Classical Music Forum banner
61 - 80 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
For anyone trying to place a judgement on whether instrumental music can offend the listener, What gives you the right to judge another person's belief system? Would it not be better to seek understanding of someone's belief rather than condemn that belief as irrational? People can and do go the extreme on any topic of discussion. See Discussion threads on Reddit regarding Occult Classical music.
I will certainly not enter a cesspool like Reddit for such as discussion...
As someone already wrote above, some people nowadays will be offended by anything.
We had once supposedly reached a stage with most adults going by the maxim "...but words can never hurt me". This has been almost reversed. Language has to be policed, we need warnings for all kinds of arts and literature (far beyond horror, violence and sexuality where there might be some rationale for such warnings), all kinds of censorship creep into schools, libraries etc.

Nobody is forced to listen to classical music (unlike some popular music one can hardly escape when shopping) and very little has a obvious connections to the "occult", e.g. none of the Strauss and Rachmaninoff selections in the first post have that (The Isle of the Dead is basically a graveyard, like the funeral isle in Venice, there is no reason to assume that any necromancy is going on there).
As we have also already seen there is far more opportunity to be "offended" by religious music, even if half of the text is taken straight from the bible, as in the "Ave Maria". Again, unless one lives in a very catholic area, it seems unlikely that such music would be forced on someone.

So overall, I do think there is reason for judgement here because the exaggeration of sensitivity, i.e. being very easily offended, is something overall bad for almost everyone.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
463 Posts
I will certainly not enter a cesspool like Reddit for such as discussion...
As someone already wrote above, some people nowadays will be offended by anything.
We had once supposedly reached a stage with most adults going by the maxim "...but words can never hurt me". This has been almost reversed. Language has to be policed, we need warnings for all kinds of arts and literature (far beyond horror, violence and sexuality where there might be some rationale for such warnings), all kinds of censorship creep into schools, libraries etc.

Nobody is forced to listen to classical music (unlike some popular music one can hardly escape when shopping) and very little has a obvious connections to the "occult", e.g. none of the Strauss and Rachmaninoff selections in the first post have that (The Isle of the Dead is basically a graveyard, like the funeral isle in Venice, there is no reason to assume that any necromancy is going on there).
As we have also already seen there is far more opportunity to be "offended" by religious music, even if half of the text is taken straight from the bible, as in the "Ave Maria". Again, unless one lives in a very catholic area, it seems unlikely that such music would be forced on someone.

So overall, I do think there is reason for judgement here because the exaggeration of sensitivity, i.e. being very easily offended, is something overall bad for almost everyone.
I have absolutely never met this in the circles I'm moving in. I can listen to an Ave Maria as music as in Monteverdi Vespers even though I do not agree at all with the theology or sentiment. What appears to be more the victim of cancel culture is white western music which is under attack from music colleges at the moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,108 Posts
Isn't it funny that many of the so-called 'scientific' theories that were propagated when I was a lad have now been debunked. They were not based on physical evidence but merely theory. There is actually 96% of what goes on in the universe that we don't actually know about. But why are you derailing this thread? What on earth has this to do with music?
I wonder what theories you have in mind? But as you say they were theories - presumably ideas that fitted with the physical evidence available at their time and were formally expressed so that they could be more rigorously tested. This testing might indeed lead to the theory being debunked and replaced by one that is even nearer the truth.

As for what it all has to do with music, good question but given pianozach's post that you were responding to it would seem to point to the mad ideas that a significant part of our global population can believe in. These crazy ideas can be promoted as legitimate alternatives by law ... a tendency that can have parallels with attempts to ban some - or, in the case of some adherents to fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, all - music. The dismantling of the Enlightenment represents a danger to many areas of life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
"merely theory" is a misleading. There is no clear distinction but a continuum between well-tested and established theories and those with rather weak connection to data. Obviously many ideas and hypotheses (that become "theories" if they are worked out to some extent) in speculative areas like fundamental physics or cosmology will be abolished after a while (but laymen will often never have heard of them as they only lived for a few years in physics journals). Sure, some stuff, like the ice age warnings of the 1970s, became popular but that's an exception.

