On 2008-01-27 23:35:28 -0500, Stephen Trapani said:

"Best" is not objective. It's subjective. The choice of statistics to
include or exclude is based upon the measurer's biases, so the results
will be as well.

I disagree. For example, there is a sailboat that handles blue water
best, objectively, all other things being equal.

Despite that I was commenting on "best country", there isn't even a
truly objective measure of the best blue water boat ;-)

Some say crab crusher, some say cat; both may be right -- for themselves.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-01-27 23:35:28 -0500, Stephen Trapani
said:

"Best" is not objective. It's subjective. The choice of statistics to
include or exclude is based upon the measurer's biases, so the
results will be as well.

I disagree. For example, there is a sailboat that handles blue water
best, objectively, all other things being equal.

Despite that I was commenting on "best country", there isn't even a
truly objective measure of the best blue water boat ;-)

Some say crab crusher, some say cat; both may be right -- for themselves.

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.

Stephen

On 2008-01-28 22:07:46 -0500, Stephen Trapani said:

Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-01-27 23:35:28 -0500, Stephen Trapani said:

"Best" is not objective. It's subjective. The choice of statistics to
include or exclude is based upon the measurer's biases, so the results
will be as well.

I disagree. For example, there is a sailboat that handles blue water
best, objectively, all other things being equal.

Despite that I was commenting on "best country", there isn't even a
truly objective measure of the best blue water boat ;-)

Some say crab crusher, some say cat; both may be right -- for themselves.

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.

And, depending on which the "measurer" deems most important, quite
different boats become "best".

I'm not intending to beat on you, just using your posts to demonstrate
my point.

Truth be told, our beloved Xan was NOT what we envisioned when we
considered our perfect boat requirements. But she has grown on us as
she delivers all that and more.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-01-28 22:07:46 -0500, Stephen Trapani
said:

Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-01-27 23:35:28 -0500, Stephen Trapani
said:

"Best" is not objective. It's subjective. The choice of statistics
to include or exclude is based upon the measurer's biases, so the
results will be as well.

I disagree. For example, there is a sailboat that handles blue water
best, objectively, all other things being equal.

Despite that I was commenting on "best country", there isn't even a
truly objective measure of the best blue water boat ;-)

Some say crab crusher, some say cat; both may be right -- for
themselves.

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.

And, depending on which the "measurer" deems most important, quite
different boats become "best".

Depending upon which the measurer deems most important, different boats
become the best to them, right, but that doesn't change which boat is
objectively best.

If you measure all the factors objectively there will be one that ranks
best over them all, even combining all the factors, but some may not
want the overall best, maybe one doesn't care about the interior
accommodations, say, but wants the strongest boat. But this doesn't
change that there is an objectively best boat, just like it doesn't
change that there is an objectively best country, no matter how many
morons there are in it that can't appreciate it.

I'm not intending to beat on you, just using your posts to demonstrate
my point.

Good discussion, but it demonstrates my point. The subjective tastes of
measurers or observers can not change the objective quality of anything
one iota.

Stephen

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.

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? 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.

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

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

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

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:28:32 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

the strongest boat.

If it ever matters, nothing else does. Lots of fishing boats carry
plywood covers for the windows. Generally you try not to go overboard
while you put it up from the outside. Any fisherman will tell you that
is sucks to be there, when the waves are taking the windows out.
When the Queen Mary had the pilot house, 93 feet above sea level
flooded, and nearly capsized, the thirty footers she was running in
were no big deal to something that big. Couple of hundred ships
disappear without a trace every year.

Casady.

In article , Stephen Trapani wrote:

[snip]

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: --

Some would ask whose signature is under the arrow

Personally, from a minimalist standpoint, I think that arrow has some
credibility as art... wanna buy a Banksy?

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.