Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Of course I dispute that. First of all, the key issue is if such an ordering of tastes makes sense. Secondly, aggregation of tastes (something you need to calculate an average) can only lead to popularity measurement, which is something you're denying.
You dispute that 50% of people are below the median?!? So t ...[text shortened]... ity, but on the criteria they, in their
expertise, evaluate as good or bad.
Nemesio[/b]
You dispute that 50% of people are below the median?!? So the playing field is totally level;
there is no good or bad, just opinion? I guess feces really is as good tasting as chocolate, then.
I repeat: My point is that there isn't an objective distribution for which you can calculate mean, median, variance, kurtosis, skewness or whatever else you want to calculate.
Your view doesn't entail having to see anything in order to judge it because there is no judgment, just opinion.
Semantics.
The judgement validity to others is conditional on the individual expressing it, but its still needs to have validity to the individual itself. This is a misunderstanding. Just because something is a matter of opinion, doesn't mean it is completely meaningless to others. It is simply non-separable from the source.
Take the people who are above the average you deny exists and have them explain (not proclaim)
why a piece of art is or is not good or bad, successful or unsuccessful or whatever.
Circular reasoning.
To calculate an average (so that you can pick the people above it) you need to already have evaluated what's good and what's bad.
You see, this model entails a certain humility, a virtue which is not a strong point of people: (...) Most importantly, it requires someone to admit that someone else other than themselves might know better what is and is not good.
Were you see humility, I see submission. Nevertheless, the virtues or vices embedded in a model are irrelevant to its truth or accuracy.
They are made by the group of experts based on, not popularity, but on the criteria they, in their expertise, evaluate as good or bad.
The whole point is that those criteria are an aggregation of the current 'experts' tastes.
This is why so many artists were unrecognized when they did something different, yet years after their deaths were hailed as great artists. Did their work change? No. Objectively, there was absolutely no change in anything produced by them. What did change then? Simply, as society changed, so did the tastes (or more accurately, the popularity of tastes and therefore of certain criteria) of the so called 'experts'.