There are plenty of examples in softer sciences where theories/ideas etc. (and correspondingly also recommendation or therapeutic measures) have changed a lot during the last half century. There are some very controversial things here so I will go with something comparably harmless: Diet recommendations. Most of the 1960s-90s recommended low fat and 5+ small meals per day but it seems that this was both inefficient and leading to "yoyo effects" for people wanting to lose weight. And the success of low carb (and relatively high proteine and fat) diets and intermittent fasting with only two meals a day seems to show that these recommendations were quite wrong overall. Nevertheless it was state of nutritional/dietary art for almost half a century and people who challenged it were denounced as cranks (they often were cranks, I guess but they were still correct in some aspects of their criticism).

But this has very little to do with the topic of this thread. A common thing could be that like in nutrition there are similar scare waves wrt occult practices. There was a panic in the 80s (or even 90s?) with a lot of made up stuff about abductions for satanic rituals etc. that was very probably widely exaggerated. Nevertheless it could be that nowadays we are in a phase where we underestimate the bad consequences of dabbling in the occult (this could be true with a purely naturalist explanation of the occult)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
463 Posts
I wonder what theories you have in mind? But as you say they were theories - presumably ideas that fitted with the physical evidence available at their time and were formally expressed so that they could be more rigorously tested. This testing might indeed lead to the theory being debunked and replaced by one that is even nearer the truth.

As for what it all has to do with music, good question but given pianozach's post that you were responding to it would seem to point to the mad ideas that a significant part of our global population can believe in. These crazy ideas can be promoted as legitimate alternatives by law ... a tendency that can have parallels with attempts to ban some - or, in the case of some adherents to fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, all - music. The dismantling of the Enlightenment represents a danger to many areas of life.
For example there were still scientists expousing the steady state universe when I was a kid. Many theories about the origins of life presented as 'fact' have been found to be fantasies (including Piltdown Man!) that is not to debunk science but to point out it is a constant quest. When I did research on superconducting it was a relatively new field at the time. At one time it was believed metals had a resistance at absolute zero . Now it is advanced considerably
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
Few if any major scientific theories have been ‘debunked’ or ‘overturned’ - theories are models used to make predictions and explanations - theories are not simple explanations like the steady state universe or Piltdown man. Newtonian mechanics, evolution, electromagnetism etc remain completely valid, even as later research finds areas where the theory was incomplete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
The Piltdown man was an outright forgery, not a discarded or obsolete scientific theory.

"Steady state universe" is "theory" in the same way the "Big Bang theory" is a theory, i.e. a special application/model of General Relativistic cosmology (or modification thereof as one needs some tweaking to get a steady state).

And of course there are major scientific theories that have been overturned. That's why we have the term "scientific revolutions", even if it is often exaggerated, it is often closer than the idea of a steady growth of a body of knowledge (especially if one goes beyond chemistry and physics towards biology, psychology etc. not even starting with economics or sociology...)

That a theory can still be usable in some areas or approximately does not mean that some other claims were really just wrong. (Which is fine, the more problematic stuff is "not even wrong"...)

E.g. when I dabbled a little bit in evolutionary psychology (as a student but it was not a major) around 2000 it apparently was established that "we" were basically like early stone age people in almost all respects (that is, not much evolutionary change in humans in the last ca. 30k years or more), that any irreducible group selection was a myth (it was all Dawkins egoist genes) etc.

Now group selection seems to have made some comebacks, it is claimed that evolution actually goes faster in civilization and there was huge evol. development in the last few thousand years (like lactose tolerance, or even in a few 100 years since the late middle ages, e.g the "weeding out" of males prone to violent crime by draconic punishments and executions between ca. 1400s and 1800s). And via "epigenetics" mechanisms are considered that would have been called Lamarckist nonsense in the 1990s. These are not minor points but considerable modifications or rebuttals of established substantial claims.

Or another favorite: When I first encountered the Drake equation about estimating the probability of ET life in the mid-1990s we had not yet discovered any exoplanet, so one factor favored to explain the apparent rarity of ET life was that planets in general and especially earth-like planets admitting life were super-rare.
This aged very badly... of course it was not a "theory" just one factor in a guesstimate.

Anyway, this has almost nothing to do with the topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,924 Posts
Isn't it funny that many of the so-called 'scientific' theories that were propagated when I was a lad have now been debunked. They were not based on physical evidence but merely theory. There is actually 96% of what goes on in the universe that we don't actually know about. But why are you derailing this thread? What on earth has this to do with music?
Simple.

You remarked that you had not heard of the "one comma" age of the earth.

I thought that meant you wanted some sort of explanation. I tried to do that without any bias in my answer.

