Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
PianoSupplies.com (150)
Piano Accessories Music Related Gifts Piano Tuning Equipment Piano Moving Equipment
We now offer Gift Certificates in our online store!
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Piano
Quick Links to Useful Stuff
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano Accessories
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#2262277 - 04/15/14 05:39 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: prout]
Old Man Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/04/12
Posts: 777
Loc: Michigan, USA
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: Old Man
Originally Posted By: prout
It is fine to talk about science if the concept of a theory is understood. There are no facts in science - and that is a fact! There are only observed realities. A good theory is falsifiable. Ptolemy produced a geocentric astronomical theory that worked well for re-establishing the field boundaries along the Nile after each year's flooding. The theory worked, and it was good, because it was falsifiable. The most recent theories are also falsifiable.

Evolution is a good theory. It is not fact.

I'm no scientist, but it's my understanding that the word "theory" has an entirely different meaning in scientific parlance. Colloquially we use the word "theory" to describe an educated guess (e.g. "I believe Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the US.") But in science, a theory is not merely a guess, but a structure, a framework, a foundation upon which all cumulative related knowledge rests.

Yes, falsifiability is a part of it, but that's a characteristic of all scientific discovery. This edifice that we call a "theory" can indeed be wiped out in a flash if one of its key tenets can be disproved. Which is the beauty of a scientific theory: It makes no assumptions, it has no bias, and it can and will be dismantled if peer review can discover and verify a flaw in the foundation.

But to say that there are "no facts in science", or that evolution is simply a theory (in the colloquial sense), is incorrect. Evolution has stood the test of time. And while theories may get tweaked and refined from time to time, the basic structure remains intact. Would you say that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is merely a "theory", but not fact? How about Newton's Theory of Gravitation? Care to jump out of a plane without a parachute and see how good Sir Isaac's "guess" was? laugh


Actually, having flown aircraft as a commercial pilot for close to 40 years, and having taken recurrent training courses every six months, I can assert that no one actually knows how an airplane flies. They will, however, tell you all the 'facts'. We have a number of competing theories, each of which adequately predicts some aspect of lift vs. drag vs. velocity vs. who knows what. I trust that the aircraft will not fall out of the air each time I ascend, but I am not sure, though I am willing to bet my life on it.

Newton's theory is not fact. It does not adequately predict the orbits of the GPS satellites that I use to navigate. In fact the table of ephemerides (predictions of where the satellites will be at a certain time), are so inaccurate that they must be updated every few weeks.

Einstein's theory regarding gravity better predicts the influence of gravity and has yet to be falsified as has Newton. But it will likely fail at some level not yet within our sensory capability.

ha Boy, leave it to me to pick a commercial pilot to try out my jumping-from-plane analogy! laugh

You're obviously much closer to the realm of science than I am, so I defer to your expertise. I resign. You and Atrys may carry on.

(And FSO, if you're still around, you may wish to herd these cats yourself, and reclaim your thread! grin)

Top
(ad) Piano & Music Accessories
piano accessories music gifts tuning and moving equipment
#2262279 - 04/15/14 05:42 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Ugh. People always have to complain when civil discourse happens. There is no name-calling here and it's quite civil. Discourse like this is healthy, as people like @prout need to know that their understanding is severely incorrect. It also gets the readers thinking about these issues and reflecting on where they stand.


Edited by Atrys (04/15/14 05:43 PM)
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262281 - 04/15/14 05:46 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Old Man]
Damon Online   happy
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 09/22/06
Posts: 6075
Loc: St. Louis area
Originally Posted By: Old Man
"I believe Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the US."


If she is, I will consider it definitive proof that there is no God. smile
_________________________
It's been scientifically proven that Horowitz sucks.

Top
#2262284 - 04/15/14 05:53 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
JoelW Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/12
Posts: 4762
Loc: USA
Newton said that the planets were attracted to the sun by an inverse square force. He proved that if you make this assumption, the planets will orbit the sun in conic sections. Then he proved the converse, that if planets orbit in conic sections, they must be attracted to a central source by an inverse square force. There is nothing like this in Darwinian theory. Nothing that shows that the mechanism of random variation and natural selection is solely responsible for the entirety of the complexity of life. From the point of view of the serious sciences, without this kind of a demonstration, you have no idea whether or not the mechanism is adequate for its intended purposes.

