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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marlowe" data-source="post: 3126321" data-attributes="member: 41405">Wheee! This is fun, going around and around in circles!Okay, I'll try one more time. Merlion, I don't want to offend, but you seem insistent on not allowing any framework but your own. You will need to build some kind of basis for communication if you wish to discuss your theory. I will try to clear up misconceptions with what I stated. I think this will be my final post because I quite frankly only enjoying bashing my head against a wall for a short period of time.Actually, I would say that you have used an incorrect example Were we to map what I was saying to this subject directly, the water flowing downhill is the work of art/literature and gravity is the critical theory. The water flowing downhill is the product of gravity, just as good art or literature is the product of art/literary theory. Like science, that art/literary theory is a generally held, peer-evaluated opinion that, due to general acceptance, has become--for lack of a better term--objective fact. This is how we have come to accept the theory of gravity.Quantum physics can be proved and has been proved. Evolution has been studied directly and--for scientists--conclusively (ask Ross Geller). I would say literary/art theory fits this mold.Just like with an experiment, the conclusion of the level of characterization would need to be evaluated based on its data. For your side of the arguement, I would agree that one can say the book is "enjoyable," in that it can be enjoyed, and I would accept that is subjective. Just as I would prefer an engineer's "opinion" about the worthiness of a bridge design, I would prefer a literary critic's "opinon" about the worthiness of a piece of fiction. I'm sorry, but not all opinions are created equal, though many wish it could be so.Careful. All of those mentioned have been "empirically proven." While Quantum Physics continues to grow and change, so does our understanding of long held and accepting theories, such as Gravity. Evolution is also a scientifically accepted theory used in peer-reviewed work, as opposed to op-eds. Global Warming might be contentious, but so was Gravity and the Sun-centric Solar System when it was proposed.Really? Who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare? Do you mean the Rome that was founded by Aeneas, survivor of the Trojan War?  Those writing at the time of the Empire were those same historians who wrote about Hyboria as fact. Of course, there's archeaology . . . just like for Evolution.I'm sorry, but history doe not deal with empirical, physical objective reality, it deals with interpretation of the available evidence. Science is based on generally accepted theories that have been empirically proven. Just like art/literary theory.And that is really all I have to say, unless someone is willing to provide a framework for a viable discussion.</blockquote>

Verification