…and this is a 
As mentioned previously, my interview on British Christian talk radio is now available — you can download the mp3 directly, and you can join in an online discussion, in which I am accused of "scientism"…which is rather pecuilar, given that in the interview I rather specifically said there were phenomena for which science is not the best tool for examination (although I would also say that there are no phenomena which require something beyond natural mechanisms).
The interviewer also thinks Plantinga's arguments are good, which we didn't talk about at all, but which would have triggered some on-air gagging noises if they had come up.
Comments
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 8:04 AM
Hey, at least they accused you of "scientism" and not "scientology"...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 30, 2009 8:04 AM
Just to prevent this from becoming another 1000-comment thread as soon as the presuppers discover it: evolutionary epistemology – those whose cognitive faculties were too unreliable to deal with reality have already died out and their insufficient cognitive faculties with them. We are the descendants of those whose ability to sense and to reason was sufficient.
Posted by: Schmeer | June 30, 2009 8:12 AM
PZ,
My poor caffeine starved imagination fails to provide me with an example of a subject that is not best studied with the scientific method. What were you referring to? (I'll check out the interview later when I get home if your answer is already provided there.)
Posted by: MadScientist | June 30, 2009 8:30 AM
*groan* That reminds me of claims in accommodationism: "X is making sense" - uh, no, X seems to be attempting to write the definitive compendium of fallacies.
Posted by: 386sx | June 30, 2009 8:32 AM
If naturalism were true, then it would self-defeat itself unless something from outside of nature were to be born of a virgin. QED.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | June 30, 2009 8:34 AM
That Justin Brierly is an adorable dufus:
Right. Being sympathetic to a view means that you're also sympathetic to the view in its extremity.
And even then, sympathy to a view doesn't automatically mean that you hold the view without some caveats on your part.
Why is it that Xians seem to have a hard time grasping nuance?
Other than that, I can't say I would mind some of those commentators popping over here. A few of them seem to be able to make cogent arguments (albeit arguments based on unnecessary assumptions, just like Plantinga).
Posted by: 386sx | June 30, 2009 8:39 AM
"Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us."
Ummmmmmm.... makes perfect sense. Emmanuel. And nobody ever thinks twice about that. Yah.
Posted by: Schmeer | June 30, 2009 8:46 AM
Ugh, I just read a summary of some Plantinga. I almost threw up trying to choke down the bullshit that guy shovels. Then I read a better summary by 386sx and felt all better. Aaaaahhhhhh.
Posted by: Martin | June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
There's some terrible stupid discussions going on in that "debate". Particularly from Yvonne, poor thing.
Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | June 30, 2009 9:14 AM
A very weak performance, PZ--at least what I was able to bear listening to (I stopped at 20:50). They kept asking you for examples and for you to define the conflict so we could understand the thrust of your disagreement and you greeted it with a lot of strikingly dull and uniformative blather. From where I sit, you blew a great opportunity to popularize your position.
And, BTW, if you're thinking of complaining that I didn't listen to the whole thing, that's no excuse. You've got to get and hold an audience. Once you've lost them, that's it. I'm more than sympathetic to the position that religion is nothing but a load of delusional, incredibly dangerous bupkis and that, if a scientific view of reality is right then relition must be wrong, and you still managed to bore me out of my skull.
Forgive my rudeness, but you really need to hear that.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | June 30, 2009 9:17 AM
"Scientism"? As a perjorative?
I *suppose* that there are productive fields of intellectual pursuit that don't *normally* require rigorous application of the scientific method (e.g. English grammar, comparative literature, or corporate law), but where these fields of study do involve posing testable hypotheses, I still think the scientific method trumps anything else out there.
If scientism is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Posted by: CapgrasSyndrome | June 30, 2009 9:18 AM
I'd like to see more folks give Plantinga some more well deserved public humiliation. Dennett took him on not too long ago in Chicago.
And to whomever: Dawkins and Dennett do not believe that evolution "explains everything about ourselves." What a silly bit of misinformation. No scientist or scientifically enthusiastic philosopher I've ever come across believes such nonsense. Stephen Jay Gould has done a great disservice in perpetuating this kind of misunderstanding of the "adaptationist" approach to evolutionary theory.
Posted by: TheBear | June 30, 2009 9:21 AM
"Perhaps I am overstating PZ's position - I'm assuming he is sympathetic to Dawkins and Dennet for whom evolution is a catch all theory that explains everything about ourselves"
I dunno about Dennet, but this isn't even Dawkins' position....
Posted by: Toby | June 30, 2009 9:21 AM
There's a good response to Plantinga's arguments on Stephen Law's blog for those who are interested.
Posted by: llewelly | June 30, 2009 9:31 AM
OT:
Keith Olberman:
Posted by: peter | June 30, 2009 9:32 AM
"said there were phenomena for which science is not the best tool for examination"
excuse me while I kiss the sky...and what would that non scientific tool be? Praying?
Give an inch and they own you...
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 30, 2009 9:35 AM
Gotcha, OM David, of the magnificent last name with an accented c:
If this were true, why are there still so MANY individuals with absolutely no sense, intelligence or reason around - gay-bashers, anti-vaxers, holy-book thumpers of various credos, wooists and alt med enthusiasts? Hmm, hmm? This proves evolution is wrong. So there!Erm... The trouble is that no 'designer' who is 'intelligent' would probably create this mess!!
Posted by: llewelly | June 30, 2009 9:38 AM
(Still off topic:)
I intended to ad to my comment - Olberman was funny, but as Hemant points out, if the donor had not remained anonymous, the publicity would have focused on the donor and why they donated the money - rather than on the ads, where it is intended to. Additionally - many atheists can still not risk coming out of the closet - especially associated with a large donation which gets nationwide attention. So there's a certain amount of insensitivity in Olberman's remarks.
Posted by: Luis Dias | June 30, 2009 9:41 AM
Bad performance by PZ. PZ got to be short-circuited by the other guy. He kept saying that asking such question (the Ultimate) wasn't a scientific legitimate question, to which the other guy answered well that wasn't a scientific question! To which PZ agreed. And it was a circuit. PZ failed to say that the only good method of learning things about the universe is the empirical one. That the problem with religion is that it makes claims not incompatible, but flat out impossible to do, like, without authority to make.
So when a religious claims that at least he has an ultimate answer to the problem, one should say, well that's not an answer, that's an hypothesis.
Posted by: csrster | June 30, 2009 9:42 AM
peter, I think that's bad thinking. "They", ie fundamentalists of all stripes, think that way - any openness, questioning, doubt, or uncertainty is a sign of weakness to be exploited. When we play their game by their rules then they win by default - because we turn science into a religion. You need an example? Well science can probably tell us interesting things about Shakespeare, but I very much doubt that science is the best tool for studying his plays.
Posted by: J-Money | June 30, 2009 9:45 AM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.fa.saint28jun28,0,5360436,print.story
Ready...FIGHT!
Posted by: CapgrasSyndrome | June 30, 2009 9:45 AM
I'd like to see more folks give Plantinga some more well deserved public humiliation. Dennett took him on not too long ago in Chicago.
And to whomever: Dawkins and Dennett do not believe that evolution "explains everything about ourselves." What a silly bit of misinformation. No scientist or scientifically enthusiastic philosopher I've ever come across believes such nonsense. Stephen Jay Gould has done a great disservice in perpetuating this kind of misunderstanding of the "adaptationist" approach to evolutionary theory.
Posted by: brian | June 30, 2009 9:48 AM
Toby: I can't get your link to work. Is it just me, or are others having trouble?
I can make other links on this thread work.