Top
#2262287 - 04/15/14 05:55 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Damon]
Old Man Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/04/12
Posts: 777
Loc: Michigan, USA
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Old Man
"I believe Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the US."


If she is, I will consider it definitive proof that there is no God. smile

ha Sorry, Damon. Just one of those "educated guesses". No certainty. But she has little competition now that CC has burned his bridge, so to speak.

Also, the existence of god is unfalsifiable, so no proof is possible, either "for" or "against". smile

Top
#2262289 - 04/15/14 05:56 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
@JoelW
That's just not how science works...not even close.

Since you think you've figured it all out, go ahead and approach the university nearest to you. You will not be taken seriously as a person who has a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method.

Here is another start for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262290 - 04/15/14 05:59 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Old Man]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Originally Posted By: Old Man

Also, the existence of god is unfalsifiable, so no proof is possible, either "for" or "against". smile

This is incorrect. Victor Stenger has a book entitled "God: The Failed Hypothesis" in which he disproves our imaginary sky-friend. We can, actually, falsify the hypothesis of a God.

Now we're getting off-topic wink
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262292 - 04/15/14 06:02 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Atrys]
wr Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/23/07
Posts: 7767
Originally Posted By: Atrys
Originally Posted By: wr
It seems to me that a static and universal musical truth is that humans across time and culture seem to have this idea that something we call "music" can occur. That strongly suggests to me that we are hard-wired for music, but exactly how that works is mysterious.

We are definitely "hard-wired" for music. Luckily, it's not so mysterious.

Our attraction to music is certainly a product (or byproduct) of our evolution. There are a few competing hypothesis, but IIRC the most plausible is that it's a byproduct of the development of spoken language and/or our auditory processing systems.

It probably won't be too long for this hypothesis to pull in more evidence.


<yawn>

Top
#2262294 - 04/15/14 06:05 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Atrys]
JoelW Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/12
Posts: 4762
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Atrys
That's just not how science works...not even close.

Is that right? Last time I checked, experimentation was a part of science.

Top
#2262295 - 04/15/14 06:07 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: JoelW]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Originally Posted By: JoelW
Last time I checked, experimentation was a part of science.

It certainly is, but to make assertions, you first have to actually understand what is meant by fact and theory and law. You aren't grasping these topics correctly which is probably why you think you've found something that the entirety of the scientific community hasn't.


Edited by Atrys (04/15/14 06:07 PM)
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262297 - 04/15/14 06:13 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: JoelW]
antony Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 392
Loc: Portland, OR
Originally Posted By: JoelW
Newton said that the planets were attracted to the sun by an inverse square force. He proved that if you make this assumption, the planets will orbit the sun in conic sections. Then he proved the converse, that if planets orbit in conic sections, they must be attracted to a central source by an inverse square force. There is nothing like this in Darwinian theory. Nothing that shows that the mechanism of random variation and natural selection is solely responsible for the entirety of the complexity of life. From the point of view of the serious sciences, without this kind of a demonstration, you have no idea whether or not the mechanism is adequate for its intended purposes.

You may be the only one that claims "the mechanism" of natural selection and gene mutation is inadequate to fully explain life's complexity. I was not aware that this was even an issue on the table. Natural selection and mutation IS the explanation for the complexity of life. The onus would have to be on you to show how and where, and in what instance, it's lacking.


Edited by antony (04/15/14 06:14 PM)

Top
#2262300 - 04/15/14 06:24 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
TheFool Offline
Full Member

Registered: 04/13/10
Posts: 155
Philip Ball's The Music Instinct has some very interesting points about the evolutionary basis for music.

As does Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia.

On the more intense end, if you have access to an academic library then check out Deliége and Sloboda's cognitive studies + the critical writings surrounding them. They are the people everyone quotes, which means they MUST be right. :P
_________________________
"Nine? Too late."

