Re: <xoi> and fuzzy roses (fwd)

[Bon Johnston <bljohnston@UCDAVIS.EDU>]

> here. I asked her how the American Rose Society rates roses, which they
> apparently do for breeding purposes, competitions, and the like. Her reply:
> >Rather interesting ... far ahead of anything I do, however.

You asked her how the American Rose Society rated roses -- NOT how they
rated the beauty of those roses.  The ARS rates the roses on their
openness (openness = how far the flower has opened -- openness does not =
beauty).  The ARS rates roses on intensity of color (intensity of color =
reflects a particular wavelength of light -- intensity of color does not
= beauty).  The ARS rates roses on the length and straightness of the
stem (length and straightness of the stem are physical measurements, but
I would opine that there are plenty of long straight objects which are
not beautiful -- so length and straightness does not = beauty).  The ARS
rates roses on the size of the blossom (size is another physical
measurement, but ensuring that an object is a certain size does not
guarantee that said object will be beautiful).

The ratings prove that these roses possess the aforementioned
characteristics, but say nothing about the beauty or lack of beauty of the
roses -- the rater makes a value judgment, based on criteria -- what these
ratings say are "this rose has a 20" stem, and a 3" diameter blossom,
etc."  It is up to the person doing the rating to make a value judgment
and say "I believe that roses with 20" stems and 3" blossoms are
beautiful" -- only after this judgment has been made can the speaker then
go on to say "therefore, these roses are beautiful."

To assume that this process is objective is logically fallacious -- the
writer reasons as follows:

1) I see an object and decide that it is beautiful.
2) I measure, quantitatively, certain characteristics of that object.
3) I decide that all other objects which possess the same
characteristics, in the same amounts, are also beautiful.
4) Therefore beauty is quantifiable in an objective way.

The flawed premise is #1 -- the writer's judgment that an object is
beautiful is completely subjective and arbitrary.  The roses which meet
his criteria are beautiful to him, but the decision that these
measurements are the consituents of beauty is also completely subjective
and arbitrary.  You can apply numbers to anything -- but if you apply
them in an arbitrary way, as was done here, then the conclusion you draw
from them will be just as arbitrary.

Bon
|)(|

> >In rosedom, we DO judge a rose against mutually agreed-upon
> >criteria.  Those of us who exhibit roses in shows almost
> >automatically "rate" a rose as we look at it and enjoy it just for it's
> >own sake.
> >
> >The standard for judging says that each rose is potentially
> >perfect, so it rates 100 points.
> >
> >The bloom - it's form, freshness, substance, degree of openess,
> >it's approximation of the perfect example of a bloom for that
> >particular cultivar - 30 points
> >
> >The color - its hue, intensity, chroma; is it fading, blurred, etc - 20
> >points
> >
> >The stem - is it long enough, not too long, straight, appropriate
> >girth for the size of the bloom - 20 points
> >
> >The foliage - is it well-placed on the stem, does it encircle the
> >stem, does it "set off" the bloom, is it clean, is it well-colored - 10
> >points
> >
> >The balance and proportion - overall, does the whole rose "look"
> >good; does the bloom sit well on the stem, are the leaves not
> >overly large or too small, do the petals achieve a balanced "look"
> >and are they open enough, etc. - 10 points
> >
> >Size - is the bloom too big, too small, just right - 10 points
> >
> >The rose judge begins with 100 points and deducts as defects
> >are found.  We don't necessarily look for defects, they are usually
> >pretty glaring.
> >
> >Anyway - I don't know how that would translate into lojban.
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Jolene K. Adams
> >Webmaster - ARS OnLine
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> So when Peter stops to subjectively smell the roses, I hope he will
> appreciate that several centuries of hard-working, dedicated rose fanciers
> are largely responsible for the beauty of the roses he is smelling, and
> that they apparently used an ordinal scale for purposes of grading the
> beauty of those roses. Of course, there's nothing wrong with simply
> appreciating beauty in a nominal or categorical fashion, but apparently the
> other Guttman scales have their uses, even for something as allegedly
> nominal as a rose.
>
> Gertrude Stein said, "A rose, is a rose, is a rose." To bad nobody was
> around to ask her what standard and scale she was using. :-)
>
> co'o mi'e la stivn
>
>
>
>
> Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
> Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
> University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria
>
> email: sbelknap@uic.edu
> Voice: 309/671-3403
> Fax:   309/671-8413
>
>
>
>
>

Bon                                             skeevers@netcom.com
|)(|

                Rain
                        Rain
                                Rain
                                        Rain
                Beautiful rain

                        --Ladysmith Black Mambazo