What is a 'theory' ?

[blackout]

Music Theory is more of a mathematical theory, or formal logic, than a scientific theory as used in the scientific method.
"Music Appreciation" is not Music Theory. And as Frank suggested, is much more philosophical than a biological theory at the moment.

Well I was never speaking of "music appreciation".

I think Frank was speaking more about "Why" the human brain
experiences the frequency relationship of a minor chord as...
dark, sad, mystical, melancholy etc,
and that of a major chord as ... bright, "happy", light, contented....

Yes, music is largely mathematical (measurable patterns within a system),
but also largely hinged around tendencies.
(ie, things are named by "what they do", or "how they act")
I think this is the same for atomic/subatomic ....erm... activity? classifications?
Both defined by implicits AND tendencies.
Not that I know very much about atomic tendencies at all,
just that they exist, and I THINK are often identified more by what they DO,
than what 'they are'.
Is it not true that these particles can 'become' different things,
according to how they are situated/function within the system at large?
This also, is the same in harmonic theory (analysis).

 

[blackout]

UltraViolet,
Hi. Sorry for not responding sooner, but I had abandoned this post.
You ask a good question:

Music theory encompasses a wide range of areas which, on one side of the spectrum, deals with the psychology of the human experience of music, (which I trust is empirically based and therefore subject to falsification); but on the other side, there is a well established systematic construct consisting of clearly defined concepts, symbols and rules that formally govern music.

It was this formally defined system that I had in mind when referring to the non falsifiability of music theory. I could have been more specific.

I trust you agree that this area of music theory is “true” by definition, (i.e., it an a priori “truth”) which does not admit of empirical evidence for support or falsification.

Now if only I understood music theory, my lousy guitar playing might be tolerable to listen to.

Well this is what I am trying to lay to rest I think.

I'm not so sure that "music theory" (as in the 'rules' that goven how music is constructed) IS completely Priori.
Is the human ear not the very thing that admit's empirical evidence for support or falsification?
If I tell you that the seventh scale degree of a major scale is the "leading tone"
because it strongly leads (tendencies) up to the tonic/root (home base of the scale),
it is your own ear that evidences this (in support, or ... not...)

I dunno. Perhaps none of this is properly "scientifically" measurable.
And that's why it's something different altogether.
We rely on perception.
Of what we hear.
Of what we see.
in our ears,
or in a testtube.

How do we conclusively "measure" things that do not "fit" in,
proverbial 'test tubes'.

I'm probably done here,
unless someone can get at the center of my querry,
I'm taking up too much of this thread
exploring a particular
that is only of interest to me I think.

(and I am slowly losing interest)

 

[andys]

Ok, so you're saying that music theory (as in analysis and construction of Western music) is termed more as empirically observed data, than anything else.I can see that actually.
I guess it's a bit like arithmetic.
"2 + 2 = 4". The proof is in the observation of it.
"Dominant resolves to Tonic". The proof is in the observation of it. It just is.

Oops, not so fast: “1 + 1 = 2” is an a priori truth (true by definition only).

(Here is the actual proof (from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N.) N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates: (I'll colour it green)
-------------------------------------
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 )
----------------------------------------

Whew. As you can see, there is no observation involved in the proof for this elementary, mathematical truth. It is true by the definition provided above. That’s what makes it an a priori truth. In contrast, an a posteriori truth is based on solid empirical observation.

Now let’s examine the status of the other example you provided, namely, that in music theory, “Dominant resolves to Tonic.” Is this true by definition, or is it true based on empirical observation/evidence?

You can argue for the latter, but I would caution against such a move. Music is like the proverbial falling tree in the forest; does it make a sound? Yes, it makes a sound, but a sound is only a sensory perception, like a colour or a taste. Music makes a private sound that is perceived only in a person’s brain.

By its very nature, music (a perception) is a purely subjective experience.

This is not to condemn music as nonexistent, but only to rule out the possibility of empirical observation. Therefore, the assertion “the Dominant resolves to the Tonic” is, necessarily, true. True – only - by definition.

I see no escape from this conclusion (even though, I, myself, perceive “the Dominant resolving to the Tonic” whenever I strum a D chord in the key of G and return - “resolve” - to G Major).

