LogFAQs > #973807240

bfslick50 posted...

In Statistics, the decision to reject the null or fail to reject the null hypothesis is 100% subjective, and as you laid here and in the rest of your post, the moral decisions we make is 100% subjective. However in Statistics there is also an objectively correct answer. The null hypothesis is either correct or wrong. In A LOT of scenarios it is physically impossible for you to know the correct value of the parameter. The error in the data, the random affect of probability, the arbitrary significance value cutoff (typically 5%) all make the reject the null hypothesis or not a subjective decision. However none of that subjectivity erases the objectivity of the parameter's value. The parameter has an objectively true value but because of error and uncertainty we are making subjective guesses at its value. Same with morality, if there is a correct answer on if we should kill Putin or not, then there's objectivity, and our failure to adequately define it and our failure to know the correct answer does not change that objectivity just as our failure to adequately measure the parameter does not change its objectively true yet unknowable value.

That's the whole point, there is no value you can use at all.

The Putin example should already make that clear.

If you follow one ethical philosophy it's 100% bad, if you follow the other it's 100% good. There is no room of discussion within the mindsets, and that's already ignoring any other variable in such a situation.

Since we are on a gaming board, another example:
It's like saying Zelda- Tears of the Kingdom is objectivly a better game than Zelda - A Link to the past. Why? Because games with good graphics are better than games with bad graphics, and games with a lot of content are better than games with less content.

If you only look at this it's easy and objectivly measurable, but this is only a fraction of what makes a game good.