How many employed design engineers read /post

[Vladimir]

Why do we crave to be in groups? Because those that ran low on gregarious instincts aren't among us. It's called evolution. Basically our ancestors that were more social, better organized and more communicative, lived on to pass the genes. Others didn't. Music is a biproduct of that process. If music didn't serve a usefull practical purpose at some point in our evolution, it would not exist today.

I can't go indepth on this at 1am on a hi-fi forum really. But I asure you musicologists, ethnologysts, neurologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and sociologists researched and have an explanation(s) on the matter. It's only a mystery if you don't read any of their published materials.

 

[pauln]

Try googling Robin Dunbar - it's right up his street, I'm sure he'll have a theory or two.

Also here: www.economist.com/node/12795510

 

[andyjm]

...Everything about music, electronics and acoustics, including psychoacoustics, is explained already, many years ago. You just didin't bother reading it....

This is a common problem around here. A number of posters are of the "science doesn't understand it" school of thought, when what they mean is "I don't understand it".

The interminable discussions about sample rate, bit depth, dynamic range, frequency response, cable effects and so on are symptomatic of this. Given that there are only 2.5 people who post on here (on the basis of this thread) who have actually had to design something acoustic for a living, I guess it is not surprising that they get drowned out.

 

[drummerman]

I don't think so, anyone who tries to explain an emotive piece of music in scientific terms probably has some form of autism.

Classic line

 

[Vladimir]

The whole point of any hobby really is to play an expert with your wallet. Deeper the wallet, higher the expertise.

 

[drummerman]

The whole point of any hobby really is to play an expert with your wallet. Deeper the wallet, higher the expertise.

Oh I don't know. There are some people on here with systems I can only dream of and they seem to retain a certain humility, humbleness and open mindedness.

 

[SteveR750]

Try googling Robin Dunbar - it's right up his street, I'm sure he'll have a theory or two.

Also here: www.economist.com/node/12795510

Thanks, Paul; interesting link!

This is a common problem around here. A number of posters are of the "science doesn't understand it" school of thought, when what they mean is "I don't understand it".

The interminable discussions about sample rate, bit depth, dynamic range, frequency response, cable effects and so on are symptomatic of this. Given that there are only 2.5 people who post on here (on the basis of this thread) who have actually had to design something acoustic for a living, I guess it is not surprising that they get drowned out.

I think that's being somewhat disingenuous, I think the majority of regular poasters are genuinely interested with an open mind (i.e. somewhere between the extremes mentioned earlier). The question of *why* embraces a much bigger group of scientists.

I can't go indepth on this at 1am on a hi-fi forum really. But I asure you musicologists, ethnologysts, neurologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and sociologists researched and have an explanation(s) on the matter. It's only a mystery if you don't read any of their published materials.

Time, mostly. I've not read much about it, for many reasons inappropriate to go into. One of the beauties of the internet is that it's so much easier to share knowledge (such as Paul's links above, no matter how superficial they are, it's a start).

I don't subscribe to your theory of the relationship between the amount of money you spend on your kit and your level of intelligence / open mindedness, in fact some of the most open minded and reasonable posters are the ones with the expensive systems.

 

[matt49]

#3 = #1 in that list.

'Science can't explain music therefore electronics and psychoacoustics are a mystery' argument is very prevailing in #1. I'll have to dissapoint the gentlement in #1, everything about music, electronics and acoustics, including psychoacoustics, is explained already, many years ago. You just didin't bother reading it. Do you think musicians at Berkeley or Julliard just wank wires and blow trumpets directly wired to their 'hearts' and 'souls'? They learn, knowledge.

Nothing man-made is a mystery to man. Creation of the Universe is a mystery, not music and definitely not uninteligent domestic electromechanical appliances such as hi-fi.

Sorry, Vlad, you don't know what you're talking about. Do you actually know how sexual selection works in humans? Do you know what mental illness is? Do you fully understand the world economy? Can you explain the outbreak of WWI? Do you know why people are so strongly affected by King Lear or Oedipus Rex? And can you explain all these things using scientific models? No, of course you can't. Because as things stand, nobody can.

You seem to be a classic victim of scientism: the belief that the reductive scientific method applies equally everywhere. Evolutionary psychology is a case in point. The truth content of EP is, as far as I can see, close to zero. (And before you accuse me of not having read the stuff: I have, plenty of it, from Tooby and Cosmides onwards. I’ve also published on it.)

