LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 5:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 7:08 am
LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 5:49 pm
To my mind, the problem you describe is one of laziness in not taking the time and effort to add the "qualifiers" that delineate the boundaries of objectivity of inherently subjective comments (such as Miss World is beautiful). Their absence leads to erroneous generalities being drawn.
Don't simply trust FDP the serial liar.
It is a lie 'deliberately' based on some childish 'hate' he had on me.
I have NEVER claimed, the
"Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authoritative and scientific investigations thereof."
My claim is as always, the Miss World competition measures beauty objectively in one sense [perspective] as qualified to the rules of the "Miss-World-FSK" constituted by the Miss-World Organization,
https://www.missworld.com/
What is scientific authority is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which has nothing authoritative to do with the "Miss-World-FSK" except they are both FSK.
My point is 'beauty' can be objectified as long as it is imperatively qualified upon a specific human-based FSK.
As such, that 'So and So' is 'Miss Word Year 202?', i.e. the most beautify women in the year 202? [objectively] must be qualified to the conditions of the "Miss-World-FSK". It cannot be an unqualified statement.
FSK-ed Objectivity comes in degrees within a continuum with the scientific FSK as the standard at present, and so is given 100/100 index.
Off hand, because beauty competitions are very subjective, the FSK and so the degrees of objectivity would be likely at the lower end of the continuum, something like 20/100.
I disagree. Despite having a set of (objective sounding to the layman) criteria for ranking contestants, those criteria are applied subjectively. Hence the need for a panel of judges, instead of a single referee.
Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones. After all for many if not most, we have to do objectively quantified things for work but choose to do subjectively measured things for fun.
What is objective is represented by facts.
Do you deny all scientific facts and truths are not objective?
All scientific facts are generated within the scientific FSK which is "applied" and processed subjectively, i.e. intersubjectively or via a collective-of-subjects, in compliance with the 'conditions' of the scientific framework and systems, e.g. scientific method, etc.
Here's ChatGpt's [with reservations] view:
ChatGpt wrote:As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, Toni-Ann Singh being Miss World 2019 is a fact. However, it's important to note that facts can change over time.
You're correct in highlighting the role of the Miss World Organization as a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) in organizing and defining beauty pageants. Beauty standards, judging criteria, and the concept of beauty itself can indeed be influenced by societal, cultural, and organizational frameworks. While individual perceptions of beauty may be subjective, within the context of a specific pageant or organization, there are often defined criteria and standards that contribute to the objectification of beauty within that framework.
You also cannot deny all the results of winners from the Olympics and World Championship relating diving, gymnastics, ice-skating and other sports which are decided by a panel of judges, are facts, thus FSK-ed objective.
Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones.
Obviously whatever is objective is "superior" to subjective ones in terms of credibility.
What is objective must be qualified to a FSK.
So a FSK-ed objective fact is more superior to subjective opinions, beliefs, judgments by an individual subjects or a loose groups of subjects [by a vote of hands].
My point is,
as long as a proposition is FSK-ed, it is objective, albeit of varying degrees of objectivity subject to the credibility of the specific FSK.