Brian
Posted by: J-Money | June 30, 2009 9:49 AM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.fa.saint28jun28,0,5360436,print.story
Ready...FIGHT!
Posted by: Felix | June 30, 2009 9:59 AM
Looking at the linked discussion, it appears that 'Yvonne' is decent enough to consider learning more before making further wrong assertions. That's respectable, and frankly I find it refreshing.
Comparing that openness with the concrete certaintism exhibited by evolution denialists at places like Ray's is as light and shadow. At Ray's, they scoff at the mere suggestion that considering to attempt an understanding of evolution might be a good idea when discussing it. They explicitly state that they already have the truth, and therefore following basic rules of proper discourse and polite consideration (as in reading the evidence and admitting ignorance or incomprehension) is a waste of time to them.
It saddens me to recognize that some people really are lost for good.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 10:05 AM
Brian @23, there's no hyperlink there.
Looking at the source, it reads thus:
"There's a good response to Plantinga's arguments <a>on Stephen Law's blog</a> for those who are interested."
Posted by: Felix | June 30, 2009 10:10 AM
J-Money @24,
what's there to fight? They want to have their magic man fill their unsettling ignorance while denying that they are worshipping a god of the gaps.
As Tim Minchin says: "Every single mystery solved in the history of mankind has turned out to be
not magic."
You know what's ironic? The priest they're trying to elevate to sainthood died of yellow fever before the age of 50. Decades later, the inoculation was developed by a hard working scientist using the methods of
not magic.
Posted by: SmellyGirl | June 30, 2009 10:14 AM
Maybe things like: art (of all types), morality (which should be informed by scientific facts but maybe is not really a testable reality in the same way).
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 30, 2009 10:14 AM
Not Dennett's position either. The furthest he goes in this direction in Darwin's Dangerous Idea is that:1) evolution by natural selection (abstracted away from biology) can shed light on many philosophical questions (because philosophy is littered with "ZOMG! Complicated thing X exists. There fore it must be a result of the Platonic ideal of X" and evolution and natural selection offers away out of this) and;
2) the truism that we (like everything else) is the way it is because of how it got that way; in particular we wouldn't be like we are without our specific evolutionary history.
He's quite clear that evolutionary explanations aren't the way to understanding many phenomena, any more than quantum mechanical level explanations are; he's not a greedy reductionist in his own term. In particular he expresses doubt that there can be a science of memetics even though the meme of memes offers a handle on the philosophical puzzle of how mind could arise from not-mind.
Posted by: brian | June 30, 2009 10:15 AM
Thanks John. With the blue text and the cursor turning into something else, I thought it was supposed to be a link.
Posted by: inkadu | June 30, 2009 10:35 AM
I couldn't get past the British moderator calling PZ "P.Zee" instead of the more UK-appropriate "P. ZED." My heart is broken.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 30, 2009 10:37 AM
This one guy told me that science was a religion, and then brought up "scientology" to prove it.Posted by: Geds | June 30, 2009 10:38 AM
And, BTW, if you're thinking of complaining that I didn't listen to the whole thing, that's no excuse. You've got to get and hold an audience. Once you've lost them, that's it.
Yes. Because it was all PZ Myers' fault that he wasn't able to hold your attention when involved in a radio interview that was being directed by a facilitator. You're really adding to the conversation.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the goal wasn't to entertain you, but to inform. If you can't figure out the difference, you probably shouldn't be bitching.
Forgive my rudeness, but you really need to hear that.
Posted by: Greg Esres | June 30, 2009 10:40 AM
Sure it is, unless you only consider "science" to be what men in white coats do in a laboratory. Substitute "empiricism" for "science" if you wish.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 10:44 AM
FWIW, I do think Dennett sometimes overapplies the idea of evolution by selection... but after all, he's a philosopher and makes no bones about it, so we shouldn't expect every single little idea he proposes to be backed up by data. And even the times when I felt he has overapplied the idea, I still felt like it was a really interesting and enlightening perspective.
Of course, there's quite a leap from "Dennett sometimes tries to apply the ideas of evolution by selection to areas where it doesn't quite fit" to "Dennett thinks evolution is a catch-all theory that explains everything about ourselves." The former is my opinion, and while I'm sure some will disagree, and I don't think it's a ridiculous opinion. The latter is just an absurd strawman.
Posted by: Schmeer | June 30, 2009 10:46 AM
SmellyGirl,
Thanks for the prodding of my stuck thought process. I had assumed that PZ was saying that a "how does X work?" question could be best answered by something other than science. It hadn't even occured to me that we could be talking about studying art or history.
Posted by: Luke Tunmer
|
June 30, 2009 10:49 AM
I was left frustrated after that debate: Alexander's constant
re-framing of the debate, which PZ did try hard on a couple of
occasions to bring back to the central issue of science and religion,
was relentless.
It was his final statement however which really wound me up. The two
had just cozzed up to the point of almost agreeing, and then Alexander
finally comes up with what he actually believed in - something that he
had avoided earlier on - with his Jesus Christ, son of God, creator of
the universe blah-blah.
Earlier on I think PZ missed the opportunity to retort with the usual
Dawkins response to religion "tackling the big questions", asking "why
are we here?", and "what is the purpose?", etc, with the answer:
religion does not provide any answers to these either! Anybody
can ask these question. Religion usually doesn't answer them, and
whenever it thinks it has, you'll find another religion that
disagrees.
PZ, I think you should have gone for the jugular earlier on. Get him
to actually articulate what he believed in, and then see if these were
making any explicit statements about the nature of the universe. Then
his religion would be trampling on his scientific world. Does he, or
does he not, believe that his creator can meddle with the universe at
will? If not, then what point praying and worshipping if he cannot
influence anything. If he can, then his influence should be detectable
and testable.
His argument was classic compartmentalization: Cool, he doesn't want
to bring "God-talk into the laboratory", and he sure doesn't bring
rational thought into his church. He is a "classic Darwinian", on one
hand, but sees "purpose to evolution" in the next breath. He will
endeavour keep these two worlds apart by sheer force of his will.
Now I'd like to see Jerry Coyne's response to this man. I suspect that
he will be less "accommodating" than P.Z.'s polite debate here.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 30, 2009 10:53 AM
Depending on how narrow a definition of "scientific method" I think there are a lot. Practice in the hard sciences is to put a pretty hurdle that evidence has to meet before it can even be considered. In, say history, there will often only be "bad" evidence - stuff as likely to be thrown askew as anecdotal reports of alt-med working and no way of getting properly repeatable bias-proof and statistically sound evidence. Unless we are going to say that almost nothing can be usefully said about history we have to accept that trying to piece together a picture from evidence that doesn't meet scientific standards is worthwhile.From a different direction the scientific method isn't usually the way to approach pure maths.
Posted by: Geds | June 30, 2009 10:57 AM
It hadn't even occured to me that we could be talking about studying art or history.
Hey, now, we historians (at least the ones who know what we're doing) approach history in as scientific a way as we possibly can. We're incapable of, as I like to say, replicating Napoleon in a lab, but that doesn't mean we just wander around and say, "I think the Germans won World War II because that feels right." We sort through records, look for primary sources, sometimes go out and dig up artifacts and try to piece the history of the world together according to what we can know.
There are, admittedly, much larger gaps in the historical record than there are in a lot of science and since we're attempting to track people and societies throughout time we're looking at a field that is inevitably subjective, but we're not just making crap up as we go along. Look at it this way: history has its own equivalent of creationists. They're the people who are trying to re-write history to make it sound like the United States is a Christian nation or that the Jewish Bible really does tell us everything we need to know about the history of the world (every Sunday on my blog I take apart After the Flood a book that purports to be the history of Europe from Noah's son Japheth on down). The historians that go out, debunk fake quotes and look for the actual evidence of the figures and events on which history turns aren't so different from scientists. And they're holding the line against religionist claptrap, too.