Top
#2262309 - 04/15/14 06:44 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
FSO Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 853
Loc: UK, Brighton
Thank you for the replies, each and every one holds its own value and, certainly, at least one consideration has come to my attention that hadn't before. Um...a problem with a lot of the very good suggestions (such as the harmonic series proposals) is that they're not static; if one can find in music just *one* instance in which some rule or other about music doesn't apply, well, um...then the rule is flexible. That is to say, some music has no alteration of pitch, and others could simply take the harmonic series out of the question and play with what's left (though, arguably, any single number may begin a harmonic series so too could this be argued for many endless sets)...um...a problem I have with considering things from a human perspective is that it *isn't* "universal", let alone static (before and after humanity, the same truths would be rendered redundant {if A were A, A would be A}), though I'm willing to reduce to a shared humanistic experience. There *are* people, however, who dislike music and avoid it quite fervently. Herein lies my problem with humanity; the psyche can play silly buggers with *any* proposition...I mean, um, some people when told "don't do X" will not do X, some will do and some will *solely* because they were told not to. As such, it can be *very* difficult to try and find some unifying cause for actions; I class the identifying of music as an action. Actions require capacity (one cannot see without optic fibres), capacity doesn't *determine* an action but rather allows it. I mean, um, one may have legs but not always walk. Walking, however, still exists whether or not anyone is doing it (considering a stream of events rather than a segmented view {as would seem appropriate, given the notion that a German sixth is different to a dominant seventh based on context wink } as a suitable model); as such I'd determine that music exists regardless of whether someone is hearing it *or* playing it. That is to say, music may be expressed and recognised, found, but not created. The problem with *this*, however, is that it arguably determines *every* single auditory event as music, whether or not it's regarded as such. If this is the case, then there cannot be a truth about music which isn't simply "it's an auditory expression". Silence, too, is obviously an auditory expression. Um...so music therefore would require some static, universal truth to be *recognised* as music. Possibly wink wr states that: "...a static and universal musical truth is that humans across time and culture seem to have this idea that something we call "music" can occur.". Unfortunately, I haven't met every human so I can't confirm this, but it seems a reasonable proposition. Um...it's in this recognising of music, as opposed to music itself, that strikes me as a plausible source of hope. Again, I'll delegate the thoughts to those of humans alone as I recognise most people don't consider "animals", let alone plants, let alone the sea as an entity or a single grain of sand on the beach, or a lepton or a field, as having sufficient capacity for autonomy (and I would expand any reasonable suggestion to include these). The problem is: would Neolithic man immediately recognise Xenakis's Persepolis as music? Would the random person on the street nowadays? This is wherein I struggle to find a *universal* truth about music...I mean, um, I suppose it's like a universal truth about language; some may hear a foreign language and recognise it as having meaning only because they understand that it comes from a human voicebox; people generally hear piano and know that it's music...but not *always*. *Sigh*. See, I'm not willing to accept any answer that doesn't apply *100%* of the time. The problem with having multiple theories, when they're mutually exclusive, is that you're *reducing* the chance of any one theory being correct. Statistically speaking, the more answers you give, the less certain you are about any one answer. I mean, um, there's a box with a light and a button on opposing sides. When you press the button, the light turns on. How does it do this? An average and rationally minded person would say it's *probably* that there's a battery connected to a wire that connects to the button (press-to-make), which connects to the bulb and back to the battery. Um...a more flexibly minded person may argue that there could be a second circuit inside; the button switches off the light *inside* the box, that lowers the resistance of an LDR on the second circuit, allowing the external light to come on. *Another* person may suggest that the light is remotely operated by someone who observes your own actions, or, um, they might be entirely unrelated and the button may do nothing; the light may be on an irregularly phased timer, or remotely activated by someone who is *not* aware of your pressing the button, or it may just be that random bursts of electricity are happening to form in accordance with quantum theory, or some other reason (tiny gnomes, thus-far eluding discovery, with a sense of humour). Um...my point here is that until you prove why something is the way it is, you can't rule anything out. However, using *deductive* logic one can never go wrong. One will invariably also say a lot less wink Science is...fine. It's a way of getting by but one must always accept the uncertainty principle that goes along with it. This is an uncertainty that mathematics avoids. The problem mathematics has is that people can struggle to see how it applies and it is in the application *of* it that makes people become distrustful (the erroneous: you can use statistics to prove anything)...um...it is an abstract but perfect system that correlates things with no degree of error, but