A saying goes: "you can't argue with taste". This is neither true nor false: the saying is too ambiguous to warrant such classification.
This is a classical case of equivocation—the confusion of homonyms with synonyms. The problem is that the word "taste" has two distinct meanings:
1) The subjective response to a stimuli. These cannot be argued.
2) The ability to discern the objective merits (artistic, aesthetic, culinary, etc.) of a work. These can be argued.
Lest this sounds too cold-hearted and ridding of emotions, it should be stressed that "having good taste" (of the second kind) may also suggest a positive correlation between one's subjective response and objective merits.
This is a classical case of equivocation—the confusion of homonyms with synonyms. The problem is that the word "taste" has two distinct meanings:
1) The subjective response to a stimuli. These cannot be argued.
2) The ability to discern the objective merits (artistic, aesthetic, culinary, etc.) of a work. These can be argued.
Lest this sounds too cold-hearted and ridding of emotions, it should be stressed that "having good taste" (of the second kind) may also suggest a positive correlation between one's subjective response and objective merits.
