If you had to make an assumption without evidence, would you assume he is definitely guilty, definitely innocent, or somewhere in-between? — Devans99

Crimes are a bad example of that re what I'm going to assume, because I agree that it's a good principle to assume that someone is innocent until we demonstrate, at least partially via "physical" evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty of the crime they've been accused of. That's a special case just because of the social upshots of assuming that anyone is guilty in lieu of that.

For other questions like this, though, I'd simply make no assumption whatsoever, because there's insufficient information. There's certainly no way to assign probabilities to something for which we have no information, no frequency data.

'Did the murderer do it?' is a good example. In absence of statistics for how many people in court actually come out guilty, we'd start by assuming it is 50% likely that the accused is guilty and then modify that estimate as we hear the evidence for/against. — Devans99

But there's no epistemic justification for assuming a 50/50 split on the question of whether someone committed a murder in that case. There would be no justification for assigning any probability to it whatsoever. Saying that there's a 50/50 probability for something is not the same thing as saying you have no idea what's more likely.--Especially if we use the 50/50 as a base for further calculations.

Questions that are boolean and that have an underlying boolean sample space — Devans99

What are a couple examples of this?

It's like claiming that no one is a hipster, no one is an SJW, etc.

.is the fact that we know the distribution of answers to unknown boolean questions is definitely not 100/0 or 0/100 — Devans99

I'm asking for the justification of that claim that I'm quoting, as well as the justification for the claim that if that's known for x, y and z, then it's reasonable to assume for this particular question, too.

So the epistemic justification is?

I thought the justification given here was adequate: — Devans99

There's no more reason to choose 50/50 than 100/0. Both are just as arbitrary in lieu of any information.

Yes, you have to. It's part of the process of being able to say anything about an artwork or art is to interpret it. You literally can't say anything about art without interpreting it. — NKBJ

It's not saying something about art per se. It's saying something about interpretations, what they are ontologically. I already explained this. It's in no way itself an interpretation of any art.

If there is nothing objective about interpretation of art, then how could you possibly make any claims about the objective limits of subjective interpretations? — NKBJ

First, "You can't subjectively make a claim about an objective state of affairs" is false.

Secondly, you're just repeating the same idea here. It has the same problem. A claim about the ontological nature of semantic interpretations is not itself a semantic interpretation. It's not a semantic claim at all.

. If you tell me I can't realistically have that interpretation, — NKBJ

??? Why would you think I'm saying anything like "You can't ('realistically') have that interpretation"? (And what the heck would it be to realistically versus non-realistically have an interpretation?)

then you're saying that there ARE objective parameters to how any artwork can be interpreted. I — NKBJ

What's an objective fact is that interpretations, not just re art, are subjective. All that's saying is that it's an objective fact that interpretations occur mentally, that they're mental phenomena, and they don't occur in the world outside of mental phenomena. (And all that's saying is that it's not only mental phenomena that interpretations only occur as mental phenomena. It's a way the world is extramentally, too.)

relative depth of possible interpretation — NKBJ

I'm not saying anything at all like this . . . whatever "relative depth" of "possible interpretation" would be, by the way.

They are recorded wherever paper meets pen during the recording... — creativesoul

Sure. Such as?

Because it cause some of those who engage in it to have serious health problems? — Txastopher

Examples?

Starting any any value other than 50%/50% would be arbitrary. Its optimal to assign 50%/50% - no bias at all for/against the proposition. — Devans99

Which is completely arbitrary with respect to what's the case without their being any epistemological justification for two options being equally likely.

you mean like being able to choose medical care when they need it? Can't have that. Medicine is for people with money. — Banno

Not sure what you're referring to re "you mean," but in any event, I agree with your criticism here.

Re rigid designators, by the way, this is a good thread to introduce some of the problems I have with the idea:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/814/a-challenge-and-query-re-rigid-designators/p1

The standard objectification shtick is nonsense anyway.

