/sci/ - Science & Math

Keep seeing this image, the quality of those things is subjective.

>>11099738
Arguing subjectivity is, for starters, arguing a negative (though with potential further points if basing in scholarly media, etc.).

Even anatomy and attractiveness are deriving from objectivity. Humans are very proficient at the first-2-cells A-to-B:adulthood, even with how rare "full nutrition" is amongst diets and even scholarly articles. (This also evidences much more potential for human behavior, awareness, and performance.) Many examples are available of "all humans" common experiences, such as smiling being pleasing, especially receiving and sharing. .. Furthermore, genetic similarity is some 99.5%, potentially 100%. (Genes are activated and de-activated often – and these are transferable via reproduction, which is really intriguing).

>>11099773

Seriously smells of schizo posting in here. Why can't you make your points simple and easy to read?

>Arguing subjectivity is, for starters, arguing a negative
What are you trying to say here?

>Many examples are available of "all humans" common experiences, such as smiling being pleasing, especially receiving and sharing.
Are you trying to say that the quality of art is objective because there can be a widespread consensus of things as 'good'/'bad'?

>>11099819
>smells of schizo posting in here
Not really.

>Why can't you make your points simple and easy to read?
There was *a* response to another, which is 7 sentences, and reasonable English. If you're having problems so much that you're posting about it, outside and other options are available.

>Are you trying to say that the quality of art is objective because there can be a widespread consensus of things as 'good'/'bad'?
No, I specifically mentioned and listed "'all humans' common" – and "of objectivity", because though it's possible training all of humanity to a specific "best", individuals still being subjected to their own (e.g., previous) choices (especially "limited nutrition") is a problem for "continuous accordance". .. "Non-normative preferences / feelings are derived from ludicrous 'side-paths / resting places', but are remediable – these, on Game Theory .." Researched, even racism was dropped when social benefits were found.

>>11099819
>smells of schizo posting in here
Not really.

>Why can't you make your points simple and easy to read?
There was *a* response to another, which is 7 sentences, and reasonable English. If you're having problems so much that you're posting about it, outside and other options are available.

>Are you trying to say that the quality of art is objective because there can be a widespread consensus of things as 'good'/'bad'?
I specifically mentioned and listed "'all humans' common" – though "of objectivity", because though it's possible training all of humanity to a specific "best", individuals still being subjected to their own (e.g., previous) choices (especially "limited nutrition") is a problem for "continuous accordance". .. "Non-normative preferences / feelings are derived from ludicrous 'side-paths / resting places', but are remediable – these, on Game Theory .." Researched, even racism was dropped when social benefits were found.

>>11099880
Ok, maybe you think you're being clear as day and it's my fault that your posts read as gibberish, but I think most people would agree that it's fucking impossible to follow whatever argument you're apparently trying to make.
The objectivity/subjectivity of art/vidya/whatever is something I'd discuss but I can't tell what you're trying to say. Try the 'peel' method, add some structure.

>>11099916
The points I was making are very generalized and fundamental, partially because, it's not my job convincing you the relevance of scholarly niches existing.

>>11099726

>I'm really clever because no-one can understand my markov-spam posts.
Fuck off.

>>11101269
Your "on-topic responsibility" is at least critiquing something specifically.

The phrases aren't even "Markovian", necessarily, because of ~rules on what's reposted / repeated .. Even still is often OC.

>>11099804
>>11101367

>>11101367
> >>11103008

>>11100969
>>11104796

>>11099942
Your prose is awful, roundabout, and will repel anyone who is interested in having a conversation.

>>11106478
Still vague.

The only "discussion" here has been vs. content a la double-digit IQ.

>>11099726
But apparently grammar is not.

Oh boy. It's another "we can evaluate entertainment objectively even though we don't even have a physical mechanism for qualia yet" thread.

>>11106687
>>11106701
>[Not an argument].

>>11099738
>>11106417

>>11107176

>>11099726
You like broad statements hmm? Okay, I respond to your OP: Video games are fun and physics is nice and quite measurable.

>>11106701
>>11107586
There are scholarly articles on specifics.

> >>11107176

>>11101608