META: The Problem of Subjectivity

[Martin Phipps]

On Mar 14, 7:46 am, Andrew Burton <tuglyrai... at aol.com> wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
> > And yet it seems to me that
> > if a reviewer admits that his reviews are "100% subjective" then he
> > should give up any pretense of objectivity, accuracy or
> > constructiveness.
>
> And to me, anyone claiming that their reviews are at all "objective" is
> suffering from a severe case of dementia where they perceive themselves
> as a god-like being who has evolved to such a state where concepts such
> as "good," "bad," and the like are as factually defined as...well, I'm
> not really sure what I can list as a constant here since, as I learned
> in high school science and college Calculus, we can never never fully
> define something, only mark a certain number of decimal points and work
> from there.  Hm.  So if you're deluded enough to believe you can
> objectively review something, then you must believe you're the only
> constant force in the universe with the proper, omniscient perspective
> to state what is and isn't true.

As you calling me "deluded" is a subjective statement and the argument
is that nobody should be offended by subjective statements I should
just let that go.

You should go back and reread what I've written up to now.  Statements
like "This is good" and "This is bad" are subjective, I agree.  They
are also completely useless in and of themselves.

Martin