The EP stories about, say, the invention of music or story-telling are fiction. From a certain perspective they’re attractive fiction, but fiction they remain: Just-So stories, for which there isn’t a shred of evidence. I think you’ll find most people in the scientific community take this view. Serious evolutionary biologists tend to be rather embarrassed by EP — a misuse of the neo-Darwinian model by people who often don’t understand it.

 

[Covenanter]

It seems to me that we have wandered a long way from the OP. I certainly agree that the effect that music has on people is a mysterious thing and that we haven't got close to understanding that. But, and it's an enormous BUT, hifi kit isn't complicated and the science behind it is well understood, indeed probably one of the best understood parts of science. This is particularly true of the stuff in the middle, the electronics. The transducers that convert sound into electric signals and vice versa are very imperfect devices but the basis science is understood.

Chris

 

[Vladimir]

Sorry, Vlad, you don't know what you're talking about. Do you actually know how sexual selection works in humans? Do you know what mental illness is? Do you fully understand the world economy? Can you explain the outbreak of WWI? Do you know why people are so strongly affected by King Lear or Oedipus Rex? And can you explain all these things using scientific models? No, of course you can't. Because as things stand, nobody can.

Of course I can. Tax payers spent 16 years of education on me, it would be daft if I couldn't. People who are experts in the specialized fields can and do much better at explaining the real world (call a philosopher or a priest for everything else). Nothing really exists outside the realm of mater and energy. No spirits, no ideas, no factor X. Everything that is mater/energy can be explained with working scientific models. If we haven't so far, we will. It's not scientism, it's science. If faith and optimism in science based on its yield is called scientism, I'm the biggest fan of the ideology.

That 'scientism' creates silicon carbide wafers, prolongued human lifespan three times than before average and engineers 242t aluminium cans flying 45,000 feet in the air etc.

Not everything is explained by science fully or adequately or sufficiently in certain areas. But what is man-made is no mystery to man. Or should I say it shouldn't be. You are covering areas such as DNA research, particle physics and audio signal transmition under the same blanket. By casting your skepticism on 'scientism' (ironically) you are leaving a doggy door for foo pseudoscience. All a snake oil salesman needs is a 'maybe' and 'quantum'. Are you unaware of this or you just came in for a chat?

 

[Vladimir]

To an electronics engineer everything a neurologist knows is a mystery and vice versa. Someone who has developed an expertise in the interdisciplinary field of these two should bridge that gap.

 

[SteveR750]

Sorry, Vlad, you don't know what you're talking about. Do you actually know how sexual selection works in humans? Do you know what mental illness is? Do you fully understand the world economy? Can you explain the outbreak of WWI? Do you know why people are so strongly affected by King Lear or Oedipus Rex? And can you explain all these things using scientific models? No, of course you can't. Because as things stand, nobody can.

Of course I can. Tax payers spent 16 years of education on me, it would be daft if I couldn't. People who are experts in the specialized fields can and do much better at explaining the real world (call a philosopher or a priest for everything else). Nothing really exists outside the realm of mater and energy. No spirits, no ideas, no factor X. Everything that is mater/energy can be explained with working scientific models. If we haven't so far, we will. It's not scientism, it's science. If faith and optimism in science based on its yield is called scientism, I'm the biggest fan of the ideology.

That 'scientism' creates silicon carbide wafers, prolongued human lifespan three times than before average and engineers 242t aluminium cans flying 45,000 feet in the air etc.

Not everything is explained by science fully or adequately or sufficiently in certain areas. But what is man-made is no mystery to man. Or should I say it shouldn't be. You are covering areas such as DNA research, particle physics and audio signal transmition under the same blanket. By casting your skepticism on 'scientism' (ironically) you are leaving a doggy door for foo pseudoscience. All a snake oil salesman needs is a 'maybe' and 'quantum'. Are you unaware of this or you just came in for a chat?

Not everyone conforms to the somewhat arrogant human existentialist view of the universe. It's a rather clumsy explanation of the me.

 

[pauln]

The EP stories about, say, the invention of music or story-telling are fiction. From a certain perspective they’re attractive fiction, but fiction they remain: Just-So stories, for which there isn’t a shred of evidence. I think you’ll find most people in the scientific community take this view. Serious evolutionary biologists tend to be rather embarrassed by EP — a misuse of the neo-Darwinian model by people who often don’t understand it.

That's a very sweeping statement and reminds me of the scientific communities initial reaction to Darwins theories of evolution and Galileos assertion that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe. Is there any reason why evolution should not have shaped some aspects of human behaviour and if not, what did?

