Music is subjective

mirosurabu · 07-31-2013, 11:35 PM

@duga:

Well, it would be useful for you to explain why it is wrong (: The one-liners of your kind are rude.

duga · 07-31-2013, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirosurabu

@duga:

Well, it would be useful for you to explain why it is wrong (: The one-liners of your kind are rude.

Science by its very nature is objective. There is no different way to look at it...it's just...objective. If you think a scientific fact is subjective, you are thinking about it wrong.

mirosurabu · 07-31-2013, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

We do? My taste in music is certainly always evolving but that doesn't mean I now dislike the things I used to like.

I don't really "dislike" music I used to like as a kid, you see, but I like it less than I used to. Nowadays when I listen to it I only have feelings of nostalgia, memories of how much fun I had listening to that music back in the day. It is in this way that I like it less (: It would be strange if I continued to enjoy it with the same intensity. Everything has a lifetime.

mirosurabu · 07-31-2013, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Science by its very nature is objective. There is no different way to look at it...it's just...objective. If you think a scientific fact is subjective, you are thinking about it wrong.

The so-called "objectivity" is a mere scientific illusion. This requires quite a bit of philosophy in order to explain but for the topic at hand it's unnecessary. You should just read the rest of my post.

duga · 07-31-2013, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirosurabu

The so-called "objectivity" is a mere scientific illusion. This requires quite a bit of philosophy in order to explain but for the topic at hand it's unnecessary. You should just read the rest of my post.

I know the philosophy you are talking about and you are thinking about it incorrectly. If scientific fact was subjective, nothing we create based on these facts would work.

As for your post, why would it be our job to psychoanalyze anyone with taste we don't agree with? If anything it should be our job to listen to more and gain a better understanding of the subjective side of music and just accept rather than understand where someone else is coming from.

gunnels · 08-01-2013, 12:16 AM

I love how the post begins by claiming that everything is subjective, but goes on to describe personal taste in one the most objective ways I've ever seen. Describing "scientific facts" as "scientific illusions" was pretty great too. Man, I should not find pseudo-intellectual trolling this funny.

mirosurabu · 08-01-2013, 12:22 AM

Quote:

If scientific fact was subjective, nothing we create based on these facts would work.

It would work because everything is subjective, not just scientific facts.

Quote:

I know the philosophy you are talking about and you are thinking about it incorrectly.

I'm talking about Heraclitus, Nietzsche and Baudrillard.

Trollheart · 08-01-2013, 06:11 AM

What's a scientific illusion? You're saying that if a scientist does an experiment that the results of that are not only subjective, but now also an illusion? Science. Is. Fact. There is no other way to explain that. If two elements combine to make a compound, that's fact. It's in no way subjective. The periodic table is the result of decades of painstaking research and is based on facts. Gravity is not subjective. Electricity is not subjective. There is nothing LESS subjective than cold, hard science.

Oh, and to resort to insults and namecalling just shows you realise you're losing the argument. Way to win friends and supporters for what appears to be your first post pal!

Arya Stark · 08-01-2013, 07:55 AM

EXCUSE ME MODS I ALREADY MADE A THREAD ABOUT MUSIC AND SUBJECTIVITY.

http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...jectivity.html

Paedantic Basterd · 08-01-2013, 11:02 AM

Every scrap of data, news item, information, etc. is processed through dozens of subjective filters, such as the experimenter's brain, his or her mind, culture, through his words when he publishes the information, through the minds and interpretations of those who read it, through the journalist who rephrases it for public consumption, through the news agency that decides how they want to see the piece represented, through the mind and culture of the layman reading the piece, through their choice of words and omissions of details as they inform a friend about it, so on and so forth.

This is what's known as Standpoint Theory. People are just not capable of pure objectivity. Perhaps it exists in the physical world, but once it passes through us it is/can be skewed in some way. Have you ever had an argument with someone about whether or not an item is blue, or more purple? Bias starts in the very makeup of the organs that detect the world in front of us; our eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and definitely our brain.

The way we are approaching this conversation is from a limited, eurocentric approach. There are more factors in science to be concerned with than the pure experiment on the far end of the information. Details of science are constantly in a state of flux, of argument, and science (like anything) cannot be "proven": by their very natures, hypotheses and theories are suggestions about the world's workings that can only be supported by evidence, not "proven".

You should always question what is given to you as "fact", because your facts are always filtered through a myriad of biases, including your own biases to see them in a particular light.

08-01-2013, 06:11 AM	#48 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,994	What's a scientific illusion? You're saying that if a scientist does an experiment that the results of that are not only subjective, but now also an illusion? Science. Is. Fact. There is no other way to explain that. If two elements combine to make a compound, that's fact. It's in no way subjective. The periodic table is the result of decades of painstaking research and is based on facts. Gravity is not subjective. Electricity is not subjective. There is nothing LESS subjective than cold, hard science. Oh, and to resort to insults and namecalling just shows you realise you're losing the argument. Way to win friends and supporters for what appears to be your first post pal! __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

07-31-2013, 11:35 PM	#41 (permalink)
mirosurabu Groupie Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Serbia Posts: 27	@duga: Well, it would be useful for you to explain why it is wrong (: The one-liners of your kind are rude.

08-01-2013, 11:02 AM	#50 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	Every scrap of data, news item, information, etc. is processed through dozens of subjective filters, such as the experimenter's brain, his or her mind, culture, through his words when he publishes the information, through the minds and interpretations of those who read it, through the journalist who rephrases it for public consumption, through the news agency that decides how they want to see the piece represented, through the mind and culture of the layman reading the piece, through their choice of words and omissions of details as they inform a friend about it, so on and so forth. This is what's known as Standpoint Theory. People are just not capable of pure objectivity. Perhaps it exists in the physical world, but once it passes through us it is/can be skewed in some way. Have you ever had an argument with someone about whether or not an item is blue, or more purple? Bias starts in the very makeup of the organs that detect the world in front of us; our eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and definitely our brain. The way we are approaching this conversation is from a limited, eurocentric approach. There are more factors in science to be concerned with than the pure experiment on the far end of the information. Details of science are constantly in a state of flux, of argument, and science (like anything) cannot be "proven": by their very natures, hypotheses and theories are suggestions about the world's workings that can only be supported by evidence, not "proven". You should always question what is given to you as "fact", because your facts are always filtered through a myriad of biases, including your own biases to see them in a particular light.