About scores, reviews and criticism

First things first: criticism is not a science.

To some, the idea that criticism cannot be construed as an objective practice sounds horrible: they are under the impression that employing a set of criteria is enough to guarantee objectivity; however, that notion faces a certain problem right from the get go — and that is none other than how questionable a set of criteria can only inherently be... How do you assess the objectivity of the criteria that you mean to establish for the very same purpose: an objective assessment? To judge their objectivity, you have to have objective criteria in the first place.

In turn, there are those who mistakenly assume that the problem of objectivity must preclude all such notions of criticism under some particular standards; the idea goes that, since no criterion can truly be evaluated objectively in a way that we can certify, the notion of using any criteria to criticize is itself inherently wrong and must be abandoned. But, then, doesn't that idea stem from the fact that one is, ironically, making their own judgement under a set of criteria themselves? To judge that anything is wrong must necessarily fall on criticism.

So, we're left at a sort of impasse: we should acknowledge the value of critique, while also retaining the mindset that all criteria seem impossible to verify objectively and, thus, are apparently subjective. That entails that criticism must follow after a refinement of our standards — that, at least, even if we cannot objectively verify the truth value of our judgement, at least we must consider carefully where our assumptions and expectations need to be reevaluated.

With that in mind, there is ample hope for making progress; but one should always be wary to check on the assumptions they and others around them will make, so never, ever forget to keep that in mind.