ant wrote:But I disagree science is objective. it aims at objectivity, but as theories are in a constant state of flux, it's subject to revision and therefore does not offer objectivity.

Perfect objectivity isn't achievable, in any fashion. If the concept of objectivity is to be useful at all outside of being an ideal, then science is more objective than any other enterprise. It boils down to your definition of objectivity. However you parse it, science is far more objective than art.

ant wrote:As an evolutionary function to benefit the fitness of our species, wouldn't emotion be inextricably linked to reality?

If you reread my lengthy post above, you'll see that it's all inextricably linked. Intelligence and emotion and even reality, if you wish. The separations we create for discussion are arbitrary. A snowflake can be considered natural art, or rock formations, or the sunset.

You'll have to explain what your point is by asking those questions. I'm not sure if I even answered them.

geo wrote:How many geologists still argue that Earth is more than 6,000 years old? That the earth and planets revolve around the sun? That the diversity of life on Earth is explained by evolution? How many doctors at the National Institutes of Health are still trying to prove that there are tiny organisms we can’t see with the naked eye? How controversial is the evidence for Pangaea?

Science should have just stopped right there! D'Oh! We could'a been Objective!
Changing things in response to new informa.....dang it, it's up to everyone now, it is all subjective!
But Bach vs. Beethoven? Or Renoir vs. VanGogh? Whew! That IS timeless objectivity!

LanDroid wrote:

geo wrote:How many geologists still argue that Earth is more than 6,000 years old? That the earth and planets revolve around the sun? That the diversity of life on Earth is explained by evolution? How many doctors at the National Institutes of Health are still trying to prove that there are tiny organisms we can’t see with the naked eye? How controversial is the evidence for Pangaea?

Ohhh! We should have just stopped right there! D'Oh! We could'a been Objective!
Changing things in response to new informa.....dang it, it's up to everyone now, it is all subjective!
But a symphony? Or Renoir vs. VanGogh? Whew! That IS objective!

are you effin serious?
is that how you're interpreting this conversation I've started?

WTF is wrong with you?

ant wrote:
Wouldn't you say a Beethoven masterpiece is "timeless" whereas scientific laws are not because they are in a state of constant flux?

But I disagree science is objective. it aims at objectivity, but as theories are in a constant state of flux, it's subject to revision and therefore does not offer objectivity.

Etc...