Of course there are historians who just want to go out and study battles in the Civil War or whatever, too. But I'm pretty sure there are scientists who don't bother with the science/religion debate...
Posted by: sylvia G. | June 30, 2009 10:57 AM
mi so tired of this debate. if you don't know by now and on your own you will never know. At the bottom of most of the religious folks' argument is the fear that science will strip away their quest for a better world or life thru religion, which they believe is the avenue that brings them morals and charity and so many 'good' things that humanity needs. Can someone please let these people know all of this is available, and even more so, without religion and that rational education will reveal why we are who we are and that being good to one another for the most part is to our benefit regardless of being told to do so!!?? this way these religious people can still have that and let go of the fantasy and get on with it!
And then let it be that the dumb will eat themselves. ugh, sick of it. But thank you PZ for keeping on with all the things you do.
Posted by: Felix | June 30, 2009 11:01 AM
Stanton @ #32,
This one guy told me that science was a religion, and then brought up "scientology" to prove it.
Which is exactly why they called it that - to fool people like him.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 30, 2009 11:10 AM
I don't want to be dragged too deeply into the semantics but "science" does (and, I think, should) refer to a proper subset of empiricism, which has particular rules for ruling out false patterns. "My aunt took homoeopathic meds and her nausea went away so there must be something in it" is a sort of empiricism, but science rightly doesn't allow it.Posted by: Jay | June 30, 2009 11:15 AM
There are quite a few people here claiming that evolution can't explain "everything about ourselves." How else do you explain our physiology and our mental capacities? Pink Unicorns and fairy dust? There are well understood evolutionary pathways that indicate how we evolved, and explain many of our core behaviors. Our more advanced, cognitive behaviors, are functions of our neural systems that, gasp, evolved. Maybe I'm missing something that you are trying to say about Dawkins and Dennett, or that the "everything about ourselves" thing has some other explanation, but your statements seem to be a little, well, mystical.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 30, 2009 11:21 AM
What, are they bored with charging others with "naturalism," "materialism," and "atheism"?
I have seen some who think science will tell us everything, including what mores society should have, who presumably are guilty of the fuzzy meaning of "scientism." But such fanatics seem rare.
The fact is that they label in order to avoid dealing with the issues. We label as well, mainly because there is little else to do when all of their questions have been answered, and they're either uncomprehending (IDiots) or in denial (Dishonesty Institute).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Salamander | June 30, 2009 11:29 AM
The chap from Cambridge was very persuasive and correct.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 11:31 AM
"Everything about ourselves" does not merely encompass our biology. Our biology is pretty much entirely explained by natural selection, but there are other things about ourselves -- our culture, our social constructs, our form of government, etc.
Some aspects of some of those things can be modeled using a similar evolution-by-selection model, i.e. memetics. But not everything. Some things about ourselves are merely accidents of history, or deliberate efforts by a person or a group, etc.
So yeah, that's what is meant by that. Everything about our biology is explained by natural selection, but not everything about our selves.
Posted by: robotczar | June 30, 2009 11:34 AM
What is unbelievable is that the bulldog of the scientific viewpoint says "there were phenomena for which science is not the best tool for examination".
Please specify which phenomena are not best examined via scientific method.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 30, 2009 11:41 AM
Maybe things like deciding what is morally acceptable.
Science can inform as debate on morality, but it should be used to determine what is or not moral. For example, science tells us why young males often act in an aggressive manner. However I do not know many people who think that allowing young men to be aggressive is a good a idea.
Posted by: Jay | June 30, 2009 11:43 AM
James Sweet,
I still don't quite agree, as our brains and physiology give rise to our behaviors and our ability to learn from our environment, it stands to reason that evolution does explain things. It just doesn't explain it very clearly.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 30, 2009 11:44 AM
Another example that can maybe explained better without science is the love many people have of music. Neuroscience can explain the signals that get triggered in the brain when a person listens to music, but such explanations do not get across the joy of doing so.
Posted by: Salamander | June 30, 2009 11:57 AM
I liken it to appreciation of a work of art. The picture can not be said to be analytically reducible to the collection of pixels. Nonetheless, there is a relationship between the pixels and the subjective experience. It is instead ontologically reducible.
So there is a sense in which the work can be analysed in scientific terms but this can never encapsulate the subjective experience even though both may refer to the same thing.
The common example of this is morning star vs. evening star. Same referent and yet very different meanings. Science does not deal with meaning...
Posted by: Jay | June 30, 2009 11:58 AM
Matt: science doesn't explain the joy? It absolutely does, and you yourself gave the exact reason. Certain rhythmic sounds containing certain frequencies encourage neural cells to release dopamine and other "joy" chemicals, and so the music makes us happy.
Does knowing that every one of our experiences can be defined as chemical reactions in a mass of neural tissue make those experiences any less? You certainly seem to be implying such.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 30, 2009 11:58 AM
I recall a comment in an article on sudoku, by a maths prof who said that his computer was better than him at solving sudoku but he was better than the computer at enjoying it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 30, 2009 12:03 PM
I am implying no such thing. If you really think that a solid scientific paper on neurological responses to music is the same as a well written essay on the glory that Bach's St Matthew's Passion then I pity you.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 12:03 PM
Hmmm, I'm still not buying it. If I can take the logical extrapolation of what you are saying, it would mean that every single thing that any human has ever done would have to be predictable based on knowing their DNA. First of all, that's demonstrably false, since external events influence what we do. And even if it weren't, trying to model every aspect of our existence based on genetics is going to get unwieldy real fast... by analogy, you could try to explain why vinegar reacts with baking soda using only quantum physics, but it would make much more sense to use chemistry. I would not say, "Quantum physics explains everything about vinegar reacting with baking soda." (And even this is a bad example, because in theory it could.. but since external events influence our behavior, you can't even say in theory that natural selection can completely explain our behavior, let alone in practice)
It reminds me a little bit of the structuralist vs. functionalist approaches to biology that PZ has been talking about recently. In theory, yeah, everything about an organism is ultimately the product of physics, including the physics that give rise to the chemistry that gives rise to gene expression. But under most circumstances, you're not going to get very far if you approach it that way. Better to look at the inputs as a series of discrete genes (functionalist approach) rather than to use as your inputs all of the physical reactions taking place between the particles of the organism. (!)
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 12:14 PM
This is true, however, science as a tool to discover which music is likely to bring joy is unwieldy to the point of being utterly useless.
For instance, I suppose in theory it would be possible to develop such a complete model of the brain that we could plug in a piece of music and tell whether people it has the potential to be a successful piece of pop music. But I don't think that's very practical. A far better solution is to listen to a lot of music, develop an intuition for what is "catchy", and use that intuition to predict which pieces of music have the potential for widespread popularity.
The latter approach is not even slightly science-based, but IMO it is a much better tool for that particular job.
Science as an epistemology does have one special trait, though: Whenever it contradicts another epistemology, I'm betting my money on science. If someone were to develop a convincing scientific model of the brain that could predict the pop success of various pieces of music, I'll take that over intuition any day of the week.
Science is the most accurate epistemology, but that does not mean it is the "best" epistemology in all circumstances. By analogy, my jigsaw can make much more accurate cuts than my reciprocating saw, but I ain't throwing my reciprocating saw in the trash...
