I am trying to understand what do people mean when they say science is objective and things like music and morality are not objective but are subjective instead.
Is scientific and mathematical knowledge considered objective because science and mathematics doesn’t have anything to do with subjects? I think yes. This is one sense in which objective and subjective is used but this is not my main interest.
The main thing I am interested is this another sense in which people are using the word objective (maybe this use is related to the above use). When people say that science is objective they mean that scientific knowledge is more absolute and solid. By saying that beauty is subjective they mean that in music there isn’t that type of solidity and absoluteness. They mean
- That different people can have different preferences for which music is better and there is nothing one person can say to the other to show why one preference is better. For ex. in maths we can give proofs but in music there is nothing like proofs or experiments which is why music does not have that type of solidity.
- That saying Mozart is better than an average Joe makes no sense.
I don’t understand how preference and knowledge are related but I think they are related. “All Problems Are Soluble” article talks about how problems can be solved by changing preferences but I don’t get fully how knowledge and preferences are linked.
I have some other related confusions as well. Music lies in the field of aesthetics. In the field of science we try to discover scientific truth but what do we try to do in the field of aesthetics? Is a good song in the field of aesthetics analogous to a good scientific theory? Is a Mozart composition akin to for example Newton’s laws?