The (frustrating) subjectivity of music, in my opinion, precludes the possibility of falsification. It is this subjectivity alone that precludes music theory from advancing to the status of a scientific theory.

I’m afraid this undeniable subjectivity of music condemns your following argument.

“If people listened to what is termed as a cadence, for example, and they heard no resolution, or a leading tone... that was not heard/observed "to lead", ...the very "terms" themselves would lose their "correctness of meaning".
The "Laws" of harmony, would be discarded, by default.

You now see, that if the subjective impressions of one or more individuals’ perceptions were admissible as legitimate empirical (objective) evidence, then our best scientific theories could easily be discarded—and without legitimate justification! Subjective accounts, by their very nature, are not objectively verifiable and must be inadmissible as any kind of reliable evidence.

The proof is in the observation. Is that priori [a priori]?

Just to get some terms straight, knowledge that is said to be a priori (pronounced ah pree-or-eye or ah pree-or-ee) is knowledge that is true by definition, prior to any observed knowledge. (E.g., “an unmarried man is a bachelor” is true a priori; its truth is known prior to experience).

If I could succinctly understand why music theory is not the same as scientific theory, I could probably come to understand the latter with better clarity.

I hope you may be closer now to finding the answer.

To briefly recap, a scientific theory is based upon an edifice of reliable, repeatedly testable, observations. At the foundation of the edifice is (1) a fact: an observable natural occurrence (say, gravity). Higher up is (2) a Law: a description of this natural occurrence, usually expressed as a mathematical equation, and finally (3) a Scientific Theory: a complete explanation of the observable natural occurrence (the how’s and why’s).

Where does this leave music? Without any reliable objective (empirical) evidence to call upon, no fact(s) can be obtained. So, any theory of music is doomed to remain true by definition, and can never be elevated to the status of a scientific theory.

But so what? That’s no disgrace. Music is no less wonderful. And music theory continues to teach and inspire students to grow as musicians and reap the benefits of understanding the complexities of this rich unique experience.

I think it best we leave the scientists out of it!

 

[Frank Merton]

You say you think it best we leave the scientists out of it. That is a bit much, and not supported by your otherwise excellent discussion.

That something must be "falsifiable" to be science is Popper-ism, and Popper, while important, is not the last word on what science can properly investigate.

The issue of qualia that I brought up earlier is an example. This is an important issue now in both philosophy and neurology -- and the latter is a science.

 

[Thief]

You say you think it best we leave the scientists out of it. That is a bit much, and not supported by your otherwise excellent discussion.

That something must be "falsifiable" to be science is Popper-ism, and Popper, while important, is not the last word on what science can properly investigate.

The issue of qualia that I brought up earlier is an example. This is an important issue now in both philosophy and neurology -- and the latter is a science.

So science is best at theory?

No such thing as theological theory?

Here at the forum....
most debate revolves around confusion between the two.

 

[Frank Merton]

So science is best at theory?

You read too much into what I said. Science has theories in it, but it is mostly just organized common sense, carried out by experts (people who have spent many years studying a certain sort of thing).

I would advise you to generally take the advice of experts, and to accept what they say. They tend to know more about a particular thing than you do. (I paraphrase the Buddha).

No such thing as theological theory?

I'm not sure what such a thing might look like. I suppose the Trinity might be said to be a "theory," since it is represented as an explanation of how God could have been in Heaven and on Earth at the same time. I dunno -- certainly theologians would reject that attribution, and certainly it is not a "scientific" theory.

 

[andys]

You say you think it best we leave the scientists out of it. That is a bit much, and not supported by your otherwise excellent discussion.

Strange that you take issue with my closing, light humoured remark. Nevertheless, I believe its implication (that music theory is not scientific) was well supported in my post.

Yet you retaliate only by accusing the (required) condition of falsification to be "Popperism". So be it. Do you take issue with falsification as an important requirement in determining the admissibility of a hypothesis into the arena of science?

The issue of qualia that I brought up earlier is an example. This is an important issue now in both philosophy and neurology -- and the latter is a science.

Your point, if there is one, escapes me. “Qualia” (the plural of “quale&#8221 is a term coined by the esteemed American philosopher C. I. Lewis in the late 1920’s. It refers to the raw sensations we experience, such as the colour red. Since the inception of philosophy, this concept has been at the heart of debate in every philosophy of mind and epistemology advanced. No doubt the human mind’s sensory experiences are of interest to the medical community. What of it?

