Should a review be "objective"?

[VivisQueen]

INGREY: You sound like a philosopher. If you are, thank fuck for that because we need one in here.

I agree, we need a definition of objectivity. It isn't a matter of agreeing on a definition, like you agree on social policy, it's about us finding which is the correct definition. Because I swear to God anybody equating objectivity with in-depth is wrong. WRONG! The two have nothing to do with each other. If you are a philosopher, for the sake of God and everything She created in Her mighty wisdom, tell us what it is!!!! GIVE US A DEFINITION! Because I'm tearing my hair out whenever I look at this thread. Arguments get blown apart only for its dispersed, dismembered parts to be dealt with in a multiplicity of arguments. We haven't got a single thread of coherent argument; even when I ignore irrelevant derailing about dictionary definitions etc, this debate can't seem to stick together.

Seriously, what exactly do people think objectivity means? Because there is only one correct answer. I am certain it's mine, and that if it's mine, objectivity is not one of the criteria necessary for a good review.

Cetonis: He somehow decides he and I are talking about the same thing but then goes on to use a weakened version based on what most people believe to be true, not what is objectively true - a version that accepts a 'margin of errror', as if an absolute like 'objectivity' can still be an absolute with 'margins'.

V16: I have no idea what his definition is, he just seems to hop around from topic to topic, agreeing that a flamebait review is objective and that an objective statement is not the same as an objective fact.

Vivafruit: I think he agrees with my definition of an objective fact, but then goes on to argue an objective statement is not the same thing. Although, nobody has yet explained the difference to me, despite me asking.

Ingrey, if you are a philosopher, please explain it to me. That's if it is important to the debate. If not, ignore it. Ingrey, if you are a philosopher, save us. SAVE US! Oh prophet!

[vivafruit]

@Vivi: Haha, a simple misunderstanding.

Like Vivi (has said before), I think you are confusing a widely held subjective opinion with objective fact.

Basically:

Objective fact: an objective statement which is true.
Objective statement: any statement about the object that is independent of the person describing it.

@v16:

Ok, if you define "blue" to mean "emits such and such wavelengths" then yes, it is objective. However, this is certainly not the common meaning of the word. The common meaning for a blue thing is, "something I perceive as having the property of blue."

Consider this: in Japanese, the word for blue is "aoi." When you ask them what color the sky is, they will say "aoi." However, if you ask them what color a blooming tree is (one we would call "green"), they will also say "aoi." If this doesn't prove the subjectivity of color, I don't know what does. Further reading.

Also: no, comparing two different things with a subjective term does not magically make a term objective.

Consider two people on opposite sides of a bridge.

A-san says: "Compared to the Western end, the Eastern end is close."
B-san says: "Compared to the Eastern end, the Western end is close."

In this case "close" is a subjective term, and comparing to a different object does not make the term any less subjective.

@Cetonis:

Which is precisely why I said it wasn't about separating the sentence, but rather looking at the various things the sentence conveys.

Ok, if we can agree that the subjective part cannot be separated from the objective part, I don't see how you can claim that a review can provide objective information that is separate from the subjective information.

Also, if you didn't read my response to vivi in my last post, I now ask that you please do. I attempt to explain why we can't just use the dictionary definition of an objective fact for the sake of practical use.

We have to use SOME definition for objective or this debate will never go anywhere. "Describing qualities of an object that are independent of the observer" seems to be an adequate one to me. If you have a better one, then go ahead and state it and we can argue over that.

Incidentally, saying "the sky gives off such-and-such wavelengths" is still subjective in the strict sense; people using different instruments of measure with individual quirks, errors, etc., as well as different eyes that read them, would find different results.

Not really. The difference between the "wavelength is X" and "the color is X" is that in the former, you can be definitively right or wrong, while in the latter this is not necessarily true. If a dog looks up at the sky and does not see it as blue, is it wrong? However, no matter what the dog sees, the same wavelengths of light are still hitting the dog's eyes.

Whether a statement has error does not make a statement subjective or objective.

[VivisQueen]

Originally Posted by vivafruit

@Vivi: Haha, a simple misunderstanding.

Like Vivi (has said before), I think you are confusing a widely held subjective opinion with objective fact.

Basically:

Objective fact: an objective statement which is true.
Objective statement: any statement about the object that is independent of the person describing it.

Excellent, thank you. In which case I was not actually refering to objective statements in the post I made earlier that V16 criticised. I meant objective FACT. I used the term objective STATEMENT without realising I was switching between meaninfully different terminology. So anybody replace any claims I've made about 'objective STATEMENTS' with 'objective FACTS', since it's Cetonis' claims about objective facts that I was addressing.

I hope that's clear. I don't mean to introduce ANY discussion about objective statements. Okay? Okay. That's one ridiculous sidetracking avoided.

[v16]

However, if you ask them what color a blooming tree is (one we would call "green"), they will also say "aoi."

So aoi isn't the same as blue. Well, who would be surprised - why in the hell should two cultures separate the spectrum into the same arbitrary colors.
As a matter of fact, even the link you mentioned says aoi isn't blue.

In this case "close" is a subjective term, and comparing to a different object does not make the term any less subjective.

Is located at shorter distance.