"All art by all artists" isn't an artwork, though. And we're not interpreting anything by noting an ontological property of interpretations. Noting an ontological property of interpretations isn't something limited to artworks, either.

In any event, saying that interpretations are subjective doesn't denote that interpretations are "endless" at all.

Say that we have a world where there's one artwork, and one person who views it on occasion O. The person offers an interpretation, I, and then they're promptly killed, with no one else who ever views the one artwork. So there was only one interpretation, and there can never be another interpretation in that world. The interpretation was still subjective. "Subjective" doesn't at all imply "endless."

As I understand it, competitive bodybuilding is massively unhealthy. — Txastopher

Because of?

I guess (Just an educated guess, I could be entirely wrong) what he is saying is the confusion of potentials and the philosophy of Mathematics. You're not picking two stones from a bag, it is two sides that are completely different, principals and beliefs. I mean if that 50/50 analogy to if not a god exists, then I also have 50/50 chance of walking down the street encountering a box of gold, or not at all.

The capacity of the philosophy of Mathematics to calculate possibility is logically capable, but by the rudimentary laws of: Metaphysics, Theology, and Epistemology, it just cant. — SethRy

Right. I'm just trying to get him to realize that there would need to be some epistemic justification for assigning a probability to it, otherwise it's just arbitrary.

Values are a product of social, cultural, — T Clark

How exactly would social or cultural values obtain?

As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. — T Clark

Consensus is simply a fact that a lot of people feel the same way about something, that they have the same preferences. It's nothing more than that.

It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art. — NKBJ

No, it isn't. "All interpretation of art is subjective" is not an interpretation of art. What artwork is that supposed to be if it's an interpretation of art? Who is the artist?

I'm not sure where else you can start except 50%/50%: — Devans99

Starting at any value would be completely arbitrary, wouldn't it?

That’s fine. I think it worth bearing in mind, nevertheless, that any discipline predicated on non-contradiction demands something like it. — Mww

You're not going to have contradictions across possible worlds, because then we're not saying the same thing, in the same respect, etc.

To make it more generalized, the idea is just that someone has a preference of x that's not based on something else, but to make x obtain, some (other) moral stance is required, otherwise x won't come to be.

Re "rigid designation," the whole idea of that isn't really worth bothering with in my opinion.

The problem is that there's no way to know for sure which third person-observable data goes with which first person experienceable phenomena. This is because (a) we can't independently, repeatably check the correlations, and (b) the first person experienceable phenomena can't be displayed as such--it has to be turned into a third person observable form for others to know about it.

If we have enough data, we could possibly narrow down our guesses a fair amount--because maybe it will turn out that we have x number of cases where we third person-observed K, we have enough (third person reports) or first person J, and K and J turn out to not occur without each other very often, but it's doubtful that we'll ever progress beyond having to make guesses about the correlations.

This in no way implies that anything about mind isn't physical. It's simply a matter of the fact that mind is what it's like to be identical with a particular brain from the perspective of being that brain combined with the fact that nothing other than that brain itself can experience that first-person perspective.

If we follow current convention, it cannot, unless the written rules for acceptable/unacceptable thought, — creativesoul

Since you keep mentioning rules/codes, and especially since you're mentioning written rules here, can I ask just where these rules/codes are recorded?

Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition — Devans99

So the problems begin there. What would be the epistemological basis for saying it's 50/50 at any point?

It masquerades as pursuit for health — gumi

Even if health concerns aren't primary, you can't get to the destination --a bodybuilder's physique --without being intentionally healthy.

I don't buy the notion of subconscious mental content, but even if I did, that would have to be actual subconscious mental content of particular individuals.

That would just be saying that others might have ridiculous beliefs about the person, but why would bodybuilding be a special case for that?

lol

But the whole point is that the work it requires to get a bodybuilding physique can't be faked, and it does really have all of those benefits. You can't get to that point and not be healthy, for example.

Re your B, you're leaving out the health aspects. That's also part of the instinctive attraction, because it's part of "security," part of having a stable, non-risky mate to help raise offspring.