No need to get überpissy and ultra defensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
960 Posts
For example there were still scientists expousing the steady state universe when I was a kid. Many theories about the origins of life presented as 'fact' have been found to be fantasies (including Piltdown Man!) that is not to debunk science but to point out it is a constant quest. When I did research on superconducting it was a relatively new field at the time. At one time it was believed metals had a resistance at absolute zero . Now it is advanced considerably
Piltdown Man has nothing to do the origins of life.

What kind of research did you do on superconducting (sic)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
The Piltdown man was an outright forgery, not a discarded or obsolete scientific theory.

"Steady state universe" is "theory" in the same way the "Big Bang theory" is a theory, i.e. a special application/model of General Relativistic cosmology (or modification thereof as one needs some tweaking to get a steady state).

And of course there are major scientific theories that have been overturned. That's why we have the term "scientific revolutions", even if it is often exaggerated, it is often closer than the idea of a steady growth of a body of knowledge (especially if one goes beyond chemistry and physics towards biology, psychology etc. not even starting with economics or sociology...)

That a theory can still be usable in some areas or approximately does not mean that some other claims were really just wrong. (Which is fine, the more problematic stuff is "not even wrong"...)

E.g. when I dabbled a little bit in evolutionary psychology (as a student but it was not a major) around 2000 it apparently was established that "we" were basically like early stone age people in almost all respects (that is, not much evolutionary change in humans in the last ca. 30k years or more), that any irreducible group selection was a myth (it was all Dawkins egoist genes) etc.

Now group selection seems to have made some comebacks, it is claimed that evolution actually goes faster in civilization and there was huge evol. development in the last few thousand years (like lactose tolerance, or even in a few 100 years since the late middle ages, e.g the "weeding out" of males prone to violent crime by draconic punishments and executions between ca. 1400s and 1800s). And via "epigenetics" mechanisms are considered that would have been called Lamarckist nonsense in the 1990s. These are not minor points but considerable modifications or rebuttals of established substantial claims.

Or another favorite: When I first encountered the Drake equation about estimating the probability of ET life in the mid-1990s we had not yet discovered any exoplanet, so one factor favored to explain the apparent rarity of ET life was that planets in general and especially earth-like planets admitting life were super-rare.
This aged very badly... of course it was not a "theory" just one factor in a guesstimate.

Anyway, this has almost nothing to do with the topic.
Psychology is a social science so theories do come and go

But I would challenge you to name a single significant scientific theory that has been overturned - scientific 'revolutions' actually are just expansions and refinements of established theory in response to new data not sufficiently explained by existing theory - General Relativity did not overturn Newtonian gravity, it just turned out that Newtonian gravity is a specific case of GR
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
463 Posts
Simple.

You remarked that you had not heard of the "one comma" age of the earth.

I thought that meant you wanted some sort of explanation. I tried to do that without any bias in my answer.

No need to get überpissy and ultra defensive.
Defensive? Why should I get defensive? Please don't project your own insecurities
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
463 Posts
Yes, your conflating abiogenesis with "physical anthropological" was amusing.
Just a confusion of your own mind, dear friend. I did actually assume everyone here was intelligent enough to know that Piltdown Man had nothing to do with abiogenesis when I mentioned it as a fun aside . But I'm glad you made it clear just in case anyone didn't!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,108 Posts
For example there were still scientists expousing the steady state universe when I was a kid. Many theories about the origins of life presented as 'fact' have been found to be fantasies (including Piltdown Man!) that is not to debunk science but to point out it is a constant quest. When I did research on superconducting it was a relatively new field at the time. At one time it was believed metals had a resistance at absolute zero . Now it is advanced considerably
OK, got you. I think we agree. To the part of your post that I have highlighted I would add that we get ever closer to the truth so that even the fallacies you expose - but not the Piltdown Man which was a fake - were closer than non-scientific alternatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
We have scientists which will kill to promote their believes and truths, so talibans are state enemies of the scientists? :lol: some people seem to be worried about how people can think on their own and rely on their own rational faculty to question the authorities. People need to think more like Sherlock Holmes not so discursively into random sciences. Sherlocks does not care about astronomy, all he knows is what he needs in his work and life. We should be more sensible to our changing environments that are most affectingour lives, financial corruptions, political manipulations, economic disparities.

It is good to dream about the stars and the ancient people had been doing that and charted the stars, made the best observatories untill we have satellites to compete with. So we are going to discredit the ancient people as stupid and fear-bent primitives? We are not that special in either science even less in art. We can not even take good care of ourselves.

