Thread: The Limitations of Science and the Danger of Scientism

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Are scientists who don't know how to play a musical instrument more qualified than musicians who are not scientists at making music?

The reason I asked for clarification is that this question is completely and utterly irrelevant to our discussion, so I was hoping you actually meant to ask something else--you know, a question that would advance the discussion. Obviously I would rather listen to music made by someone who, surprise, knows how to make music. Is there a point here?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Would you rather listen to music made just for your likes and dislikes by a scientist or would you rather listen to music by a musician who is not a scientist who is expressing what he/she wants to express and likes?y

Again, what on Earth are you trying to get at here? The question at hand is whether the methods of science can tell us anything about music, not what my musical preferences are.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I admit, I am biased towards the musicians here, I am a musician myself and I think that it is so easy to pick up a guitar and play something people like because I am a person also with a brain and a heart. I think that if I were a scientist it would be impractical if not impossible to experiment on the brain in a lab with cat scans and electrodes and eeg monitors, etc.

I am sure there is a coherent point hidden deep.... very deep... in here somewhere.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

You mentioned that you agree that there are limits to science, just that art and music are not. Well, OK, agree to disagree, but what do you think the limitations of science are?

Hey, a relevant question. For one, it can't answer questions about morality. All the cause-and-effect facts in the world are not sufficient to render an action moral or immoral; that is for each person to decide. (Although see here for an interesting and provocative argument to the contrary.) In a recent thread, we talked about the mysteries of consciousness and free will. It is not at all clear to me that these are scientifically tractable questions even in principle. Finally, basically all metaphysical questions, almost as a matter of definition, are untouchable by scientific methods. For example, what is the nature of personal identity? Or identity in general? What does it mean to "cause" something? What does it mean for an event to be "possible" or to be "probable"?

The number of philosophical questions which can never be addressed by science is staggering, which makes it all the more puzzling that you seem so stuck on a couple of the easy problems about which science actually can have something to say.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I can think of so much: dance? I guess what I am trying to say is that even if I were a scientist who studied music and the brain and dance and art and the brain it would all still remain a mystery to me. And I think that that mystery is the essence of good music. As in, you can tell when a musician has a great technique but no "soul" in his music. And I say soul, but don't think that I mean anything paranormal here. I just mean that something indefinable in the music that exalts it. You can have a cover band play a song note for note, timber for timber of the original artist and it might have no "soul" to it.

Okay... so anyway, moving us back on topic, several posts ago I outlined what a science of beauty in music would look like, and I'm still waiting for you to point out why this method either (a) could not work in principle, or (b) is not science. I feel that I've been pretty damn clear about the issue and I'd appreciate it if you would cut the rambling and do the same. Clarity is a virtue in writing, so take your time if you have to... please.