Are you suggesting that such interest expressed by modern neurosurgeons should automatically elevate one’s private sensations to the level of observable phenomena?

That would be to confuse the subject of scientific enquiry with its status.

To reassert: The sensation of music -- by its very nature as a sensation -- is a subjective, private experience, inaccessible to other minds. This subjective-objective wall of separation from the external world denies the scientist access to our private, most inner sensations. Without such access, no empirical evidence can be obtained. It is this inaccessibility that precludes the possibility a scientific theory of music.

 

[andys]

So science is best at theory?

No. A scientific theory is the best of science.

No such thing as theological theory?

There is no such thing as a scientific theory of theology, since its subject matter is inaccessible to empirical investigation. Simple as that.

Here at the forum...most debate revolves around confusion between the two.

What "two" are you referring to? (In advance, I will offer this observation: most confusion at this forum is a result of pure negligence on the side of one party to be informed as to the meaning of the subject in question. For example, "scientific theory" is clearly defined and ought not to be a subject for debate. Yet here we are, engaged in a lengthy discussion, which is an exercise in avoidable futility. There are so many interesting topics to occupy our time, yet, again and again I find myself having to defend the meaning of a term whose meaning is well defined and well understood by the informed, yet is hotly contested by a lazy-minded rabble who would rather challenge the true meaning of a word or concept, to suit there personal agenda, than face reality and look it up in a dictionary.

 

[Frank Merton]

Strange that you take issue with my closing, light humoured remark. Nevertheless, I believe its implication (that music theory is not scientific) was well supported in my post.

I didn't see any support; it seemed an off-the-wall remark.

Yet you retaliate only by accusing the (required) condition of falsification to be "Popperism". So be it. Do you take issue with falsification as an important requirement in determining the admissibility of a hypothesis into the arena of science?

Retaliate? Huh? I think that falsifiability is a characteristic of most science, but I am not sure whether or not it is a good idea to incorporate it in science's definition. It might rule out things like economics and sociology, as well as a lot of modern physics and cosmology. This sort of thing sounds to me a way to prevent debate on something speculative -- just reject it by declaring it unfalsifiable.

Your point, if there is one, escapes me. “Qualia” (the plural of “quale”) is a term coined by the esteemed American philosopher C. I. Lewis in the late 1920’s. It refers to the raw sensations we experience, such as the colour red. Since the inception of philosophy, this concept has been at the heart of debate in every philosophy of mind and epistemology advanced. No doubt the human mind’s sensory experiences are of interest to the medical community. What of it?

I think it is best to avoid name-dropping lectures like that; they are too easy to obtain from simple Google searches. My point was that until we resolve the qualia debate, which seems unlikely at this point, we seem unlikely to understand the emotional effects of music on a physical level.

To reassert: The sensation of music -- by its very nature as a sensation -- is a subjective, private experience, inaccessible to other minds. This subjective-objective wall of separation from the external world denies the scientist access to our private, most inner sensations. Without such access, no empirical evidence can be obtained. It is this inaccessibility that precludes the possibility a scientific theory of music.

I think that these subjective experiences are critical to any comprehensive theory of existence, and I think reasoning about these things is science: if it is not science, we ought to look for ways to make it so. Music looks to me to be one possible approach.

By the way, are you aware of how glib and arrogant your answers seem, or is this just a subjective feeling only I experience?

 

[Thief]

No. A scientific theory is the best of science.


There is no such thing as a scientific theory of theology, since its subject matter is inaccessible to empirical investigation. Simple as that.

What "two" are you referring? (In advance, I will offer this observation: most confusion at this forum is a result of pure negligence on the side of one party to be informed as to the meaning of the subject in question. For example, "scientific theory" is clearly defined and ought not to be a subject for debate. Yet here we are, engaged in a lengthy discussion, which is an exercise in avoidable futility. There are so many interesting topics to occupy our time, yet, again and again I find myself having to defend the meaning of a term whose meaning is well defined and well understood by the informed, yet is hotly contested by a lazy-minded rabble who would rather challenge the true meaning of a word or concept, to suit there personal agenda, than face reality and look it up in a dictionary.