does not in its own right exist (there is no such thing as "5" in the physical world, but "5" *does* exist as an adjective {5 plants})...so then, what is music? I don't think a scientific approach is truly an appropriate one; the way we define music is not to do with sound at all, though obviously sound comes into it, and this is a flaw of science. Um...I'm not a science denier, I am not a follower of any established doctrine or sect. I started my education in mathematics and science. I followed on to philosophy. Um...there is so much *more* to the universe than any one of those sectors incorporates and to ignore any sector based on a preference for your own specialty is not only quite naive, but akin to the fallacies of patriotism (believing your country is the best for no other reason than you were born into it). Um...personally I believe that there are multiple realities that are *simultaneously* true. *Everything* has at least one flaw and *everything* has at least one benefit. For instance, I stipulated what the benefit would be if there was a universal musical truth, and what the benefit would be if there weren't. Frequently I've found people to be averse to explanations that lie outside of their personal beliefs as they strike as nonsensical or threatening. I mean, um, we all have our own beliefs about the universe. What we can all do is question our own beliefs without a need for being right (even the great and thorough Heidegger revised some of his most complex ideas); I stated that I don't expect to find an answer, but it's in the path to finding that answer that we may discover not only things about ourselves but perhaps about other people too. Conviction in the notion that our beliefs are subject to revision is the only logical course of action, in my opinion. With respect to this question, I feel there are many who wouldn't care for the significance of the answer; it won't affect anything. I mean, whether or not life has a meaning won't affect anything *about* life, but it *does* matter transcendentally. Um...it's fine to practice piano without wondering when it is you have made music, or whether truly any combination of notes is valid, or whether one tonal system is deserving of more credit than another, for there is no universally accepted answer. I mean, um, many people will answer any question quicker than they have thought about it. This particular question is not that complicated, but it's complicated enough that most people wouldn't immediately understand it. I hope that doesn't come off as arrogant laugh But it's true; just as most people will not understand Frost's The Road Not Taken immediately. Reflection is required to truly express what it is you understand *of* the question...*sigh* back to the point laugh Um...there exists in music something that is not in music's physical properties; just as there is something in a drawing that is not in the physical properties of graphite. The intent and expression, absorption and interpretation of the graphite is what makes a drawing a drawing, it is just these things that make sound music; *all* of this is simply to say the physical properties of music are not at question here smile Potential music exists in *every* sound event, these events are unfortunately not at question in any way because it would be easy to determine an undercurrent of what makes music exist, some underpinning physical musicality...but as we need to consider a more complex answer, it seems unlikely to me that any one person would be able to arrive at an answer in a few sentences in anything less than a few days. Um...I find it interesting that many people stated, whether outright or in terms of preference, "no" without stating what music is. As for hijacking of threads: I'm personally ambivalent to such happening...um...I recognise how easy it is for those who exist in one reality to be blunt with those who exist in another; this was intended as a philosophical question. Some people are not...minded in such a way. Personally I think that's lovely ^_^ but it's up to the discretion of the person commenting as to whether they're addressing the intended question. Um...as I stated, the only rational course of action is to always question your own conclusions, premises, beliefs and convictions and so I'll always welcome an external point of view to better consider my question; inspiration comes best from else. The only thing I *can* determine thus far is that music exists and it exists in our ability to perceive it and in its ability to be expressed, not in the fashion *of* that expression. In that way, it is the same as any other art form...*sigh*...anyone fancy eliminating either the perceptive element or the expressive element with a reasoned logic? It'd really help out... frown laugh Thank you to *all* the replies...yes, really all of them laugh I feel presently more comfortable in my previous assertions; at least in that I haven't missed anything blatantly obvious wink As for proofs and disproofs of God...I won't comment. I mean, I will a bit, obviously laugh but I shan't offer anything conclusive. I'd have thought any conclusive *proof* would be very well known, though, one way or the other. I personally believe God is a logical necessity as a collective; It may not be a single entity, but as an abstract concept it's flawless wink Oliver Sacks is an enjoyable read, but far from academia, really. Um...he wrote a few interesting things about brain worms (I think he called them?), but he either hasn't the capacity to go further or has to bow to the pressures of pubic accessibility. Quotes are indicative, I find, of running out of things to say, or at least not being secure enough in the force of your conviction that you feel the need to stand behind someone else. Oscar Wilde probably said something about it...
Xxx
_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