Re your C, I don't understand "creating the external appearance without basis in real-life scenarios." There's no real way to cheat to a bodybuilding physique aside from something like synthol, but that doesn't really work--it only produces a grotesque caricature of a bodybuilding physique. Even with steroids, getting a bodybuilding physique is very hard work that takes a total lifestyle commitment and a lot of time. There's always a misconception about steroids and PEDs in general that you can just take them and be Barry Bonds or Arnold Schwarzenegger. You can't. It still takes natural talent/natural gifts, years of hard work, and a pretty total lifestyle commitment.

If you want to follow others for some reason, and you prefer following the consensus, that's fine. The point is to simply call it for what it is. It would be your preference to follow the consensus merely because it's the consensus. There's nothing objective(ly correct) about it.

Yeah, writers will often try to imply camera directions, but you have to be really careful about that. It's considered amateurish or unprofessional to do that too blatantly, because directors and cinematographers see it as you trying to do their jobs for them, trying to take over jobs and make decisions that aren't yours to make as a scriptwriter, not to mention that it can make it harder to sell a spec script in that case, because you're painting a much more restrictive picture that might not be feasible --camera decisions often have a pragmatic element to them, depending on equipment available, the film's budget, the shooting window (the time available), etc. You can't know any of that stuff especially on a spec script. For example, if you make something like a really elaborate, extended tracking shot an integral part of a script, you're decreasing the chances that you'll sell the script.

Though the script for a movie is made for the camera and edits. — Brett

Scripts standardly have no camera notations at all. Only shooting scripts have any camera directions, but those are harder to acquire. Scripts you can easily acquire are written very similarly to plays.

I wouldn't argue that all dialogue is poetic in the same way that Shakespeare is--it's obviously not all in strict meter, for example. But it's wrong to say that dialogue doesn't typically focus on rhythm, careful word choice, voices as instruments, etc.

Sure, there are enough bad apples, though.

Just in the news yesterday, by the way--a high school that did their own production of the film, Alien:

https://deadline.com/2019/03/ridley-scott-alien-the-play-reaction-new-jersey-high-school-gladiator-1202584389/

I would argue that on most objective measures some works of art are better than others. For example, some works of music are more complex if you want to define complex as meaning a piece has rhythm, beat, melody etc. You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure . — curiousnewbie

"Objective" isn't the same thing as a consensus, and proposing that it is is just an argumentum ad populum.

They can’t do this with a film. There’s no room for interpretation in ‘The Transformers’, all they can do is watch it passively and then write an analysis of it. — Brett

It's actually really easy to get film scripts. If you want the students to be able to create something they can do that with a script just as they'd do it with a Shakespeare play.

When I was in elementary school, our music teacher had us put on Broadway shows a couple times per year. I was always involved with the music side of that. So that's another option.

I didn't say "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it." or anything like it. — T Clark

Sure, so as I said, "The only way that something like that can make sense is that you're making a distinction between what you like and what other people like."

with the caramel example, there must be something you like about them (obviously, since you say you like them), and either you weight that aspect more heavily than the aspects you don't like, or the aspects you're presenting as undesirable are really more of a report of other persons' preferences.

If that is the case, then n as a prerequisite for m contradicts m being an effectively foundational stance. N can’t be both before and after m if m is the foundation. — Mww

For example, let's say that Joe has a love of a particular part of the Amazon and really wants to live there, so he wants to build a house there. It turns out that he won't be able to do that without the approval and assistance of a nearby tribe. But the nearby tribe won't cooperate unless Joe, who is a doctor, agrees to provide free medical care for the tribe in emergencies, and free checkups every year. So it's a prerequisite for meeting Joe's desire to build his house that he agrees with the moral stance that he should provide free medical care to the tribe in exchange for their cooperation. So a moral stance that's a prerequisite to a foundational desire for Joe is rational to adopt.

It's easy to set up a foundational moral stance example in a similar vein.