Joined: Mar. 2008
I really don't want to post there yet, but how can someone write this with a straight face?
|Nick Matzke: responding to: So your barometer for truth is how many people share your opinion? That kind of thing is really dangerous.|
Nope. The point is that saying that Handel’s music is a great work of art isn’t just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you’d be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here. Handel was a musical genius and found a way to stir the deepest emotions of people with music. But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel’s Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.
Saying that Handel's music is great isn't just subjective opinion? It may be an objective truth that some (or many) believe his music to be great, but that's a whole different ball of wax than saying that it is objectively true that it is great. What are the objective criteria for "greatness"? How can we test this, and how can people all around the world agree and come to the same conclusion? Isn't that kinda what an objective fact would have to be?
Is this just too subtle a point, since it contradicts the point he needs to make? Am I the one who misunderstands here? I just don't see subjective opinions becoming objective facts when all you have is a number of people agreeing with you. Am I wrong to say that is really jumping the shark in pursuit of a particular dogmatic assertion?
ETA: sorry, I forgot the direct link
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G