music taste and morality is plain thick, stupid and immature.”
Any time you want to apologise for that you’re free to do so.
“If a little kid say chocolate ice cream is the best is that subjective or objective? ”
I think I’ve already answered this several times – it is objective. They may not realise that. But the word best, by definition, is an absolute claim that there is no better. If the child means that then they are making an objective claim. If they mean “favourite” then they are trying to make a subjective claim using absolute terminology – it really is an objective claim. One answer is correct. Whichever God prefers.
“Therefore you cannot base a best on who is the fastest but require all of the criteria.”
That’s not entirely a logical step in your argument – and again you’re agreeing with everything I’ve said while thinking that you’re disagreeing. You can base a best on who is fastest if you say “Matthew Bellamy is the best because he’s the fastest” – that’s an objective claim with a suitably measurable criteria…
Okay, will play that one. Was disagreeing about U2, agreeing today. Not convinced it isn’t exactly the same, but happy to remain current position.
I like your statement: one answer is correct. Whichever God prefers.
Nath, while I agree with a fair amount of the substance of what you’re saying (now I’ve read enough of this conversation to get it, but I’ve read no more than necessary for this purpose!) but the problem is that in several of your statements you’re playing with absolute meanings of words and giving no value to context. In essence, pedantry.
So, your response to the ‘chocolate ice cream is the best’ comment from a child, for example. The child is not, despite mouthing the words, making a claim about the objective quality of chocolate ice cream. The context demands that you take into account the fact that it’s a child! If you’re going to pick fights over whether someone remembers or forgets to add “I think that” to the front of their sentence, then perhaps you’re not listening as graciously as you might?
Secondly, I wonder if your argument, though having some value, is made impracticable by the difficulty of measuring certain objective truths.
Thirdly, aesthetics do fall within the realm of objectivity, as you’ve argued, but I think something of what’s missing in your argument is emergence. This concept, crudely put, is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. More specifically, that science, despite knowing all the relevant properties of the composite parts, cannot predict with accuracy the properties of the combination ofthose parts. To evaluate something ‘objectively’ as you propose fails to take into account the place of that object within a system and the role it plays.
For instance, Rugby Union keeps private school tools away from me and in certain pubs and clubs. ;)
“You can base a best on who is fastest if you say “Matthew Bellamy is the best because he’s the fastest” – that’s an objective claim with a suitably measurable criteria…”
Not really. What you’re doing is actually making the statement “best = fastest”. Now while you can conduct a hypothetical conversation within which those are the rules, if you were making that statement as a universal rule then you’ve got a whole lot of ‘burden of proof’ to work on. And that’s well before you even approach the question of who is the fastest.
As I’ve said previously, much of this conversation’s problem is that the thinking is vague. (Not saying that my thinking or communication is necessarily clearer)
Maybe there is some general misunderstanding about what ‘best’ means?
‘Best’ doesn’t always mean ‘favourite’.
I think that in terms of clarity we should guard the actual meaning of words pretty closely – if this opens me to accusations of pedantry then so be it.
Best never implicitly means favourite. Favourite is the “thing you like best”. They’re different words.
I don’t care what the child means when they’re talking about ice cream. Children are children and prone to childish hyperbole. In all likelihood they mean it’s the best icecream they’ve experienced.
Kutz – I think you’re reading too much into my examples – they’re examples. Trivial examples even. Of a slightly less trivial (though possibly pedantic) point about objectivity, subjectivity and language.
There are important cases where we need to put the “I think it’s” prior to an absolute claim – and there are cases when we shouldn’t.
The two are substantively different kettles of fish despite the similarity in language. You can argue with one and demand evidence – you can’t really argue with a matter of preference (apart from recommending alternative views backed by evidence).
The example of “fastest” guitar player was poor – but it is an example of giving a criteria that can be tested and measured. It was just a non-rugby example. I’ll post about rugby tomorrow.
If I were mounting an objective claim to Matt Bellamy’s superiority as a guitar player I would mention more than just the speed at which he plays his axe – that’s not really his most impressive feature.
