Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3126254" data-attributes="member: 10397">Or because they can be objectively, empirically proven, such as the water doesnt flow uphill example. What you describe is only the case in the situation of phenomena that are impossible to study directly or conclusively, like quantum physics and the like. But thats why those areas of science are not factual, or the facts of them are not known, because they have no yet been proven or disproven.But you cannot empirically prove or disprove the quality of a work of art. If someone says I think this book is good, you can't factually disprove it, because all you can offer to counter it is your own opinion. You can say "its bad because there isnt enough characterization" but then the person can say that they think there is plenty. Who is right? As I discussed with Umbran, the "objective" criteria you speak of are actually pseudo-objective. Just because a lot of people hold an opinion, doesnt make it an objective fact, just a commonly held (and often useful) opinion. Those are all scientific theories, because their reality, nature and veracity have yet to be empirically proven. Again, these things are known to be facts because there is empirical evidence, not because of anyones opinion.  its apples and oranges. One deals entirely with empirical, physical objective reality. the other deals with thoughts, ideas and emotions that cannot really be put up to empirical analysis.</blockquote>

Verification