 

[Vladimir]

The EP stories about, say, the invention of music or story-telling are fiction. From a certain perspective they’re attractive fiction, but fiction they remain: Just-So stories, for which there isn’t a shred of evidence. I think you’ll find most people in the scientific community take this view. Serious evolutionary biologists tend to be rather embarrassed by EP — a misuse of the neo-Darwinian model by people who often don’t understand it.

When wolves howl for mating or whales or dogs or humans, that's called music. Why is that story-tellling and fiction? It fits perfectly well in the Darwinian model and surves a purpose in our evolution. It's so simple, it's embarassing to even discuss what music is. Bald apes putting on a show to get laid and eat better. Need I post lyrics?

 

[matt49]

Of course I can. Tax payers spent 16 years of education on me, it would be daft if I couldn't. People who are experts in the specialized fields can and do much better at explaining the real world (call a philosopher or a priest for everything else). Nothing really exists outside the realm of mater and energy. No spirits, no ideas, no factor X. Everything that is mater/energy can be explained with working scientific models. If we haven't so far, we will. It's not scientism, it's science. If faith and optimism in science based on its yield is called scientism, I'm the biggest fan of the ideology.

That 'scientism' creates silicon carbide wafers, prolongued human lifespan three times than before average and engineers 242t aluminium cans flying 45,000 feet in the air etc.

Not everything is explained by science fully or adequately or sufficiently in certain areas. But what is man-made is no mystery to man. Or should I say it shouldn't be. You are covering areas such as DNA research, particle physics and audio signal transmition under the same blanket. By casting your skepticism on 'scientism' (ironically) you are leaving a doggy door for foo pseudoscience. All a snake oil salesman needs is a 'maybe' and 'quantum'. Are you unaware of this or you just came in for a chat?

Right, so you don't know what scientism means. Fine. I'll try to explain.

First an analogy. Let's agree that everything in the universe is bounded by the fundamental laws of physics. Nothing in the universe, and more to the point no valid explanations for anything in the universe, can contradict those laws. That doesn't mean that those physical laws have any explanatory force over, say, cancer or sexual selection or mental illness . No sensible physicist would claim that they do. If we want to understand cancer, we need explanations that operate at a different level. We call them biology and biochemistry. They conform to physics, but physics doesn't tell us anything useful about them.

This is my point about EP. We can agree that all animal life is bounded by evolutionary science (as well as by other branches of biology). That doesn't mean evolutionary science has any explanatory force when we come to study Bach's Cantatas. The notion that apes make noise to attract mates tells us nothing of interest about Bach's Cantatas. To understand them we need to operate at a different level of explanation, which we call musicology and which uses a different set of methods (history, musical theory, aesthetics etc).

Scientism is the habit of employing scientific models at the wrong explanatory level; it amounts to using the wrong tool for the job. That's why most EP is scientistic, not scientific.

As for your comment about philosophers and priests, I can only think that you don't know anything about the philosophy of science. Recently I've been working with a group of psychiatrists and neuroscientists on the philosophy of mental illness. (As you'll have guessed, I'm a university professor.) These are world experts in their field of science, and they are firmly of the view (which is by no means untypical) that philosophy has a lot to tell them.

So it's not me who's leaving the door open for pseudo-science; it's you.

It seems to me that we have wandered a long way from the OP. I certainly agree that the effect that music has on people is a mysterious thing and that we haven't got close to understanding that. But, and it's an enormous BUT, hifi kit isn't complicated and the science behind it is well understood, indeed probably one of the best understood parts of science. This is particularly true of the stuff in the middle, the electronics. The transducers that convert sound into electric signals and vice versa are very imperfect devices but the basis science is understood.

Chris

Agreed.

 

[pauln]

As you'll have guessed, I'm a university professor.

As is Robin Dunbar:

Dunbar became Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at University of Liverpool, but he left Liverpool in 2007 to take up the post of Director of the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford

Yet you dismiss his subject as fiction.

I guess that's an example of the intense 'rivalry' that often occurs between scientists with different ideas.

 

[matt49]

As you'll have guessed, I'm a university professor.

As is Robin Dunbar:

Dunbar became Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at University of Liverpool, but he left Liverpool in 2007 to take up the post of Director of the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford

Yet you dismiss his subject as fiction.

I guess that's an example of the intense 'rivalry' that often occurs between scientists with different ideas.

He's done some excellent work, especially his stuff on primate societies. The problem with his theory of the evolution of human language (i.e. that it's the human analogue of grooming in primates -- BTW note how different this is from Vlad's willy-waving theory) is that there isn't really much evidence for it. He says there's a correlation between social complexity and brain size in primates. OK, but case not proven.

