What makes good art a subjective quality is that its acceptance criterion is one that refers to the viewer as one of its terms. The is-good-art() predicate, or the art-quality() real-valued function, has a viewer parameter in it. What makes good physics-theory an objective quality is that its acceptance criterion doesn’t refer to the viewer; the is-good-physics-theory() predicate, or the physics-theory-accuracy() real-valued function, is one that compares the theory to reality, without the viewer playing a role as a term inside the function.
Sure, both of these functions are in the end computed by human brains, which adds a level of subjectivity to the imperfect physical act of actually evaluating these functions. But that doesn’t mean that the ideal things-that-these-brains-are-supposedly-evaluating are themselves subjective. A human brain evaluating how accurate a certain physics theory is results in a subjective assessment of an objective truth; a human brain evaluating whether a certain painting is art results in a subjective assessment of a subjective property. The act of assessment by an imperfect brain adds a layer of subjectivity over something that may or may not be objective in the abstract; but that abstract ideal of that which these brains are supposedly evaluating has a real difference in kind that is well beyond mere consensus.
Modifiers and subjectivity-affecting operations can be applied to both objective and subjective criteria, of course. The degree to which a theory of physics reflects reality is an objective measure; the degree to which a reader likes a theory is a subjective measure. The degree to which a viewer considers a painting to be art is a subjective measure; the degree to which the average human viewer considers a painting to be art is an objective measure, because the viewer parameter has been aggregated out. But these complications only obscure the basic distinction, they do not fundamentally challenge it.
But that doesn’t mean that the ideal things-that-these-brains-are-supposedly-evaluating are themselves subjective. A human brain evaluating how accurate a certain physics theory is results in a subjective assessment of an objective truth; a human brain evaluating whether a certain painting is art results in a subjective assessment of a subjective property. The act of assessment by an imperfect brain adds a layer of subjectivity over something that may or may not be objective in the abstract; but that abstract ideal of that which these brains are supposedly evaluating has a real difference in kind that is well beyond mere consensus.
But how would you know if anything is actually objective? Have you experienced objectivity not through a subjective lens?
This is my point: however strongly we might believe something to be a particular way, it is still something we believe. That doesn’t diminish the quality of the belief or its potential truthfulness, but it is important not to miss this.
But these complications only obscure the basic distinction, they do not fundamentally challenge it.
Again, how do you know that this basic distinction exists? Can you point to it without relying on subjective evidence (evidence that passed through some observer)? If you cannot, then anything we might claim to be “objective” still rests upon subjective assessment of evidence. Objectivity is a constructed idea created by subjective agents.
This seems very confused.
What makes good art a subjective quality is that its acceptance criterion is one that refers to the viewer as one of its terms. The
is-good-art()predicate, or theart-quality()real-valued function, has aviewerparameter in it. What makes good physics-theory an objective quality is that its acceptance criterion doesn’t refer to the viewer; theis-good-physics-theory()predicate, or thephysics-theory-accuracy()real-valued function, is one that compares the theory to reality, without the viewer playing a role as a term inside the function.Sure, both of these functions are in the end computed by human brains, which adds a level of subjectivity to the imperfect physical act of actually evaluating these functions. But that doesn’t mean that the ideal things-that-these-brains-are-supposedly-evaluating are themselves subjective. A human brain evaluating how accurate a certain physics theory is results in a subjective assessment of an objective truth; a human brain evaluating whether a certain painting is art results in a subjective assessment of a subjective property. The act of assessment by an imperfect brain adds a layer of subjectivity over something that may or may not be objective in the abstract; but that abstract ideal of that which these brains are supposedly evaluating has a real difference in kind that is well beyond mere consensus.
Modifiers and subjectivity-affecting operations can be applied to both objective and subjective criteria, of course. The degree to which a theory of physics reflects reality is an objective measure; the degree to which a reader likes a theory is a subjective measure. The degree to which a viewer considers a painting to be art is a subjective measure; the degree to which the average human viewer considers a painting to be art is an objective measure, because the
viewerparameter has been aggregated out. But these complications only obscure the basic distinction, they do not fundamentally challenge it.But how would you know if anything is actually objective? Have you experienced objectivity not through a subjective lens?
This is my point: however strongly we might believe something to be a particular way, it is still something we believe. That doesn’t diminish the quality of the belief or its potential truthfulness, but it is important not to miss this.
Again, how do you know that this basic distinction exists? Can you point to it without relying on subjective evidence (evidence that passed through some observer)? If you cannot, then anything we might claim to be “objective” still rests upon subjective assessment of evidence. Objectivity is a constructed idea created by subjective agents.