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 30, 2009 12:21 PM
Start by doing a little background reading on epigenetics and ontogeny, and you'll start to understand why claiming a physiological basis is not the same as claiming a genetic basis. After that, try to understand emergent properties and some systems biology.
Posted by: Butter | June 30, 2009 12:23 PM
A far better solution is to listen to a lot of music, develop an intuition for what is "catchy", and use that intuition to predict which pieces of music have the potential for widespread popularity.
The latter approach is not even slightly science-based, but IMO it is a much better tool for that particular job.
Sure it is. Such an intuition is based on making observations and noticing patterns, which is something your brain is exceptionally good at. It's empirical, even if the object being studied is people's subjective reactions. What's unscientific about it?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 30, 2009 12:24 PM
tag-abuse
Posted by: Jay | June 30, 2009 12:25 PM
I'm not saying that the best tool in every circumstance is the Theory of Evolution, but to make a broad sweeping statement that it can't explain "ourselves" is inherently false. It would be difficult, but the solution would eventually be finite.
As for your statement: "This is true, however, science as a tool to discover which music is likely to bring joy is unwieldy to the point of being utterly useless."
Really? Again this seems to be a broad sweeping statement that ignores the mathematical basis of music (ref: Godel, Escher and Bach). A reasonable sampling program could essentially map music that is enjoyed by a wide range of people, which could develop a method of detecting future music that would have a high probability of detecting more good music.
Unwieldy? Not really. A solution for the problem probably exists and is used today to test music, if not actually generate new music. What it might not be capable of doing, however, is detecting new styles of music, especially ones that don't fall into the category of the same popular music that was first used to generate the mapping. Evolutionary techniques (self-modifying algorithms, not biological) could be included to track the changes in "popular music" and a full mapping including the time dimension could be made.
Hmmmm, possible paper there, if it hasn't already been done. Thanks for getting my brain moving!
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 12:46 PM
Hey man, if you do it, I'll eat crow. I've seen too many attempts at algorithmically generating "good" music to be anything but skeptical. The thing I linked to above, for example, sounds pretty good most of the time, but it never comes up with anything that is really all that cool.
It's a fascinating area of research though, and I'm serious when I say that it would be awesome if you proved me wrong. Until then, I'm calling a "show me the money" on this one.
@Bernard Bumner: I realize I was speaking imprecisely on genetics vs. physiology, but I don't think that in any way alters my points, that #1 aspects of our behavior are influenced by external events that have nothing to do with evolution by natural selection, and #2 there are some specifics of our behavior maybe could be explained by natural selection but for which it is wildly impractical to do so.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 12:49 PM
@56
As cynical as that sounds, that is exactly what is done by the major record labels; analyzing new pop songs in order to determine potential marketing success. Not on an individual brain-analysis basis, but on a past marketing success basis. And that is why there is very little creativity in pop music; it really does all sound the same.
Hooking brains up to some music analyzer might be interesting, but you'd have to do it for a whole lot of people in order to develop a baseline. And why do that when you can just look at the track record of previously released material, and then tell the masses what they want.
Posted by: Kyle Szklenski | June 30, 2009 12:49 PM
For those who care:
Stephen Law's blog
That link should work.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 12:53 PM
@Jay: Also, don't forget that while there are certainly strong commonalities between the music enjoyed by various cultures, there are also strong divergences. A mathematical model that worked in one culture might fail mightily for a different culture.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 30, 2009 12:56 PM
Specific behaviour is not directly connected with our evolutionary history - there is no absolute physiological determinism. However, I think it is very likely that most of the major aspects of behavious and psychology can be explained by - or at least, are a product of - our evolutionary history. In that repsect, the potential to explain most types of behaviour in evolutionary terms exists, even if it is not practical to do so.
In this respect, behaviour is probably much like physiology; evolution cannot explain the specific cause of a scar on my arm came from, but it can explain the mechanism by which it came about.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 30, 2009 12:59 PM
What shitty English; perhaps I'm ill.
Posted by: Robotczar | June 30, 2009 1:04 PM
I haven't heard any phenomena so far that can't be best explained via rational thinking, empirical evidence, and scientific method. Art and music appreciation may be a side effect of other cognitive processes or may have some evolutionary cause. It also may be mainly learned via culture. But, the point is, what better way is there to study these phenomena? Endless subjective reflection and debate?
I suggest that math is an example of a "phenomenon" that cannot be examined scientifically. It seems to be a set of premises and operations dreamt up by human minds that really is not subject to scientific investigation. Its proofs and assertions (e.g., Godel's incompleteness theorems) are not really subject to empirical investigation. I have, however, some difficulty considering math a phenomenon which my simple computer dictionary says is "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen".
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 30, 2009 1:07 PM
#50 Matt Penfold
Satisfying music utilizes tangling, then untangling;
a question and then an answer, with a affirmation of success at the cadence.
Elevator music skips these attributes, which is why it is so insipid.
Therefore the brain has it's chemicals massaged and soothed, just like a good story.
Posted by: Jay | June 30, 2009 1:08 PM
Again, I disagree. The understanding that "music" is one of the oldest forms of entertainment for sentient humans would lead to the conclusion that at its very roots there is a very good chance that there are commonalities to popular music that transcend geological and societal boundaries.
The hypothesis that such commonality exists has probably been explored, and in fact some of that exploration is in the Godel, Escher and Bach book that I referenced earlier. Escher's art is very mathematical, and when compared to Bach's music, has some common features. All music can be broken down to some kind of mathematical basis in hundreds, if not thousands of dimensions, and each of those dimensions analyzed for clues and mapped.
All very scientific, and while it may not lead to the generation of "good music" it can be theorized that a method does exist where there is a deterministic method of analysis of music.
Look, we can already analyze facial features and discern what makes one person more attractive than another (the largest contributor is symmetry). Art, music and other emotion generating sensory mechanics could all lend themselves to mechanical judgement based on human interaction.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 1:11 PM
I think we are more or less on the same page here. I will go one step further and speculate that specific causes (call them "micro-events") can sometimes have such a profound effect that it causes a nontrivial shift in the behavioral mode of a population (i.e. stuff "about us") which would not be predictable given any evolutionary model. Sort of a memetic founder effect, if you will...
I guess the only thing we differ on, then, is what is meant by the phrase "evolution explains everything about us". To me, the fact that a good portion of what we are is a result of these "micro-events" contradicts that statement. I think to you, the fact that our evolved physiology ultimately determines what the effect of these micro-events will be, means that evolution does explain it all.
Perhaps the difference in our two positions is merely a semantic disagreement over what is meant by "explain"?
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 1:19 PM
@daveau: I chose that example intentionally, because I know that record companies are doing that :) My point is that they are not doing it algorithmically or using a scientific model of how the music interacts with the neurology of the listeners, because that would be impractical.
While I'm sure they quantify things like beats-per-minute (actually, I know for a fact that they do; I read an interview several years ago with a pop songwriter about how he didn't like how he had to increase the tempo of his songs, but he was forced to because the average BPM of pop hits had increased from X to Y over the last N years), ultimately at the end of the day there is intuition being employed to determine what "sounds like" the stuff that will be successful.
@Jay: The existence of commonalities does not in any way mean that the model is not influenced by culture. You sort of proved my point with one of your own examples:
Ah hah! Yes, symmetry is the largest contributor that is common across all cultures. In women, waist-to-hip ratio is also pretty much a universal.
But there are all sorts of other contributors to perceived physical attractiveness that are purely cultural. For instance, tell me the human universal that inspired this!
I absolutely acknowledge that there are universals in what music is pleasing and in what features are attractive. I also assert that there are strong cultural influences that are ultimately arbitrary.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 1:41 PM
James Sweet-
You are absolutely correct; I was not disagreeing with you. It's slightly OT, but I thought others might find it interesting. A&R has mostly been replaced with computer analysis, but as you say, not algorythmically.