Stuss,
I think a lot of the problems in this discussion are based on “definition creep” – clarity of communication is greatly improved when the definitions of words are clearly established and protected.
“Best” being a case in point, and “subjective” and “objective” being similarly misunderstood.
I will conclude for tonight by mentioning that I think objectivity at its purest is pretty hard – but is something to be pursued – as I mentioned in that post about whether being wrong is sinful (where Chris agreed with me, rather than insulting me…).
In my mind this was a sequel to that post.
Hey Nath,
That’s all well and good, but you’re still speaking in pretty vague terms. I have two requests.
1) Can you state the point that you’re trying to get across in a succinct, specific and clear sentence, or perhaps paragraph?
2) Could you respond to the point I made in the middle paragraph of my last post. Not that you haven’t already done so, it’s just that I wonder what you think about the need to defend the criteria that you set around the term “best” when you approach a particular truth claim.
Kutz – see comment 18, and the original post. I don’t know that I can be more succinct.
I was sick of conversations coming down to “that’s a matter of opinion” when I was referring to particular facts about particular topics.
Like the league v union debate – I made a comment that in Union it feels like the ball is out of play more often than it’s in play, and suggested I could take a stopwatch next time – only to be told that this was a matter of opinion and preference.
There are certain criteria where league and union can be compared – particularly criteria pushed by union apologists – that I think are actually vastly inaccurate.
Anyway, that made me angry, as did the comments about evil from my atheist friends.
So I posted this. I didn’t think it was a mind blowing concept. The idea that objective claims need proofing, and some measurable criteria doesn’t seem revolutionary.
That’s pretty much the basis of scientific method and journalism – two pretty key areas that shape our understanding of the world.
“Not really. What you’re doing is actually making the statement “best = fastest”. Now while you can conduct a hypothetical conversation within which those are the rules, if you were making that statement as a universal rule then you’ve got a whole lot of ‘burden of proof’ to work on. And that’s well before you even approach the question of who is the fastest.”
I agree. But that’s not really what I was trying to do. I was trying to give an example of the ways you could go about providing measurable criteria. I agree that these criteria should be agreed upon by all the parties in the conversation.
So, with the union debate I would say “on what basis do you argue that union is superior/your preference”, and I would take those criteria and measure the two. That would be how I’d bring about an objective understanding of a relatively subjective question… When it comes to universal rules there are other complexities at play – like how you even consider the prospect of an objective, absolute truth when talking to people who reject that fundamental concept.
“Thirdly, aesthetics do fall within the realm of objectivity, as you’ve argued, but I think something of what’s missing in your argument is emergence. This concept, crudely put, is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. More specifically, that science, despite knowing all the relevant properties of the composite parts, cannot predict with accuracy the properties of the combination ofthose parts. To evaluate something ‘objectively’ as you propose fails to take into account the place of that object within a system and the role it plays.”
That comment from Kutz is a gem.
It’s also the case in cooking – both in terms of recipes and the development of flavours – I was listening to the ABC yesterday to a fascinating piece on “smell” as a commodity – you can get these smell cameras that will analyse the chemical make up of a particular smell so that you can reproduce it… I think a nice smell fits into this area where science can know a lot about the elements but not necessarily predict the different smells produced by slightly different combinations of the same elements.
Not really relevant, and I’ll probably post about the smell thing tomorrow.
Cheers mate. Your second last post actually was what clarified things for me.
I think what most people were (perhaps unwittingly?) reacting against was the perception that you were insinuating that you could be the arbiter of what categories were able to be plugged into the formula X + Y + Z = a measure of “best”. I suspect that the makeup of this formula is where most intelligent dissent will be found.
I’m now eagerly awaiting the post on smell. It’s such a ‘base’ sense, isn’t it?
I think a lot of the problems in this discussion are based on “definition creep” – clarity of communication is greatly improved when the definitions of words are clearly established and protected.
Just a point here – definition creep and changes in meaning are what makes English alive as a language. That’s one of the fascinating things about it.
