Justin C wrote:
In article , Stephen Trapani wrote:
I may have been too general. There is one model that is best at handling
pounding forces without breaking up. There is one model that is best at
being steady in rough water. There is one model that uses the wind best.
There is one model that has the best living accomodations, etc.

How do you measure "best living accomodations"? For two? Two plus two
children? Two plus two teens? Six? Six plus one dog? There cannot be a
"best" because what is "best" for one person is not for another, there
is no ruler or scale against which you can measure this.

Well, objective truth is not necessarily measurable on a scale. For
example, in a test, if a mattress causes the least amount of people to
say their back hurts after sleeping on it, that would be the best
mattress. But most of the living accomodations factors should be
measurable. For example, most room, best functioning head, best
functioning galley, etc. While some objective features will be better
for one person than another, this doesn't mean that they don't have
objective features.

Which is best, the Mona Lisa, or the Night Watch? One is bigger, the
other is worth more, whose yardstick are you going to use? Why is one
yardstick more valid than the other?

Some things may not be amenable to objective analysis, you're right. But
many things people think aren't, are. For example, which is artistically
better, the Mona Lisa or this arrow: --

It is not possible to be objective
over some things. As Jere says, the measurer will have some bias, and
this will affect their ability to measure.

Mistaken measurement may render the wrong conclusion about something's
objective properties, but that doesn't mean the objective property
doesn't exist. A ten inch high faucet is objectively ten inches high,
even if you measure it at ten and a half.

For further discussion on this topic perhaps you might like to sign up
for a philosophy course at your local college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

Stephen