So, can everything be reduced to bit-level? Sure. But I'm cantankerous enough to argue that CDs and iPods are only simulated music. I prefer to deal with emotional content emotionally.
Posted by: Jay | June 30, 2009 1:44 PM
Actually, Sweet, you summed it up. Evolution would explain the finite set of behavioral responses to stimuli. Impractical, at this time, to attempt to determine future behaviors, but most likely not impossible.
Also, I'm not sure how my point lent credence to your argument, as you also admitted that there are universal aspects to an emotional response of attractiveness. I'm saying that these universal aspects are easily analyzed and mapped and can be used to make decisions based on input on other faces. The same can be said of music, that there are universal aspects that can be measured and used to make decisions.
Posted by: David Utidjian | June 30, 2009 1:45 PM
It was actually a very boring interview* IMO. PZ didn't get to talk much. It mostly seemed to be the two English toffs blathering on about "Why is there something and not nothing" and sounded like they really wanted to get to TAG-ing.
* I say "interview" because it seemed to be mainly the host and the Davy guy talking. It wasn't really a "discussion." It may also be that I was just busy with other work at the time.
ETA: PZ call it an "interview" also.
-DU-
Posted by: Faithless | June 30, 2009 1:52 PM
British Christian talk radio?
Well, you learn something new every day. I wonder what wavelength it is on?
Posted by: amph | June 30, 2009 2:30 PM
OT:
CNN: Minnesota's Supreme Court has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the state's disputed U.S. Senate race.
Finally.
Posted by: JBlilie | June 30, 2009 3:08 PM
Totally OT but:
Al Franken to the US Senate. It's over, finally:
http://cbs13.com/politics/supreme.court.senate.2.1065797.html
Posted by: Ol'Froth | June 30, 2009 3:15 PM
Let the Al Franken Decade begin!
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 30, 2009 3:29 PM
From Daily Kos,
"Both men have scheduled news conferences for later today. Franken will address supporters at 5:15 p.m. ET at his home in Minneapolis and Coleman will speak from St. Paul at 4 p.m. ET."
Posted by: Notagod | June 30, 2009 3:39 PM
Music and math are very much related. Submit "music and math" to your favored search engine to find out why.
Science can indeed be used to explain music and in a much more satisfying way then 'It makes me feel good'.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 3:43 PM
Mabus, you're a moron.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | June 30, 2009 3:51 PM
I clicked on this thread because I was surprised by PZed's statment "there were phenomena for which science is not the best tool for examination". I wanted some examples and was pleased to find a good discussion on such in the comments. This thread was much better than so many on Pharyngula where people try to see who can outdo each other swearing and insulting people.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 30, 2009 3:53 PM
I see several folks have beaten me to the OT punch WRT Senator! Franken. I can't wait to get home from work so I can bust out my Team Franken 2008 t-shirt!
Posted by: Notagod | June 30, 2009 3:54 PM
nostra2000,
Your god idea and all its angels only exist in your mind. Only you and nothing else will determine if they continue to exist.
Posted by: DevonR | June 30, 2009 3:57 PM
nostra2000,
I see nothing in that thread of any relevance to what is being discussed here. All I see is post after post of you claiming to be able to read minds.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 30, 2009 3:57 PM
That's
MabusMr. Irrelevant.Stay away.
plus, he still owes me my FINISHED
Posted by: DevonR | June 30, 2009 4:00 PM
nostra2000,
Please go away. Stop posting the same link over and over again. We get it, you don't like PZ, rationality, atheism, naturalism, etc.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 30, 2009 4:00 PM
FYI for everyone, please ignore Mabus. PZ will go into Hulk Smash mode.
That is all.
Posted by: JBlilie | June 30, 2009 4:01 PM
It's over, Coleman just conceded (finally).
Posted by: Lynna | June 30, 2009 4:03 PM
PZ, I enjoyed listening to the interview/debate.
Having you phone in your comments puts you at a disadvantage. It was easier to hear and to understand the moderator and the other participant. In future, you'll need to compensate for the disadvantage by slowing down your delivery just a bit, emphasizing points even more strongly, and using crisper diction.
I particularly liked the way you resisted the moderator's efforts to reduce the debate to specific examples, when the overall methods/procedures/attitudes employed in doing science are what's important. Good job on that topic.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 4:04 PM
Priya Lynn @86
And then Mabus showed up...
Posted by: Desert Son
|
June 30, 2009 4:06 PM
Nothing bolsters an argument like all-caps.
I'm confused as to the role of the asterisk in this particular use of "fucked."
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 30, 2009 4:07 PM
Dear Sister Priya Lynn,
I agree with you 1000% when you say "This thread was much better than so many on Pharyngula where people try to see who can outdo each other swearing and insulting people." By my own objective measure, this blog has been going downhill ever since I arrived here (now, why is that?). I certainly can't understand why people would want to insult someone who turns up for a bit of innocent proselytizing. When Jesus told me to go and witness to the hell-bound atheists, I never expected they'd take offense at my rubbishing of their deluded science, or that they'd be upset because I know that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. And why anyone would want equal rights for women and homosexuals just boggles me...haven't they read the bible? Sheesh...these people get so uppity when I tell them that atheism is a religious belief and that a person can't really be moral without believing in the one true God. I'm just trying to save their immortal souls from hell and earn myself some Jesus points.
Yours in heavenly sweetness and light
Smoggy Batzrubble.
PS What about that nostra2000, eh? What a WANKER!!!
Posted by: MattB | June 30, 2009 4:10 PM
Kids at home, can you say "COMPARTMENTALIZATION?!!!!!"
"My parents said it was the truth, so because I love them, I'm sticking with it no matter all the evidence to the contrary!" (throws down clipboard and stomps off to sulk and engage in a one-way conversation with mr. sky-god)
This Cambridge scientist threw out so many straw men that I lost count. Milquetoast, bland, and facile argumentation.
Blegh.
Posted by: Sir Craig | June 30, 2009 4:12 PM
More off-topic goodness, this time courtesy of that seldom-spoken of font of ignorance, Pat Buchanan:
Making a Monkey Out of Darwin
Oh, and Nostra: Go away.
Posted by: JBlilie | June 30, 2009 4:12 PM
Coleman just made an amazingly gracious consession speech. I recommend listening to it. I'm sure it will be repeated on air many time sin the next few days.
He congratulated the "newest Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken," among other things.
Coleman will be back. He is a very skilled politician.
(I voted for Franken.)
Posted by: William | June 30, 2009 4:16 PM
BURN THE WITCH!!!
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 4:17 PM
I don't think anyone was saying they weren't related, I think folks were just saying that math is not at present a good tool for fully describing the emotional response to music.
I say this as someone whose approach to song-writing has been criticized by others as overly mathematical. heh...
Posted by: Felix | June 30, 2009 4:19 PM
Mabus, just in case you haven't considered this, but try to think back to the day when you first started posting your rants on someone's blog or on some forum. Has anything changed since then? It's been years, David. You still remember what a year is, right? Lots of those. All the people whose demise you predicted, every single one you and your voices and your other personalities defeated and put in their place, they are all still there, right where they were when you decided they were the enemy. Some of them have even grown in renown and wealth.
You are the one who is irrelevant David. You are the one who was defeated.
The sad thing is, the person who did the most to hurt you and shame you was you, David. Right the moment when you decided you didn't need that medication.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 4:21 PM
I believe he suspected there might be a profanity filter, and f*ucked will defeat some of the less paranoid profanity filters.