And then consider all the alternative EP theories of the origins of language, e.g. language as an evolutionary product of hunting methods or of mate selection or as an evolutionary spandrel or exaptation (resulting from brain complexity?). Ask Steven Pinker, and he'll give you a quite different answer, as will Noam Chomsky, as will Stephen Jay Gould (well, when he was alive he would have). Given the current state of our knowledge, there's very little to choose between them.

What all of the EP theories have in common is that they try to imagine an environment (the 'environment of evolutionary adaptedness') that doesn't exist and has left no unambiguous evidence behind. No fossil record, no clear genetic evidence. As I said in an earlier post, from a certain perspective these are attractive theories. But they're highly speculative. I think 'fiction' describes them well.

And when we get on to the subject of the origins and functions of art, things become even more speculative.

 

[Vladimir]

Right, so you don't know what scientism means. Fine. I'll try to explain.

I am quite aware what scientism means. I simply approve of it.

And then consider all the alternative EP theories of the origins of language, e.g. language as an evolutionary product of hunting methods or of mate selection or as an evolutionary spandrel or exaptation (resulting from brain complexity?).

Human brain has been measured (EEG and fMRI) and it is determined that music is part of the language centers. Empirical data. Proof. Get a dog or a bird or watch National Geographic to see that music is language, music is communication and all animals employ it. Music is no mystery.

Surely this thread is not the place to wank on the eternal academic positivism vs subjectivism debate.

 

[Vladimir]

As you'll have guessed, I'm a university professor.

That explains the arrogance. *nea*

 

[Native_bon]

...Everything about music, electronics and acoustics, including psychoacoustics, is explained already, many years ago. You just didin't bother reading it....

This is a common problem around here. A number of posters are of the "science doesn't understand it" school of thought, when what they mean is "I don't understand it".

The interminable discussions about sample rate, bit depth, dynamic range, frequency response, cable effects and so on are symptomatic of this. Given that there are only 2.5 people who post on here (on the basis of this thread) who have actually had to design something acoustic for a living, I guess it is not surprising that they get drowned out.

Nicely said. Humans are just selfish. Most who post here has got nothing to do with the truth but about self fulfillment. Well, the state of our world says it all!!

 

[matt49]

Surely this thread is not the place to wank on the eternal academic positivism vs subjectivism debate.

That explains the arrogance. *nea*

Sorry, Vlad, not going to stoop to that level.

 

[Vladimir]

Surely this thread is not the place to wank on the eternal academic positivism vs subjectivism debate.

That explains the arrogance. *nea*

Sorry, Vlad, not going to stoop to that level.

When you took my disagreeing with you as me not knowing elementary terms and went on schooling me, you stooped way deeper. Willy-waving theory eh? "You surely realized I'm a university professor..." *ROFL* I've had more enlightening convos about science with TED talk fans (with less appeal to authority). But even this is nice, to refresh my memory of first year at the Uni. *wink*

 

[matt49]

When you took my disagreeing with you as me not knowing elementary terms and went on schooling me, you stooped way deeper.

Earlier you made an approving reference to your own 16 years of education, so I assumed you liked being schooled.

Willy-waving theory eh?

Yes, not a personal comment about you, but a shorthand description of your theory that humans create music to appeal to prospective mates, i.e. as a form of willy-waving.

"You surely realized I'm a university professor..." *ROFL* I've had more enlightening convos about science with TED talk fans (with less appeal to authority).

Not an appeal to authority but an appeal to experience, as I made clear. My experience of working with scientists (which is part of my day job -- oh sh*t, I've just appealed to authority again!) is that philosophy can help to move science forward. It was an argument against your attempt to diss philosophy by tarring it with the same brush as religion. No more and no less.

But even this is nice, to refresh my memory of first year at the Uni. *wink*

I'm sorry you had a bad time at uni and felt all your professors were arrogant. Most people who go to uni don't share that view. Last year in the UK govt's National Student Survey of final-year undergrads, 100% of the students in my dept gave our teaching the highest rating. Oh sh*t, I'm being arrogant again!

 

[Vladimir]

All is well then.

We can continue willy-waving about hi-fi.

 

[Paul.]

All is well then. We can continue willy-waving about hi-fi.

I hope you both do. Page 9 was significantly more interesting than the rest of the thread. Have at it...

(Just to confirm, I meant the discussion, not the descending in to argument bit)