Cracker: Wallywood
735 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
Presumably the driver's skills make a difference in how fast the car can go,
Why yes Jack, yes it does, and if it was a Noble? well....
-
-
Alright, already!, because you asked.
Yes you did. -
Watched Top Gear last night then?
-
Except that we don't, in good conscience, compare two things by deliberately skewing the variables; quite the reverse.
Indeed. I was just saying that there's an unspoken variable that wasn't being mentioned - the driver. That's not to say that you couldn't make some kind of absolute comparison about the cars per se - I'm sure there are automated tests that could tell you about the physical characteristics of the cars. Which one had a larger engine, could generate more torque at 7000 RPM, that sort of thing. But once you get it out of the lab and actually start to use it for a specific purpose, you can't just ignore the fact that it's being used by a specific human being, on a specific day and time - which is a variable that the discussion so far didn't mention.
Noble
A couple of mates of mine have just bought a Caterham.
-
Watched Top Gear last night then?
Of course.No matter how sick one is,one can get out of bed for Top Gear, even if one don't have to get out of bed. That car knocks your socks off!
-
A couple of mates of mine have just bought a Caterham.
I do like that life insurance is advertised at the bottom of that page.:)
-
3410,
But once you get it out of the lab and actually start to use it for a specific purpose, you can't just ignore the fact that it's being used by a specific human being, on a specific day and time - which is a variable that the discussion so far didn't mention.
Sure. There would, of course, be myriad variables: fuel, tyres, track, conditions, and so on.
The question, IIRC, was about which was the best of two cars (for a defined purpose). Surely, if you eliminate (or match) all the identifiable variables, then you can say, with a fair degree of accuracy, which one is the best for the job.
-
I do like that life insurance is advertised at the bottom of that page.:)
Caterham Life is a magazine to do with the car. Caterham Insurance is car insurance. Two separate adverts.
-
Pendant with no sense of humour today. :)
-
The question, IIRC, was about which was the best of two cars (for a defined purpose). Surely, if you eliminate (or match) all the identifiable variables, then you can say, with a fair degree of accuracy, which one is the best for the job.
If the defined purpose is very simple, and also one of the candidates is a clear winner, then yes.
A standing quarter mile, for instance, is race with very few variables, by comparison to other races. The hardest part is to define what constitutes an allowable vehicle. You can make the world's fastest dragster if it doesn't have to have any extra weight for safety features. It might have no braking system whatsoever, no cage to protect the driver, or an extremely flimsy one. It might kill 99% of drivers, but the one who survives is indisputably the fastest over the 1/4 mile for that class.
But, so long as the rules were set, and followed, and the process agreed by which to establish a winner, then yes, a winner can be found.
If you can't agree on any of these things, then you have an analogy with our discussion on the merit of Avatar and a Wellywood sign. Also just about every interesting discussion. If the answer is clear it doesn't really need discussion, except for purposes of schooling those who might not know the answer yet.
I tend to think this is the real downfall of absolutism - it's not that it is clearly wrong, it's that there is no way agreed upon for us fallible humans to actually find out what the objective truths are. Instead we have to deal with a vast interconnected web of subjective truths (was this what Gio meant by 'Intersubjective'?). We can settle on methods to do so. For blatantly obvious facts our common sense is usually good enough, although it does have the problem of insane or contrary people (who could still be right). For more complex things about which fact would still seem to be clearly possible, like scientific facts, there is the famous "scientific method", something that would seem to be "common sense for scientists", and in the end, neither common, nor sense for anything controversial (although always fantastically good at hindsight, the method is perfect for evaluating exactly why the science of the past was not scientific, despite having been what got us to here). Then there is the whole nebulous world of moral issues, in which even the most basic facts have been disputed forever. Progress in this is almost entirely limited to things happening outside of the core prejudices built into human organisms, facts that can at least be generally agreed upon by observers who still detest each other. So, despite having gone from splitting bones to smashing subatomic particles, we're still disputing whether it's OK to kill people in a "good cause". We have untold more information to bring to hand, and thousands of years and billions of people contributing to arguments either way, yet each person seems to have to make the decision afresh in each case.
As for aesthetic issues, it's even clearer to people that it's subjective because differences in moral issues tend to make for physical distancing, at the very least, or the actual death of a viewpoint that is considered wrong or evil by some enemy of it. With aesthetics you can disagree with your best friend, and still remain friends, although it does seem to help a lot if you have aligned prejudices.
Coming back to absolutism, it's still not clear at all if there isn't, after all, some actual truth, even in aesthetics. Quite a lot of people who have highly developed tastes seem to think so. The religious minded might think that God knows what's beautiful, and/or is the source of all beauty. They might even be right. But for non-deities, when we pick an absolutist position, most likely we're simply wrong. However, you could argue, this choice is the only one that also has the chance of being right. To choose subjectivity is not to choose. A cautious approach, but also one that seems unlikely to blunder into the truth, if there is one.
