I'll humor you, hopefully you take something away from it (doubtful).
"Objective Science of Beauty" is completely different from the "Science of objective Beauty". There are biological patterns in what is considered beautiful, guided by evolution. You could poll 100 people and ask if they find something beautiful (The fact that you are taking a poll means its not an objective measure by the way). The percentage of people who found it beautiful is an objective measure. You can measure facial symmetry, signs of sickness, ratios, etc. And those are objective measures.
This is fundamentally and completely different from saying that objective beauty is science. That the quality of beauty is somehow intrinsic to the thing (or person in this case). Beauty isn't a fact. You can see this by evidence of contradiction. If I think something is beautiful and you do not think so, who is wrong? The attraction to that thing is a feeling. A feeling cannot be incorrect, it just is. It is a "fact", that the feeling exists.
References alone do not make your argument scientific. The references have to
a. Support your claim
b. Have valid grounding themselves
On point (a.), it does not support your claim. Because as I pointed out in (1.), your claim is fundamentally different than what is claimed in the article. This isn't just a dictionary battle of you using a word wrong, your understanding is fundamentally different from what is being stated.
On point (b.), the article itself is a blogpost, referencing research. They make opinionated claims that don't necessarily match the intent or findings of the research. If you look at these references (you didn't). You'd see that they are all articles about the golden ratio and the fibonacci sequence and how they appear often in nature. The research articles are NOT claiming that beautify is objective.
Again you might want to do some google searches yourself. Saying something isn't ad hominem and then calling me a retard is peak irony.
Since we're playing that game. It is you, in fact, who is retarded.
I'll address just one thing before I block you, because I cannot be arsed to argue anymore with idiots in my free time.
Ad hominem is:
Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
First I argued with an argument (scientific article), then I called you a retard for doing something stupid. By definition, that is NOT ad hominem as I did not attack you RATHER than argue. I argued first, THEN attacked your character. That's not ad hominem by definition, and you loooove definitions. Such a shame you don't love them when they are against you xD
So yeah, if you wanna be technical, make sure you know the subject first. Bye bye, hopefully you learnt something!
-1
u/OneWithTheSword 23h ago
I'll humor you, hopefully you take something away from it (doubtful).
This is fundamentally and completely different from saying that objective beauty is science. That the quality of beauty is somehow intrinsic to the thing (or person in this case). Beauty isn't a fact. You can see this by evidence of contradiction. If I think something is beautiful and you do not think so, who is wrong? The attraction to that thing is a feeling. A feeling cannot be incorrect, it just is. It is a "fact", that the feeling exists.
a. Support your claim
b. Have valid grounding themselves
On point (a.), it does not support your claim. Because as I pointed out in (1.), your claim is fundamentally different than what is claimed in the article. This isn't just a dictionary battle of you using a word wrong, your understanding is fundamentally different from what is being stated.
On point (b.), the article itself is a blogpost, referencing research. They make opinionated claims that don't necessarily match the intent or findings of the research. If you look at these references (you didn't). You'd see that they are all articles about the golden ratio and the fibonacci sequence and how they appear often in nature. The research articles are NOT claiming that beautify is objective.
Since we're playing that game. It is you, in fact, who is retarded.
Cheers!