John VanSickle wrote:
> I wasn't referring to all opinions, merely subjective ones.  Clearly a 
> doctor's opinion on a medical issue is based on objective criteria (or 
> at least it is supposed to be).  But some of what Ebert might have to 
> say on a given work is reflective of tastes that we don't necessarily 
> share.  Why are his tastes superior to ours?

I'm not sure one can easily rule out objective criteria that one cannot 
enunciate. What makes you think Ebert's opinions aren't based on objective 
criteria he just can't explain?

Or, as another example, one could survey a large number of people and 
discover that 90% of them like peanut butter, but only 6% like broccoli. 
 From this, one could say "peanut butter tastes better than broccoli." Yet 
that's based entirely on subjective opinions.

Is Shakespeare a better writer than Ebert?  What objective criteria do you 
use to show that Beethoven's music is superior to Def Leopard?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message