Top
#2262310 - 04/15/14 06:47 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Holy crap wow ha
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262322 - 04/15/14 07:26 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Polyphonist]
bennevis Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/14/10
Posts: 4846
What did we do in the era before Google, Wikipedia and the internet?

We looked things up in the library (in Encyclopedia Britannica, New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, maybe even Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, Newton's Principia Mathematica and Gray's Atlas of Anatomy wink et al), and read up the subjects thoroughly.

Now, some people just fish half-baked bits out from various webpages and use them to rub other's noses in them in internet forums to show how clever they are ...........at Googling grin.

Top
#2262324 - 04/15/14 07:30 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: bennevis]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Originally Posted By: bennevis

Now, some people just fish half-baked bits out from various webpages and use them to rub other's noses in them in internet forums to show how clever they are ...........at Googling grin.

Agreed; it's a shame that some people just skim texts without bothering to understand the material properly. This is why formal education is so important.
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262328 - 04/15/14 07:39 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
ClsscLib Online   content

Platinum Supporter until Jan 02 2013


Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 1717
Loc: Northern VA, U.S.
FSO, study up about paragraph breaks.

I'm begging you.
_________________________


"People may say I can't sing, but no one can ever say I didn't sing."

-- Florence Foster Jenkins

Top
#2262341 - 04/15/14 08:21 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
IstvánE Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/06/12
Posts: 82
1 2 3

Some articles from a quick skim on JSTOR. There's loads of this stuff, and it is actually quite interesting whether it offends you or not. If you can't access them, you can atleast look at the abstracts. Pretty cool.

So, Atrys, it is over, right? You won? Well none of this is actually science, in fact, all of these are published in humanities journals. Because it is not hard science. Have you read a science paper? Here's what one looks like: Really Cool New Biophysics Work Coming From MIT. Science is not a belief, or a dogma, it is not even an idea. Science is a process.

Notice in that paper, that there is clear denotation and clear language. You'll find that. There won't be any fancy diction like you find in those JSTOR papers; it is utterly clear denotation of a specific process. They have denoted the processes with models that are held constant throughout science, and with numbers to signify these constants. (For instance, the standard mass of science, the kilogram, is arbitrary to the universe, however this arbitrary mass is valid because it is held constant in every scientific study for the past 300 years).

Now this does not mean hard science must have numbers. It just needs clear and specific denotation. This can be with words, terminology, and even large scale ideas. Numbers are just a clear and easy way of denoting a model. When you read a paper in microbiology, you'll hardly see any numbers. This does not invalidate the science; I turn to Joel on this with his charge on evolution's validity. There are extremely mathematically rigorous models which tackle evolution (primarily focusing on the rates of change of populations, rates of growth, etc.). Though, like I said, the numbers aren't important, only a clear denotation is: in science some phenomenon in the universe (in nature) is labeled specifically and given a term. The denotation of what a lipid bilayer is in a cell, or the evolution of mitochonrdia is science that is just as valid as the mathemtical model for the universal gravitational constant of 6.67384×10^-11 m^3kg^-1s^-2.

---


So, I'll say that you are fine to base your argument on these studies. You will just be an idiot of you call them anything scientific.


Edited by gizzards (04/15/14 08:26 PM)

Top
#2262350 - 04/15/14 08:41 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: IstvánE]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Originally Posted By: gizzards
You will just be an idiot of you call them anything scientific.

First, you're on about a non-issue that is not relevant. Second, scientific hypotheses must start somewhere. The hypothesis asserted (one of which I touched on earlier) are indeed scientific in nature and are great catalysts for the community to begin speculation on.

