OT: Crazy Programming

[James J. Besemer]

Greg Ewing wrote:

> Laura Creighton wrote:
> >
> > The ability to rank something and whether it is objective or not are
> > independent concepts.
>
> But for the ranking to be objective, it has to be
> independent of the person doing the ranking.

I think the argument is that there EXISTS an objective interpretation
independently of whether we humans can perceive it.

Plato argued this, furthermore suggesting that humans perception in the
matter is rather inaccurate.  He used the analogy that reality was like
actors on a stage and we humans were chained in a position where we were
only able to observe the shadows these actors made on the wall.  The fact
that our perception may be faulty and may admit some degree of
subjectivity and other misperceptions does not contradict the notion that
an objective reality truly exists.  Even so-called objective scientific
experiments often yield results that include some percentage of error or
otherwise are ambiguous.

Perhaps a clearer illustration: physical objects can be measured by humans
to varying degrees of accuracy depending on what instruments we use.
Without the instruments we can still estimate physical dimensions and we
can make fairly objective decisions about relative size.  We can be misled
by optical illusions or other misdirection.  Nevertheless, the objects
themelves still possess those physical characteristics, whether we measure
them or not.

> Which says to me that the ranking process is *not*
> completely objective. Not because the process involves
> people using their senses, but because the result
> depends on who is doing it.

Laura's choice of a particularly subjective example actually underscores
the point.  Although there is a lot of inescapable subjectivity regarding
ranking wines, a general consensus nevertheless emerged regarding a great
number of "measurements".

Of course, there are some matters that are purely subjective.  I think the
difference is when humans begin to pass judgement on things, rather than
merely measure them.  E.g,, I can imagine two similar wines of equal
overall quality.  Some people will prefer one and others may prefer
another.  Make it easy and say the wines were a red and a white and some
people's preferences will be even more pronounced.  That's not to say one
wine is better than the other, it's mere subjective Judgement -- a matter
of taste.  But there are objective qualities that separate the wines
(e.g., acid, sugar and tannin levels) that form an objective basis for the
subjective judgement.  Measurement is (can be) objective but judgement by
it's nature is subjective.  Measurement implies an objective framework of
reference while judgement generally implies extrapolation beyond commonly
agreed upon criteria.

Of course, the debate of whether or not an objective reality actually
exists independently of human subjective perception and judgement has been
argued at length by smarter philosophers than me, long before I was born.
E.g., Physicsts get rather dogmatic about equating unmeasureable with
unknowable, leading to some curious paradoxes.

A lot of geeks tend to go overboard on the 'objective reality' side of
things.  They presume that everything is knowable if only we can gather
enough data.  Often they mistakenly include things that are purely
subjective, purely a matter of personal judgement rather than objective
reality.  Many flames and religious wars otherwise would be averted.

Regards

--jb

--
James J. Besemer  503-280-0838 voice
http://cascade-sys.com  503-280-0375 fax
mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com