Amy – that’s true in many cases – particularly for adjectives. And usage dictates meaning to a degree.
I think that’s fine with the abstract – but when it comes to an absolute I don’t think you can allow the creep too much or the word loses all significant meaning.
Better to use better anyway – apparently… which can still have the same confusion when it comes to objectivity/subjectivity.
Objective versus Subjective Lists
We allow subjective lists on the site and will delete lists that are purely objective. If you get what we mean by that, then you don’t need to bother reading further.
Perhaps the best way to describe what we mean by this is to define the terms in question.
objective:not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
subjective: Particular to a given person; personal
When referring to an objective top ten list, what we are talking about is a list where there is a correct ordering of the items. For example, a list of the all-time best selling albums in the UK is objective because the items in the list and the order they are ranked in is based on real world sales numbers.
A subjective list is one where there are no universal right answers. For example, our list of the Greatest Guitarists Ever is purely subjective because people have differing opinions on how to judge greatness.
Because of the ranking system used by TheTopTens, only subjective lists make sense for the site. When voting comes into play, objective lists become incorrect as people inject opinion into fact.
This also applies to lists that are personal to you. There have been a few times where we have deleted lists along the lines of “John Doe’s All Time Favorite Movies”. While this list may appear subjective, the true test of subjectivity is whether or not a list can be incorrect. In this case, voters can rearrange items on the list so John Doe’s favorite movie is not longer at the top or they can add movies that John may not even like. In this way, the list has become incorrect.
So before taking the time to add a list to the site, ask yourself whether or not it is a good fit for a democratic voting system.
from http://www.the-top-tens.com/blog/objective-versus-subjective-lists.asp
From the same page
I think the rule is pretty easy, but if it isn’t clear, maybe some more examples would help. In each of these examples, the
objective list is not a good fit for the site because there is a correct ordering of the items in the list. Because the ordering of items in lists on this site are determined by votes, on lists where there is a correct order, the voting functionality of the site can makes these lists incorrect.
Example 1:
Objective list: NFL Quarterbacks with the Most Touchdown Passes
Subjective List: Best NFL Quarterback of All Time
Example 2:
Objective List: Top Ten Best Selling Playstation 2 Games
Subjective List: Most Entertaining Playstation 2 Games
Example 3
Objective List: My Favorite Michael Jackson Songs
Subjective List: The Top Ten Michael Jackson Songs
Example 4
Objective List: Top Ten Longest Led Zeppelin Songs
Subjective List: Top Ten Led Zeppelin Songs That Should Be Longer
Chris,
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to prove – but I’d suggest in future that you just post a link to the site and let everyone read it.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me. I don’t think you’ve read anything I’ve said to the point where you’ve understood it.
You can make a subjective statement into an objective statement by providing a measurable criteria. Yes. This is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.
Please also note that your first comment was in clear breach of my commenting guidelines so has been edited. By me. To reflect that.
@Nathan (gunning for 50 comments)
But most observable, measurable criteria themselves are at best comparative (10mins League stoppage vs 20mins Union, 200 points per game in AFL vs 1 or 2 in soccer) and a judgement has to be made as to which are significant, really comparable, and their place in the whole system, (as Kutz mentioned above), and from the perspective judged by whom.
To say anything is “best” on this basis is only in comparison to everything else it has been compared against. So even this “measurable” process is inherently relative, and has a subjective element.
How can you then make an “objective” absolute claim if its basis is subjective? I understand your argument that by its nature, an absolute claim implies objectivity, or at least provability. I’m interested in how one can honestly maintain that presumption, knowing that the underlying process involves subjectivity and relativism. Do you have to include a plethora of footnotes and parentheses or can this be assumed?
Of course this leads to the melting pot of no absolutes, with which I strongly disagree, so where do you see the resolution?
Kudos for using the word plethora in a conversation!
(50 here we come)
I’m the 50th comment… hooray. I didn’t want to say anything, just steal what can quite objectively be called comment number 50. Sorry for interrupting the conversation.