/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11091421]

Inb4 "but subjectivity".

[Anonymous No.11091424]

>>11091421
You're retarded

[Anonymous No.11092078]

>>11091424
A). Not an argument / topical.. >>>/global/rules/6
B). Scientific objectivity and mathematical precision are extremely great for quality (and are already evidenced ..).

[Anonymous No.11092142]

>>11092078
>A). Not an argument / topical
Subjective.
>B). Scientific objectivity and mathematical precision are extremely great for quality
Subjective.

[Anonymous No.11092235]

>>11092142
>>A). Not an argument / topical
>Subjective.
"No."

>>B).
>Subjective.
Repeatable results.

[Anonymous No.11092248]

>>11092142
>>A). Not an argument / topical
>Subjective.
"No."

>>B).
>Subjective.
Repeatable results.

[Anonymous No.11093637]

>>11092248
Subjective

[Anonymous No.11093711]

>>11093637
Something that happens to everybody (e.g., even "potentially") is considered objective, even if it's "normative".

Also, you got inb4'd, >>11092142 .. >>11093637.

[Anonymous No.11094086]

>>11092078
>Something that happens to everybody is considered objective
Have you ever considered that this definition of objectivity might be a bit far-fetched?
There's objective world, which we comprehend with our own subjective interpretation of information from our senses. Everything a human says about objective world is bound to be subjective, coming from and filtered by his/her personal subjective comprehension of the world. Objective truth can not possibly be expressed by means of human language or language of any other species, which means anything we ever say about art is always subjective. Subjective opinion + subjective opinion ≠ objective opinion.
Some qualities of art and literature can be measured, and people can make up these qualities forever, so which one is more important? People would decide that some things are more important subjectively because people appreciate art for different things according to their tastes, something that's subjective.
>>11091421
>I post X
>inb4 you discuss
>heh, you got inb4'd
What was on your mind when you posted it?

[Anonymous No.11094246]

>>11094086
>Have you ever considered that this definition of objectivity might be a bit far-fetched?
"Relevance", as of reading this: "no". .. Quantum mechanics.

>["Everything .. is bound to be subjective, coming from and filtered by {entity's} relationship" ..]

>Objective truth ..
Whether "ultimately" expressable – is, still.

[Anonymous No.11094327]

>>11094086
>Objective truth can not possibly be expressed by means of human language or language of any other species, which means anything we ever say about art is always subjective. Subjective opinion + subjective opinion ≠ objective opinion.
>Some qualities of art and literature can be measured, and people can make up these qualities forever, so which one is more important? People would decide that some things are more important subjectively because people appreciate art for different things according to their tastes, something that's subjective.
>>>11091421 (OP)
>>I post X
>>inb4 you discuss
>>heh, you got inb4'd
>What was on your mind when you posted it?
.. Is spewing-words garbage

[Anonymous No.11094555]

>>11093711
>Something that happens to everybody (e.g., even "potentially") is considered objective, even if it's "normative".
Well, that's subjective.

[Anonymous No.11094576]

>>11094555
Your response is so far into semantics (and thus "science"), that it's beyond "relevance".

Every non-my-IP in this topic is bannable. Get away from me; I don't know you.

[Anonymous No.11094930]

>>11091421
OP can't inb4 you stupid faggot.
Also not science or math.

[Anonymous No.11094950]

>>11094576
>Every non-my-IP in this topic is bannable
Subjective.

[Anonymous No.11094953]

>>11094930
>OP ..
I thought of that before posting.

>Also ..
It is.