*yawn*


Edited by Atrys (04/15/14 08:41 PM)
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262356 - 04/15/14 08:49 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Atrys]
Old Man Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/04/12
Posts: 777
Loc: Michigan, USA
Originally Posted By: Atrys
Originally Posted By: Old Man

Also, the existence of god is unfalsifiable, so no proof is possible, either "for" or "against". smile

This is incorrect. Victor Stenger has a book entitled "God: The Failed Hypothesis" in which he disproves our imaginary sky-friend. We can, actually, falsify the hypothesis of a God.

Now we're getting off-topic wink

The burden of proof is on those who affirm a particular hypothesis (e.g. god exists, unicorns exist (sorry, FSO), leprechauns exist). There is no burden on the opposing side to prove the negative, so it would seem to me that anyone who attempts to do so is being sucked into unnecessary combat with the "affirmative" side, and IMO this can come to no good end.

But after seeing one my favorite authors (Christopher Hitchens) endorse the book, you've piqued my curiosity, so thanks for the reference.

And I agree that we are most certainly off-topic, so let us cease and desist. thumb

Top
#2262357 - 04/15/14 08:51 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Atrys]
IstvánE Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/06/12
Posts: 82
Originally Posted By: Atrys
Originally Posted By: gizzards
You will just be an idiot of you call them anything scientific.

First, you're on about a non-issue that is not relevant. Second, scientific hypotheses must start somewhere. The hypothesis asserted (one of which I touched on earlier) are indeed scientific in nature and are great catalysts for the community to begin speculation on.

*yawn*


Righto mate. However, that is a straw man argument you retort with! We are not arguing about what is scientific in nature, (which by the way, is not a thing; it's either science or it is not). We are not even arguing about scientific catalysts! I was proving that your use of sources (which, humourously enough, you never actually sourced) are invalid as scientific texts. I did not even refute your primary argument. I simply would like to point out your horrible abuse of the word "science"! Horrible!

Top
#2262358 - 04/15/14 08:52 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
Polyphonist Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 7514
Loc: New York City
Furthermore, you are into the realm of religious debate, which along with political debate is almost certainly banned here (I've never seen a site where it wasn't).
_________________________
Regards,

Polyphonist

Top
#2262361 - 04/15/14 08:54 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Old Man]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Originally Posted By: Old Man

There is no burden on the opposing side to prove the negative, so it would seem to me that anyone who attempts to do so is being sucked into unnecessary combat with the "affirmative" side

Yes, the burden of proof is on whoever is trying to disprove the null hypothesis, so technically one doesn't really need the book (or proof of the null hypothesis) in order to arrive at the same conclusion laugh

Originally Posted By: Old Man

But after seeing one my favorite authors (Christopher Hitchens) endorse the book, you've piqued my curiosity, so thanks for the reference.

Hitchens was indeed a brilliant man with much to say and the words to say it. Certainly missed.
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262362 - 04/15/14 08:57 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: IstvánE]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Originally Posted By: gizzards

Righto mate. However, that is a straw man argument you retort with! We are not arguing about what is scientific in nature, (which by the way, is not a thing; it's either science or it is not). We are not even arguing about scientific catalysts! I was proving that your use of sources (which, humourously enough, you never actually sourced) are invalid as scientific texts. I did not even refute your primary argument. I simply would like to point out your horrible abuse of the word "science"! Horrible!

It's difficult to take you seriously when almost every one of your sentences is a fallacy itself.

The asserted hypotheses are absolutely scientific in nature. To think otherwise is plainly unscientific.

*yawn again*

You have the weakest, most unfounded argument of them all; but I'm still for the discourse so long as you can correct your logic and definitions wink
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262368 - 04/15/14 09:19 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Atrys]
IstvánE Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/06/12
Posts: 82
Originally Posted By: Atrys
Originally Posted By: gizzards

Righto mate. However, that is a straw man argument you retort with! We are not arguing about what is scientific in nature, (which by the way, is not a thing; it's either science or it is not). We are not even arguing about scientific catalysts! I was proving that your use of sources (which, humourously enough, you never actually sourced) are invalid as scientific texts. I did not even refute your primary argument. I simply would like to point out your horrible abuse of the word "science"! Horrible!

It's difficult to take you seriously when almost every one of your sentences is a fallacy itself.