I once had one of the more paranoid profanity filters censor the following sentence: "I didn't get back until after the trick-or-treaters were mostly done for the night." Can you spot the objectionable language?
Well, here's the censored version: "I didn't get bac* ***il after the trick-or-treaters were mostly done for the night."
(facepalm!)
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 30, 2009 4:22 PM
Uh has anyone else looked at that link nostra2000 keeps posting? So pathetic, its almost sad...
Posted by: James Sweet | June 30, 2009 4:29 PM
@Phodopus: I didn't really understand it. Sometimes the crazy is more than I am able to wrap my head around on the first read. I did not give it the courtesy of a second read.
It's really sad when somebody comes along that clearly has serious mental issues, and there's nothing you can do about it because it's teh interwubz. There's a dude called Happeh on Orac's blog who, I swear to god, some of the things he says sound exactly like this guy I know right before he had a couple of psychotic episodes, one that involved jumping out of a second story window, and the other that involved being dragged naked from the house he lived at by ten cops while screaming about how everybody had to go up to the top of a mountain because the end of the world was coming.
nostra reminds me more of an angry 14-year-old than someone with a genuine mental illness, but then again other people here seem to be far more familiar with his history than I am.
Posted by: raven | June 30, 2009 4:30 PM
Why would they have to plan anything? Aren't they powerful supernatural beings who can do whatever they want, when they want? You aren't making sense as usual.
The crazy guy is boring. He could be more interesting by answering some relevant questions. Hey Dennis
1. How many times have you been picked up and locked away in the loony bin?
2. What medications are you supposed to be taking that you never take?
3. How many times have you had your internet account canceled for stalking, harrassment, and threats?
Bonus questions.
4. Do your neighbors grab their kids and pets and run away screaming when they see you? How many different voices do you hear in your head?
OK, guy. This is your opportunity to just once say something interesting.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 30, 2009 4:32 PM
What a stupid comment. Only a fuckwad would write such a thing.
(Don't say you didn't ask for that one, Miss Goody Two-Shoes.)
Posted by: nostra2000
|
June 30, 2009 4:34 PM
@raven
have you even bothered to follow the link...
rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=18366
Do you know that God is planning to exterminate you blasphemers?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 30, 2009 4:34 PM
Don't respond to him.
Just a little helpful info.
Posted by: Manduca | June 30, 2009 4:35 PM
I once had a profanity filter refuse to give me a message from a colleague because it contained the term "Scatchard analysis". Can you spot the objectionable phrase?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 30, 2009 4:37 PM
'Tis email me
Posted by: raven | June 30, 2009 4:42 PM
No, crazy people are boring. Besides, I just saw an Angel circling around in a fighter jet and there are tanks outside. They may be supernatural but they have lousy aims. A bomber took out the Baptist church a few blocks away.
Not enough time. Amuse us by answering the questions.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 30, 2009 4:45 PM
Umm. Ok, did he miss the part about how a sort of science is used to examine the "historical" aspects of things, or that deliberate efforts of some group **are** historical data? Or, well.. Point was, evolution may not cover such things, but when you want to know, for example, how a species who used to, in a religious context, baptize people in the nude, to one that acquired protestantism, then victorian BS, started using the very thing being expressed in advertising, and have thus held on to the idea that even psychologists, who bloody should know better, can go on national TV, babble BS about nudists, and whine about how they hated seeing all the old naked people while in Europe, and where a resort area can even go as far as banning pasties, because that just "too close" to being topless.
Point being? The psychological fear and loathing is insane, the result of, to a great extent, the very thing being suppressed. Empirically, we are better off if you "fixed" the problem, but historically (which is also empirical), we can see how and why attitudes are taking longer to change in the US than in Europe, and, more to the point, why the transition is ending up as fucked up as it is. All of it explainable by knowing the history, the active contributions of various groups to the stupidity of the situation, via evidence and facts that point to the consequences, etc.
Nothing is outside empirical examination, even social issues, and the reality is, most of the frakking problems are **due** to the fact that people use gut feelings, traditional thinking, or bullshit to "solve" social issues, and almost never use actual empirical data, except where that data has been collected, then analyzed, with the presupposition of "what" the correct outcome should be (i.e., its not collected scientifically, or analyzed with the intent to produce a valid conclusion). How do we know this? Because better studies, using "real" empiricism, shows it to be true.
But, seriously, the fact is, even you art preferences, music, books, etc. can be handled via science, to an extent. They can't say "why" you like them, without going into your psychology, but even then, they could probably work out a general statistical trend as to why you pick one set over another. But, what they can do is use what other people say they liked, compare it to yours, and make "fairly good" guesses as to if, collectively as a group, you will also like some other option. Its all either statistically, or directly determinable. Most of it is just stuff people don't **want** to know about themselves, and **want** to be some undefined mystery. They don't want to know why they like X books, instead of Y, etc. So, they imagine its "unknowable", and thus not something that can be explained by scientific methods, even in the "general" sense. This is simply false. The only non-quantifiable details are those that the person in question has forgotten or distorted, and.. that doesn't change anything, it just means that they like/hate/fear/etc. something due to the distorted event, not the original. Its **still** quantifiable.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
June 30, 2009 4:48 PM
James Sweet,
Ah, cool, thanks. I was genuinely puzzled, but that makes sense. The example you gave had me baffled, too, until you explained it, and even then, wow, that's some sensitive filter.
Manduca,
Seeing as how I've already demonstrated I'm lousy at seeing these sorts of things, I'm going to guess it's either "anal" in "analysis" or "scat" in "Scatchard."
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 30, 2009 5:04 PM
@James Sweet #113:
@Rev.BDC #118:
Aww! Thanks -
reading the history I'm really pretty speechless...
Posted by: Desert Son
|
June 30, 2009 5:05 PM
Whoops, I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
This calls for ice cream, both as a celebration of a beautiful summer day here in Austin (we finally got a cool spell roll through - the temperature plummeted 10 degrees and now it's only 95 F!), and as a way to get me away from the temptation to poke the . . . whatever it is.
Still, was interesting to learn about the profanity filter thing, so thanks to those who pointed that out.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Coleslaw | June 30, 2009 5:06 PM
Not just "anal" - "hard anal".
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 30, 2009 5:09 PM
It's sad that whenever PZ's away, the threads get infested with kooks and crackpots like nostra2000. Perhaps PZ should delegate his Hulk smashability to someone else while he is temporarily 'incapacitated' by forces of circumstance beyond his control, or called away on duty somewhere else...
I could, of course, use a killfile, but that makes the thread somewhat punctuated...
Ah, well! Killfile it is!
Posted by: monkeyboy | June 30, 2009 5:13 PM
Actually, we blasphemers are planning the death of your god. Nothing you say or do can change that.
Posted by: Social Democrat | June 30, 2009 5:17 PM
Coleman concedes to Franken. BUT, will Sen. Al really mean that much in terms of cloture, filibusters, etc.?
Posted by: Jimbo | June 30, 2009 5:22 PM
So, I think the argument is that as long as religion stays out of the laboratory, it is compatible with science.
In other words, science and religion are as compatible as water and fire: they're fine as long as they never meet.
Posted by: Fergus Gallagher | June 30, 2009 5:46 PM
Oh, PZ, what have you done? They may be christians, but surely they don't deserve the Mabus...
http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topic/show?id=2060181%3ATopic%3A171949
Posted by: Notagod | June 30, 2009 5:59 PM
If the only explanation you want is 'that music causes me to have an emotional response' then math isn't required. But, that also doesn't provide any explanation either. Math won't provide the complete answer because biology and past experience are also part of the emotional response. If you want to know why and how an emotional response occurs, science is going to provide the best answer.