The science I am most concerned about is why the crazy global deforestations can not be stopped? how many species have gone extinct and why people do not care? why 2008 crisis happened and chinese bubble continues to grow and is allow to grow untill it consume the whole global resources; how american surplus capitals colluding with kmrxist money to exploit global real estate bubbles and cheap labor force, how hypocritical and unethical our global corporations have become?; how rapidly growing surplus capitals flowing between countries make people poorer and the natural environments more uninhabitable; how difficult and painful are the lives under growing poverty and how deceitful is the excuse of common prosperity for international capitals buying chunks of souveraign territories in Africa, South America.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
463 Posts
OK, got you. I think we agree. To the part of your post that I have highlighted I would add that we get ever closer to the truth so that even the fallacies you expose - but not the Piltdown Man which was a fake - were closer than non-scientific alternatives.
I always smile at the Piltdown man because it made its way into an encyclopaedia I had as a kid as a 'fact' together with a load of other scientific 'facts' which have now been debunked or fallen from grace. Extraordinary the advances that have been made - I mean, a video call when I was a kid was something out of Dan Dare! Now we can have live opera streamed from New York to the cinema. Incredible! Always amuses me when people set one thing up against another. If people want to choose what they listen to or not listen to it doesn't make them 'talibans' - just people exercising their choice in music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
When people bite the baits of random astrophysical fodders, like alien Drake equation, blackhole pics, gravity waves that are detected with billionth of a nanometers variations in length of a measuring rod. They are investing billions and billions onto these experiments just to make some sensations. Actually financial math has become far more complicated than astrophysical applications. Music, nature, life belong to the core interest of everybody`s Sherlock.

General relativity is based on the undergraduate level of Riemann Geometry and Newtonian laws, and the Special R is on Laurentz law which is also undergraduate level. But financial math now requires a mature math master to do, the stochastics and time series also the random process are a hell of deep water math. I love science too why do not start with some financial math? I think I am sticking to the topic of science: This is called the "financial science."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Stop looking at the fake starlights, look at this, what do you think? Is it a really good deal for people?

The Quantum Financial System Explained

The Quantum Financial System (QFS) is a megalithic financial structure that has been given to Mankind by the Heavens. I call it a megalith because it stands alone as the most advanced Financial System that anyone could imagine. This technology has no peer on the earth. It is a magnificent system, designed to take on the magnitude of accounting needed to balance every financial transaction in the world in real-time.

The QFS is housed in the MEGA Quantum Consciousness (QC) often called a computer. This Quantum Conscious is Divine Consciousness that is being made available for us to use in this Third Dimension. The tools it brings are necessary for us to usher in the Golden Age of Mankind. The QFS is a ledger accounting system made up of individual accounts. The QFS is only one of many Applications already housed in the QC ready to be implemented.
QFS claims to block bankers from secret double dealing, and also to be a Golden Apple from heaven. :lol: Will you bite it and why?
Quantum Financial System - Why World Needs It Now!

...

The Black Hats had been able to turn this world any way they wished. They were all sold out to satan who directed their evil ways. Many people say they don't believe there is a satan, but it's not the case with this satanic worshipping, demon possessed, dirty, filthy 'people'. They know he's real, just as they know he has a thirst for children… the younger the better.
Quantum Financial System removes all their power!

These 'people', although they were stock-piling huge amounts of gold, silver and precious metals they had robbed out of all the countries around the world, always had a hunger for more.

So they planned to put into action a completely new financial system which could not be tampered with in any way. To this end, the QFS (Quantum Financial System) was born. This system tracks every coin, knowing where the coin came from and to whom it is going. It's method prevents all fraudulent business transactions.

This system is clean and pure. Meticulous care was taken to ensure no dirty money is transferred over on to it. This system has undergone the most exacting testing.

We all have had our bank accounts added to it already. It's so good to know this new system takes away all the power from corrupt politicians, corrupt 'royal' households etc. who were involved in ch/ild tr/afficking and ped/ophilia, to say the least. With no method to transfer money, they are dead in the water!

Many have no idea of what our politicians have been up to. Virtually every government world-wide is corrupt and wicked. Gradually over the next couple of years, it will all be released to the general public. Those who want the details earlier, will be able to find them.
This is your science :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: pianozach
61 - 80 of 107 Posts
Top