- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
So it comes down to this: skill can be (and is) measured (and measurable). You choose not to acknowledge this because you're not in the land of reality and convention and practicality but of airy-fairy philisophical nothingness where there's no such thing as a skilled guitarist or carpenter or farmer or house builder. You're eschewing commonly used and useful definitions in favour of "no one's better at anything than anyone else" bullshit.
Skill, for all intents and purposes, can be measured objectively.
On the "pure conjecture / perhaps he is, perhaps he is not" garbage, if we can not come to a conclusion based on analysis of the entirety of the vast quantities of recorded evidence available then how can anyone ever know anything about anything?
You are hilarious.
How do you account for the fact that one person will say guitarist 1 is more skilled than guitarist 2, and another will say the opposite? I'm getting rid of nothing, you are just solidfying your own perspective on it, putting it above that of other people.
Recorded evidence? Go back to my previous points that you never refuted. There's an abundance of logical reasoning for why our opinions of who is skilled are shaky at best.