Posted by: daveau | June 30, 2009 6:17 PM
While I have also studied Physics and Math, I have found that studying Music (theory, composition, harmony, instrumentation, etc.) helps give great satisfaction and appreciation of music. I think that almost any discipline can be applied to almost any other, but understanding theme & variation helps me much more with Bach than does the math behind harmonic series, or understanding how endorphins work.
And now I am violating my slippery slope rule of only reading Pharyngula at work. Give it a week and my home life will be shot. Oh, well...
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 30, 2009 6:25 PM
Some of the regular commenters here have mentioned (often quite forcefully) how much they dislike Smoggy Batzrubble's postings. I don't know... I somehow find his write-ups quite amusing, and he seems to be getting better with time...
Cheerio!
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 30, 2009 6:26 PM
@Jimbo #134
So, I think the argument is that as long as religion stays out of the laboratory, it is compatible with science.
Anybody making this argument forgets one thing: the world became a laboratory when the first sentient being opened its eyes in it. You don't have to wear a white labcoat to do science, looking and thinking is all it takes.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 6:36 PM
SmellyGirl,
Art. Morality.
Posted by: MikeS29
|
June 30, 2009 7:17 PM
@3
Certain artistic pursuits come to mind.... painting, music.
Not to say there shouldn't be scientific evaluation of those things, as of course there should be. PZ merely said "best tool."
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 7:18 PM
Now that I've had a chance to listen to some 1/2 hour of the audio:
How come PZ is a New Athiest, a biologist at UMM, and a blogger (?!? who knew?), but "Dennis" (if that is his real name...) is a Christian? Kind of patronizing.
Also, I resent the implication that music, for example, while not being a science, is a gateway to studies like theology simply because empiricism doesn't apply. Sure, we can agree on what "good" music is, but however we may study the discipline, there is no objective measure as to god or bad; there is only informed opinion. No such thing as empiricism.
So deciding on what song (or work) is the greatest composition ever, is much like religion: subjective. There is no right answer, and no ultimate truth. But for things that we can measure objectively, empiricism and science are the proper tools.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 7:38 PM
I guess at #124 I'm saying that what science can't rigorously examine, philosophy can.
(Whatever religion can address and examine, philosophy can too, but better and more rigorously. And far more credibly.)
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 7:50 PM
Oops, typo #126: "good or bad."
Freud would be proud.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 7:58 PM
Daveau, one can decide objectively whether particular music is "good or bad", if given suitably precise definitions of what constitutes good and bad music.
This is different to decisions on whether someone likes or dislikes particular music, which are of necessity subjective and idiosyncratic.
The conceptual problem arises when good:bad is equated with like:dislike.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 8:11 PM
John-
When you get a large group of musically educated people to agree on "precise definitions", let me know.
My point is that, although a musical education is required and standards apply, there is no empirical "truth." Let's argue a favorite composer; there is no way that you can prove that Stockhausen is a greater composer than Liszt or vice versa. There's just no objective standard. Just like theology. So, while theology may be a "legitimate discipline", it can never prove which religion, if any, is correct without an empirical method.
Posted by: Felix | June 30, 2009 8:14 PM
Ah, I see we have been cleaned up. Thanks PZ for wiping.
Posted by: Bryn | June 30, 2009 8:26 PM
Yoicks! It's not even football season, but we seem to be hip-deep in "Monday morning quarterbacks"....
Good job all in all in bad circs, PZ. Especially with dealing with a "facilitator" who was anything but.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 8:29 PM
Daveau, refer to fugue as an example of a definition precise enough to determine whether a particular piece of music is a fugue, and if so, whether it's good or bad fugue depending on how well it matches the discriminant criteria.
But yeah, I was being pedantic, referring more to your expression than to your intent.
As for theology, I consider it's just applied philosophy based on asserted arbitrary premises (which are not themselves defensible). Its utility, in my opinion, is long superseded.
Posted by: Joshua Fisher | June 30, 2009 8:33 PM
So he doesn't bring "god talk" into the laboratory, but:
Then there's all this that comes before it. Makes much less sense once you take the very soothing accent out of it :):
Posted by: amphiox | June 30, 2009 8:35 PM
Actually, if you think about it, the scientific method is the only way we can really know anything at all. All other so-called 'ways of knowing,' like intuition, appeal to reliable authority, etc, are actually at their fundamental base, simplifications of the scientific method that use a variety of short cuts to get around the fact that for some applications the scientific method on its own is very cumbersome and requires a tremendous investment of resources and time.
All these short cuts trade reliability for effort. You get a workably good enough answer for much less effort in much less time, most of the time, and you accept the risk of being nailed by that occasional set of circumstances in which your short cut fails and sends you down the garden path.
Religion is the biggest short-cut of all. You skip the whole shebang and make up an answer.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 30, 2009 8:52 PM
John-
Not disagreeing with you. Just commenting on the attitude of the interviewer, which seemed to equate science with music with theology. The biggest drawback to religion is that you are stuck with only one composer, or just one song. Can't possibly like anything else. Theology, as a discipline, I would imagine, would lead you to conclude that all religions are equally true (or false).
And, yes, I am aware of the rules for all the Baroque dance forms. (not being snarky. really.) However, I would argue that breaking a few rules can constitute creativity, or "poetic license", or genius.
Posted by: Steve | June 30, 2009 11:14 PM
I think someone should have said something about the effort that a scientist has to spend when challenged by some preacher who is not an expert in anything but making speeches and collecting money from fools.
Posted by: John Morales | June 30, 2009 11:29 PM
[personal]
Daveau, it's a pleasure to interact with you!
To the first, I am impressed (and you're way ahead of me).
To the second, well said; I'm entirely with you there. The deliberate, purposeful breaking of rules by those who undertand them is often as you say.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 12:11 AM
"The deliberate, purposeful breaking of rules by those who understand them is often as you say."
Yes, I agree. In any creative discipline the first step is to understand the rules (conventions) of a genre—learn how to recognize them, how to apply them, how to enforce them if necessary.
But the next step, the one all great artists take, is to discover how to break those rules so that the discipline is made new but not destroyed.
It's why so many great writers started by reading other great writers. Then emulating them. And finally, if they're fortunate, producing something no one else has before.
Whenever a leap forward is made a myriad of brilliant emulators follow shortly after. But how rare are the stellar individuals who make the first leap...
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 12:28 AM
[meta]
Happy Kiwi, the Smoggy persona is fantastic, but I reckon Pharyngula will give you exemption from morphing rules (like Janine has) ;)
I suggest you keep 'em separate, we regulars will get it, and the rest will get smitten!
Just a suggestion, but in the interests of potency for both of ya.
(an envious Aussie)
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 4:00 AM
I like Smoggy, they amuse.
Religion is one composer, who died a long time ago, but people have taken his most enduring song and done their own tacky cover versions of it. They then also tell you how to listen to it. The one true way of course.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 4:06 AM
Point taken, JM--not that I have any potency problems, you understand.
Problem is, HappyKiwi is such a boring twat, his idea of a good time is to use four squares of lavatory paper.
But I do concede the Smoggy posting like a normal person is like Ken Ham telling the creobots that the world is billions of years old.
Posted by: HappyKiwi | July 1, 2009 4:11 AM
BAN SMOGGY BATZRUBBLE!
He roots sheep and doesn't clean his teeth!
And he gives New Zealanders a bad name.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 4:14 AM
Say what?
...Noo Zillunders have a good name?
Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 4:19 AM
PZ,
Here is a response I've uploaded to my blog about your discussion with Dennis Alexander.
http://karmabuster.gaia.com/blog/2009/7/noospheric-evolution-science-and-religion
I would certainly be in agreement with you when it comes to criticizing a religious belief as regressive as young earth creationism, but I have to fundamentally disagree that there is some irreconcilable contradiction involved in taking both science and spirituality/religion seriously.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 4:37 AM
Wow! Mr Segal!
I love your movies, although that ponytail thing is a bit passe dontcha think?
As for science, it's a crock of shit. I'm a Christian and I should know. Take my advice and don't tell anyone that science is compatible with religion--if God finds out he'll kick your ass like it was on the wrong side of one of your films.
Yours in the hope of an afterlife, and harps and things.
Smoggy
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 5:01 AM
Matthew @145, it's Myers, not Meyers.
Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 5:09 AM
thanks John, I've corrected the misspelling...
Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 1, 2009 5:17 AM
thanks John, I've corrected the misspelling...
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 5:30 AM
Aaarrggh! New age doppelgangers. Twice the woo and double the incense!
Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 6:16 AM
@ 82,
Yeah but you see, it's all done in an attempt to elicit truth and knowledge ! Well, sometimes we're just pissed and feel like a little catarrhaic swearing I guess.
And if people would ignore the more insane nutters like the one above, until PZ gets the broom out, the threads would be much more pleasant, and easier to read.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 6:17 AM
@ 82,
Yeah but you see, it's all done in an attempt to elicit truth and knowledge ! Well, sometimes we're just pissed and feel like a little catarrhaic swearing I guess.
And if people would ignore the more insane nutters like the one above, until PZ gets the broom out, the threads would be much more pleasant, and easier to read.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 6:17 AM
@ 82,
Yeah but you see, it's all done in an attempt to elicit truth and knowledge ! Well, sometimes we're just pissed and feel like a little catarrhaic swearing I guess.
And if people would ignore the more insane nutters like the one above, until PZ gets the broom out, the threads would be much more pleasant, and easier to read.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 6:19 AM
Oh bloody hell !!!
Sorry,post from work on IE...
Posted by: Notary Sojack | July 1, 2009 9:01 AM
I always feel better after a catarrhsis.
My catahhropracter
says I'll be back up walking in no time.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 1, 2009 9:59 AM
John Morales-
Thanks. Right back at you. You and James Sweet have made me dredge up knowledge long forgotten.
Oh, yeah, I don't know all the forms anymore, but I remember that there are rules and generally how it's all supposed to work. In order to break the rules effectively, one must have the technical skills to work within them.
And, 24 hours later, I still like my music/religion analogy, which others have elaborated on. I think I'll use it next discussion with a non-atheist.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 1, 2009 11:11 AM
Smoggy & Kiwi, et al., are not the same person. They just happen to share the same IP address. And the same brain...
Posted by: Leander | July 1, 2009 5:59 PM
"...I rather specifically said there were phenomena for which science is not the best tool for examination (although I would also say that there are no phenomena which require something beyond natural mechanisms)."
If, as suggested in your comment in brackets, there "are no phenomena which require something beyond natural mechanisms", how should science (with which I assume you are referring to "natural" science - which is the method studying the very natural mechanisms you're implying to be the source of all phenomena) not be the best tool to study them ?
It's a cheap cop out. And it's obvious why. Because other than atheism - which is simply disbelief, and not on the same level as religious belief/dogma - scientism is basically a belief. Of course you'd wanna wiggle out of being accused of that. Sad thing is, you don't, even with that apologetic comment. To say that there "are no phenomena which require something beyond natural mechanisms" is simply an article of faith.
I suggest you man up and stop bashing others professing their faith, and own up to the fact that you're basically no different, in your belief that there "are no phenomena which require something beyond natural mechanisms".
Posted by: Leander | July 1, 2009 6:17 PM
And just to make sure, I don't really read or give a damn about any replies to my comments by anybody other than PZ, so don't waste your time. Obviously PZ has implicitly, and in this post explicitly made statements that are only supported by faith.
If he has issue with that observation, he's the one supposed to reply to that, with a post directly addressing that (but please not in the ridiculous way he addressed allegations of scientism in this post) - everything else I really don't give a f**k about.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 6:24 PM
Care to name a few?
Yet you took time to write that.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 6:32 PM
Good on you Brother Leander for saying "everything else I really don't give a f**k about"!!
As a fellow Christian I don't give a c*ck su*king, c*nt l*cking Fly*ing Fu*k about any of this godless sh*t either. So none of you dog b*ggering athe*sts need bother replying to me as well.
Like my Chr*st**n Brother Leander I'll be swearing off all science, and pray to Jesus when I start dying ff an*l cancer.
Yours in the L*ve of J*s*s Chr*st
Sm*gg*
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 6:52 PM
Leander:
You're a bit thick, ain't ya?
You make public comments, you're likely to get responses by the public. I don't consider it a waste of my time to point out to any casual readers that you're confused and slow-witted as evidenced by your misapprehension, and foolish to consider your pre-emptive claim of not caring about our responses is anything but a defense mechanism.
You don't want responses, don't post here — email PZ. You're not really interesting enough for him to include your inanity on one of his "I get email" postings, so you're probably safe from mockery should you do that.
Your suggestion is noted and duly sneered at.
Posted by: Miles Jordan | July 2, 2009 5:50 AM
Why does Denis Alexander think that God explains why something exists rather than nothing? The question can just be rephrased, "Why is there God rather than nothing?"
God is something too (if he exists) therefore it doesn't help to draw upon the character as an explanation for why something exists at all.
Posted by: stephen law | July 2, 2009 6:01 AM
Just doing some vanity surfing. If anyone is interested, the link you need for my Plantinga paper is this:
http://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2009/06/plantingas-belief-cum-desire-argument.html
Stephen Law
Posted by: stephen law | July 2, 2009 6:03 AM
Just doing some vanity surfing. If anyone is interested, the link you need for my Plantinga paper is this:
http://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2009/06/plantingas-belief-cum-desire-argument.html
Stephen Law
Posted by: JG | July 2, 2009 8:18 AM
Well played PZ!
Good thing you called him on his cheap evasive rhetorical tricks.
A slippery one he is. It's a subtle play from his side, to actually agree with you on the common sense points (no god in the lab) just insofar as not to be dismissed as another logic-impervious fanatic but at the same time to engage in subterfuge (god in cosmology/evolution *"rationally" required*) and advance the standard why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/goddidit nonsense. I'm not saying he did that consciously though.
However, it is rather refreshing to hear even a pretense of sophistication from the god-crowd.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 5, 2009 6:22 PM
PZ: Nice work. I think they were playing by unfair rules. The Christian scientist got to rattle on about many things off the subject. For instance his nonsense about it making sense that the he expects a [creator, deistic sort of] God out there. He never defends the Christian god, while claiming that it is compatible with science.
I think the only place to stand on this is to try to pinpoint where they believe in magic. Because they all do, if they are religious, especially the three Abrahamic flavors. Accepting magic in one place but not in their science is logically inconsistent. One must accept either cognitive dissonance and/or inconsistency to be a Christian scientist. Why don’t they apply the rigor they use in science (we hope) to what they seem to consider are “the most important questions” that there are? (I don’t think most of their important questions are worthy ones.) This is not really a reasonable stance for them. But we accept it more out of habit than anything else. (Just because they find the idea of Jesus comforting, doesn’t mean building their lives around it is sensible, consistent, or reasonable.)
Anyway. More power to you. I thank you for sticking your neck out with these goofs. Especially when the host will get the unchallenged last word.