If a dog looks up at the sky and does not see it as blue, is it wrong?

Dogs don't know what "blue" is, just like a compass can't measure the same as a spectrometer.

agreeing that a flamebait review is objective

That it isn't "absolutely not objective". Because it does have objective statements.

I have no idea what his definition is

I think I've said it extremely clearly five posts above.

Originally Posted by v16

Because that's what "objective" means in regular use. With reasonable confidence can be expected to be a property of the object rather than the subject's impression.

Which means that subjectivity and objectivity aren't boolean. That someone can be more objective or less objective. Numerically, a more objective statement is the one for which the probability of being independent of the observer is higher.

[vivafruit]

Originally Posted by v16

So aoi isn't the same as blue. Well, who would be surprised - why in the hell should two cultures separate the spectrum into the same arbitrary colors.
As a matter of fact, even the link you mentioned says aoi isn't blue.

Ok, so "blue" is not a quality of the object itself, but a word we attribute to what happens when we experience a thing that gives off a fuzzily defined range of wavelengths of light. This seems so subjective to me that I'm puzzled how we can even be arguing it.

Is located at shorter distance.

Is located at a shorter distance relative to the observer.

Dogs don't know what "blue" is, just like a compass can't measure the same as a spectrometer.

Dogs are things that can experience, unlike a compass. If a dog looks up at the sky, it is experiencing something but it is not experiencing blue. That does not make its experience wrong. If you use a compass to measure a wavelength of light, you will come up with an answer that IS wrong.

Which means that subjectivity and objectivity aren't boolean. That someone can be more objective or less objective. Numerically, a more objective statement is the one for which the probability of being independent of the observer is higher.

Ok, but by this definition "blue" is still completely subjective in the common usage. It has a 100% chance of being dependent on the observer.

[VivisQueen]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/objectiv.htm#SH2a

I found a site that is INCREDIBLY useful (link above). I used Google scholar at first to find articles, but then none of them dealt with the question of objectivity directly. Instead, I found a philosophical explanation of objectivity, along with some discussions of it. All the sections are really brief and concise and should take less than two minutes to read.

EVERYONE: You can read the very brief introduction and the very brief 'Terminology' part, as well as part (e) and (f).

V16/Vivafruit: Look to part (c) about your colour debates.

Cetonis: read part (a) and (b), maybe also (d). (b) explains about intersubjective agreement - whether lots of people agreeing indicates objectivity. The answer is pretty much no. The only way for our subjective views even coming close to 'proving' objectivity would be if there were universal agreement - that is even one person disagrees and we've forever lost even the probability that we're objectively right.

Hopefully, this will help ground us all in some common area of argument.

[Cetonis]

I'm way too fried right now to post a long response, but at the very least I'll say that it's probably not about what definition to use, but whether or not to use some kind of leeway in its application. If we require ourselves to apply the definition in the strictest manner possible, 'objectivity' becomes all but entirely unusable as a concept, as we all understand so far as I can tell. Hence my support of a looser application of the definition, with 'margin of error' and whatnot. Will reply in more detail later.

[VivisQueen]

Originally Posted by Cetonis

I'm way too fried right now to post a long response, but at the very least I'll say that it's probably not about what definition to use, but whether or not to use some kind of leeway in its application. If we require ourselves to apply the definition in the strictest manner possible, 'objectivity' becomes all but entirely unusable as a concept, as we all understand so far as I can tell. Hence my support of a looser application of the definition, with 'margin of error' and whatnot. Will reply in more detail later.

Thank fuck! Finally, I get to isolate the real problem. Cetonis, when you find a definition of a concept that doesn't match your argument, you don't lower the definition of the concept to make it fit; you must simply recognise that 'this concept cannot be applied to my argument'. This either means your argument is wrong, or the concept is being misapplied.

Cetonis, you are MISAPPLYING objectivity. You would be right in one sense (i.e. we should have some factual statements since they are necessary to make the opinions), but only if you would just GET RID of 'objectivity' from your argument. Why are you so stuck on the word? Why are you so stuck on using a concept that has nothing to do with what makes a good review?

Take this script as an analogy for what you're doing:

CETONIS: I think a review should have apples, it makes a review better.
VQ: But you can't have apples in a review. Apples have nothing to do with reviewing. They won't make a review any better. Once you have apples in a review, it ceases to be a review - it merely becomes a fruit bowl.
CETONIS: Well then, I'll change the meaning of apples from 'fruit' to 'in-depth', so now any review that has apples in it is in-depth and is thus better.
VQ: But...
V16: Objective facts are not the same as objective statements!

:P

Anyway, do you get what I mean, Cetonis? I hope I haven't derailed again in a desperate attempt to make my view understood.

[vivafruit]

Ahaha.

Really quickly, I would like to take back the statement, "Whether a statement has error does not make a statement subjective or objective."

In fact this is not true at all. If a statement can have error, it is objective. If it can't, it is subjective.

[VivisQueen]

Originally Posted by vivafruit

Ahaha.

Really quickly, I would like to take back the statement, "Whether a statement has error does not make a statement subjective or objective."

In fact this is not true at all. If a statement can have error, it is objective. If it can't, it is subjective.

I take it you mean to swap the places of 'objective' and 'subjective' in your new statement.