The asserted hypotheses are absolutely scientific in nature. To think otherwise is plainly unscientific.

*yawn again*

You have the weakest, most unfounded argument of them all; but I'm still for the discourse so long as you can correct your logic and definitions wink


I am absolutely clear on my argument. Science is a clear cut process with specific denotations/models (mathematical and terminological). The studies you (did not) sourced are not scientific. They do not follow this process of denotation and modeling. You also cannot be scientific in nature, and for one thing, you have not even defined that is in the first palce, and two, either the process of science has been executed or it has not been. There is no amiguity in science, which is what makes it so beautiful!

I am also extremely dumbfounded to say the least about your excessive use of non sequiturs! For instance, you disconnect your statements from any more reasoning. For example, in the phrase, "To think otherwise is plainly unscientific", you need to follow the assertion with reasoning as to why it is true. Otherwise, that is only an opinion - which is fine, it is not argumental, however!

I am finished (I have an orgo chem exam I must study for). Please, please do not abuse the word science.


Edited by gizzards (04/15/14 09:23 PM)

Top
#2262371 - 04/15/14 09:28 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: IstvánE]
Atrys Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/31/13
Posts: 928
Originally Posted By: gizzards
The studies you (did not) sourced are not scientific. They do not follow this process of denotation and modeling. You also cannot be scientific in nature

All of these statements are false.

If you cannot see how the hypotheses are scientific in nature, you must have not read the material. You actually don't even need to read any papers; one only has to acknowledge the mechanisms that create the argument.

I'm not in the business of "proving" what I said here because I am not the one that formulated the hypotheses (though I do acknowledge, like any thinking person, their plausibility). They are scientific hypotheses (precursors perhaps) put forward by scientists. The hypotheses are competing, but the evolutionary byproduct flavor seems to be winning the race.


Edited by Atrys (04/15/14 09:31 PM)
_________________________
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind."
R. W. Emerson

Top
#2262385 - 04/15/14 10:06 PM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: JoelW]
phantomFive Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/11/14
Posts: 1151
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: JoelW
Originally Posted By: Polyphonist

This made me laugh. grin

+1
_________________________
Poetry is rhythm.

Top
#2262428 - 04/16/14 12:42 AM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: FSO]
Roland The Beagle Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/17/12
Posts: 205
Loc: California
And this is why we will always need philosophers to set people straight. In other words, the guys who are smarter than everyone, including scientists. That's me, of course. :]
_________________________
Danzas Argentinas, Alberto Ginastera
Piano Sonata Hob. XVI: 34 in E Minor, Franz Joseph Haydn
Nocturne, Op. 15 No. 1 in F Major, Frédéric Chopin
Prelude, Op. 11 No. 4 in E Minor, Alexander Scriabin
Prelude and Fugue in G Major, Well-Tempered Clavier Vol. 2, Johann Sebastian Bach

Top
#2262562 - 04/16/14 11:16 AM Re: Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth? [Re: Mark_C]
Old Man Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/04/12
Posts: 777
Loc: Michigan, USA
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
No grin

A wise man, indeed. grin

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3

Moderator:  Brendan, Kreisler 
What's Hot!!
Our latest Issue is available now...
Piano News - Interesting & Fun Piano Related Newsletter! (free)
-------------------
HOW TO POST PICTURES on the Piano Forums
-------------------
Sharing is Caring!
About the Buttons
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Seiler Pianos
Sheet Music
(PW is an affiliate)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
Who's Online
143 registered (ajames, aDino, Alex1, Abby Pianoman, anotherscott, anamnesis, 42 invisible), 1738 Guests and 18 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
75584 Members
42 Forums
156280 Topics
2295166 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Yamaha DGX650 - looking for an alternative! Need advice
by Karinioza
38 minutes 33 seconds ago
Piano oriented film soundtracks/scores.
by aDino
Today at 11:21 AM
Help with dynamics
by noobpianist90
Today at 03:53 AM
Using Kawai MP6 faders/knobs with virtual instruments?
by chicolom
Today at 02:35 AM
Coming up with new compositional methods.
by gsmonks
Today at 01:58 AM
(ads by Google)

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission