Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Is There a Static and Universal Musical Truth?

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!

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).

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


Hitchens was indeed a brilliant man with much to say and the words to say it. Certainly missed.

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

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.

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.

+1

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. :]

A wise man, indeed.