221d
1 edit
@KellyJay saidDo you believe in science that only through science can we know anything? No.
Do you believe in science that only through science can we know anything? In
addition, are there things you are also prepared to say science cannot address, so
our knowledge if we must depend on science alone will always be lacking?
are there things you are also prepared to say science cannot address Yes.
so our knowledge if we must depend on science alone will always be lacking It is not a matter of lacking anything. It is a matter of delimiting fields of inquiry and applying appropriate methods of inquiry to different fields. Music is a nonrepresentational art form--that does not mean that music is lacking anything. It's not like photography or painting or other representational forms, it's a different 'field' and has different limits, that's all. Same with science; it has limits.
221d
@Suzianne saidAhmmm, ... that my mother loved me cannot be verified by science, but it's more than a matter of conjecture that she did.
What cannot be verified via science is known as conjecture.
OK, I get your point .... some things have to be taken on faith, and the transcendental realm is one of them.
220d
@moonbus saidWell, yes and no.
Ahmmm, ... that my mother loved me cannot be verified by science, but it's more than a matter of conjecture that she did.
OK, I get your point .... some things have to be taken on faith, and the transcendental realm is one of them.
First, I wasn't pushing the normal Christian idea that faith trumps science, or whatnot. My statement was more like "if science can't prove it, then it's a guess, at best. Faith without facts behind it is still "just a guess".
Now as to your assertion that science cannot prove that your mother loves you, I think it can provide corroborating evidence. Hook your ma up to a lie detector, or anything that measures body response, and I bet it would log a jolt when she got to your picture among a group of pictures of random people. While not "proof" of her love for you, it is strong corroborating evidence.
@Suzianne saidI sure wish somebody would hook Donald Trump up to lie detector. It would probably register on the Richter scale !
Well, yes and no.
First, I wasn't pushing the normal Christian idea that faith trumps science, or whatnot. My statement was more like "if science can't prove it, then it's a guess, at best. Faith without facts behind it is still "just a guess".
Now as to your assertion that science cannot prove that your mother loves you, I think it can provide corrobor ...[text shortened]... tures of random people. While not "proof" of her love for you, it is strong corroborating evidence.
Corroborating evidence is good enough in many cases for events which we can otherwise see, feel, smell, hear, and whatnot. Corroborating evidence is lacking for how everything began, which is KellyJay's go-to crush-all-counter-argument: 'if you don't know how everything began, you can't know anything at all.'
220d
@moonbus saidAhh, yes, but...
Music is a nonrepresentational art form--that does not mean that music is lacking anything. It's not like photography or painting or other representational forms,
One may not think that music can have a representational form, but I think it can. Music is experienced best with the sense of hearing, true, but this does not make it nonrepresentational. Recordings exist whereby one can hear exactly what people who were there in the room heard. So like a painting, or like a photograph, most people will have the same experience when they detect a representation of the work to their senses (audio). Hearing seems more nuanced than vision, so I can see your point, but I say that music is represented authentically in audio, just as painting or photographs are represented authentically in vision.
And then there is also sheet music. I can hear what a piece of sheet music should sound like when performed. Now I do not claim to have the fantastic gift for this as Mozart, or even Beethoven, but I can hear the different moving lines of notes in their interactive dance from looking at the page of the notes. Piano music (for example) basically has two moving lines, one for each hand, and I can sight read with the best of them. I've seen the sheet music meant for use by conductors and music instructors which list every single instrument and moving line, but that's way too much for me to "hear-see" all at a glance. Mozart could pump out reams of sheet music for something he heard in his head, and that was his inescapable talent.
I think, yes, the representation of music takes a different form than painting, or photographs, but I don't think it is any less representational than those.
220d
@moonbus saidYes, I've made known many times my differences in opinion with him and other religionists on Creation. It's kind of their big 500-pound bear in the room, but many still get that wrong, too.
I sure wish somebody would hook Donald Trump up to lie detector. It would probably register on the Richter scale !
Corroborating evidence is good enough in many cases for events which we can otherwise see, feel, smell, hear, and whatnot. Corroborating evidence is lacking for how everything began, which is KellyJay's go-to crush-all-counter-argument: 'if you don't know how everything began, you can't know anything at all.'
As for Trump, I, too, would love to see him "hooked up", but you and I both know that will never happen. His faithful will merely say "it was rigged to do that".
@Suzianne saidNo I don’t mean the representation of musical notes. I mean music is not representational in the sense that generally does not depict events or persons in the world, the way Homer’s Odyssey depicts a (fictional) journey or a portrait depicts a person. Music may of course evoke strong emotions, as devotional and gospel music do, but they don’t describe a devotional or mystical state of mind. Here too there are exceptions even for purely instrumental music; Smetana’s Moldau or Beethoven’s 6th Symphony, for example, come pretty close to depicting a great river and a mountain storm. And of course opera has the added dimension of actors singing text, so opera can be as representational as theater. “Remember me, but forget my fate,” — who could forget those dramatic lines !
Ahh, yes, but...
One may not think that music can have a representational form, but I think it can. Music is experienced best with the sense of hearing, true, but this does not make it nonrepresentational. Recordings exist whereby one can hear exactly what people who were there in the room heard. So like a painting, or like a photograph, most people will ...[text shortened]... nt form than painting, or photographs, but I don't think it is any less representational than those.
220d
@moonbus saidHow large do you think the transcendental realm is in reality? Do you put all of the immaterial world in this too?
Ahmmm, ... that my mother loved me cannot be verified by science, but it's more than a matter of conjecture that she did.
OK, I get your point .... some things have to be taken on faith, and the transcendental realm is one of them.
220d
@Suzianne saidDo you believe it is possible to validate something in science because of inaccurate informational assumptions that the validation could also be in error, and if so wouldn't that type of validation be the most grievous type of error?
What cannot be verified via science is known as conjecture.
@moonbus saidNow that I see your point more clearly, you're right.
No I don’t mean the representation of musical notes. I mean music is not representational in the sense that generally does not depict events or persons in the world, the way Homer’s Odyssey depicts a (fictional) journey or a portrait depicts a person. Music may of course evoke strong emotions, as devotional and gospel music do, but they don’t describe a devotional or mystical ...[text shortened]... sentational as theater. “Remember me, but forget my fate,” — who could forget those dramatic lines !
One other example might be Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev, another might be The 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky, although they both might be described as more evocative, rather than representational.
220d
@KellyJay saidErrors in validation do not uphold under scrutiny.
Do you believe it is possible to validate something in science because of inaccurate informational assumptions that the validation could also be in error, and if so wouldn't that type of validation be the most grievous type of error?
Errors are soon corrected. Assumptions don't really work in science. Assumptive experimentation literally does not exist (or should not exist). This is another reason for peer review.