So I can see why absolutism is still popular after all these years. It's probably built into us as a fundamental decision making heuristic, that locking into a position at least carries the hope of truth and progress. I recall being rather surprised to find that most scientists are 'realists'. They really believe in the true reality of the laws they are inquiring into, that gravity or any other thing is real, objective truth - they just aren't sure that they know the truth. I thought that was a rather naive view initially, but later came to think that it's probably psychologically necessary for their business. So long as they can eventually concede defeat after some decisive experiment, they can still call themselves scientists, and have the 'relevant community' agree on that. If they don't concede they slip into the crackpot community, one that does occasionally make profound discoveries, but usually on a very slim budget.
-
Instead we have to deal with a vast interconnected web of subjective truths (was this what Gio meant by 'Intersubjective'?).
Yes. Alternatively, I threw it out there hoping that somebody would come up with a good definition.
Of corse once you form that model of how knowledge is reached - socially, consensually, in mediation with a number of expert discourses (the sciences, both hard and social, etc.) one risks forgetting how asymmetrical the conversation just is, and that there is such a thing as privileged speaking positions and power differentials. Plenty of Net commentary is characterised by that wee omission.
-
Subjective falsehoods: you never hear much about them.
-
3410,
But, so long as the rules were set, and followed, and the process agreed by which to establish a winner, then yes, a winner can be found.
If you can't agree on any of these things, then you have an analogy with our discussion on the merit of Avatar and a Wellywood sign. Also just about every interesting discussion. If the answer is clear it doesn't really need discussion, except for purposes of schooling those who might not know the answer yet.
Ben,
I never really set out to prove that some things are objectively true - that much seems bleeding obvious, as you seem to be suggesting - rather that examining those thing that are, and the relationship between them and the things that are not, might tell us more about the latter, and therefore about the nature of quality in art.Unfortunately, that argument never really got much past the first premise. That's fine; this conversation has been something of a failure; pehaps the next one won't be.
-
Subjective falsehoods: you never hear much about them.
Er... really? Quite the contrary, it seems to me.
-
Name some.
-
Religion.
-
Pigeons, meet cat.
I think that an objective falsehood: it is believed to be objectively true, but is not. Mind you, I am no theologian.
-
Capitalism
-
Absolute truth.
-
I think that an objective falsehood: it is believed to be objectively true, but is not.
For everybody but the atheists, though, every other religion is a subjective falsehood. And I don't need to tell you that the persecution of those falsehoods is responsible for a war or five.
-
Call it what you like, but which car is fastest in the context given is an objective truth.
But what is a legal car to use in a drag race? That's hardly objective.
-
@3410
rather that examining those thing that are, and the relationship between them and the things that are not, might tell us more about the latter, and therefore about the nature of quality in art.
It seemed like a promising approach. I'm kind of regretting saying anything on the subject too. I think I have a warped perspective.
@Gio
Of corse once you form that model of how knowledge is reached
The work of a mere epoch...
one risks forgetting how asymmetrical the conversation just is, and that there is such a thing as privileged speaking positions and power differentials.
Which are pretty much built into every model of decision making that involves more than one person. There's always going to be more eloquent people, more powerful people, better resourced, better able in every way, who still, for all of that, could be totally wrong about art. Maybe God sees real art in the fecal smears of some poor misunderstood child more than He/She/It does in any Old Master.
What we can do, however, is forge ahead and build that consensus, or a large number of isolated consensuses, and look at how society deals with them, what they mean about that society, etc. As a sociological study it could probably be somewhat more objective. I expect this has already been done (it's not my field, I don't care to display my pitiful level of understanding of sociology and other soft sciences), and we're doing our little bit on it right here, right now.
@Keir
But what is a legal car to use in a drag race? That's hardly objective.
It is if has been defined in advance, although practically it will still need to be actually evaluated by some human judge, so accusations of bias can still creep in. Happens all the time in car races. Disputes about exactly how much of each thing are allowed, particularly when those things can be twisted just that little bit so that they can be argued to be something else. Every new trick spawns a new rule.
-
It is if has been defined in advance, although practically it will still need to be actually evaluated by some human judge, so accusations of bias can still creep in.
& in practice rules change over time, and things which were legal become illegal, and illegal things legal, based essentially on subjective feelings about what a car should be like.
-
Anybody ever been given a decent answer as to why double-belt safety-harnesses for drivers (i.e the kind pilots and racing-car drivers wear) are not allowed in yer average vehicle?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.