And this kind of rebuttal is what keeps it going.

Back to Webster's you should go.

 

[outhouse]

No. A scientific theory is the best of science.


There is no such thing as a scientific theory of theology, since its subject matter is inaccessible to empirical investigation. Simple as that.

What "two" are you referring? (In advance, I will offer this observation: most confusion at this forum is a result of pure negligence on the side of one party to be informed as to the meaning of the subject in question. For example, "scientific theory" is clearly defined and ought not to be a subject for debate. Yet here we are, engaged in a lengthy discussion, which is an exercise in avoidable futility. There are so many interesting topics to occupy our time, yet, again and again I find myself having to defend the meaning of a term whose meaning is well defined and well understood by the informed, yet is hotly contested by a lazy-minded rabble who would rather challenge the true meaning of a word or concept, to suit there personal agenda, than face reality and look it up in a dictionary.

I agree.

its matter of lack of education due too closed minded religious types that cant grasp that a scientific theory is just about fact as one can get.

the lack of education even stretches into creation itself as creationist websites tell their own whacko's not to debate scientific theory because it makes them look more ignorant, they flat say avoid these arguments because you will lose.

 

[andys]

Outhouse,
It's nice to hear I am not alone!

It is so troubling to me that there are so many people out there who belligerently refuse to face reality, only because they have a personal investment in some superstitious belief whose time has come and gone.

One example is the tedious "debate" over evolution. Here we have an agenda-driven attack on a certain scientific fact, waged by a disgruntled religious group interested only in preserving their comforting Iron Age beliefs. Truth is not a priority, it is a threat.

Hence, we find ourselves engaged in pseudo debates over the meaning of words or the truth of scientific theories, when, all along, there is no debate or clarification required. Rather than engaging in futile debates, these poor souls would be better off investing their time seeking counseling to help them adjust to the real world.

Fortunately, not all topics are contrived. Recently, UltraViolet queried as to whether music theory qualified as a scientific theory. That was an honest speculation and an interesting topic. No one who participated in this discussion had a vested interest in its outcome and we all expressed our opinions in the spirit of collaboration toward reaching an answer. How refreshing.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse,
It's nice to hear I am not alone!

It is so troubling to me that there are so many people out there who belligerently refuse to face reality, only because they have a personal investment in some superstitious belief whose time has come and gone.

One example is the tedious "debate" over evolution. Here we have an agenda-driven attack on a certain scientific fact, waged by a disgruntled religious group interested only in preserving their comforting Iron Age beliefs. Truth is not a priority, it is a threat.

Hence, we find ourselves engaged in pseudo debates over the meaning of words or the truth of scientific theories, when, all along, there is no debate or clarification required. Rather than engaging in futile debates, these poor souls would be better off investing their time seeking counseling to help them adjust to the real world.

Fortunately, not all topics are contrived. Recently, UltraViolet queried as to whether music theory qualified as a scientific theory. That was an honest speculation and an interesting topic. No one who participated in this discussion had a vested interest in its outcome and we all expressed our opinions in the spirit of collaboration toward reaching an answer. How refreshing.

frubals for you lol [you have plenty ]

its sad more then anything that so many minds are blinded to reality and want to drag humanity down with it despite its long term cost againt real education

 

[blackout]

Fortunately, not all topics are contrived. Recently, UltraViolet queried as to whether music theory qualified as a scientific theory. That was an honest speculation and an interesting topic. No one who participated in this discussion had a vested interest in its outcome and we all expressed our opinions in the spirit of collaboration toward reaching an answer. How refreshing.

Yes, and thank you andys, and Frank, for running this around with me.
It was by far one of the more interesting convos I've been in on the forum
in quite some time. (it also expanded my vocabulary)

I did finally come to a conclusion BTW.

What we hear (the exact nature of what we hear)
cannot be empirically "measured",
(in any scientific capacity)
though overwhelming numbers of "listeners" can be found to corroborate
('aparant') "subjective" agreement.
In some instances "subjective agreement" of 'the masses'
actually brings about a new objective reality.
Sometimes what appears "objective" in light of the masses however
is, in fact, only some arbitrary (and truly illusory) creation of man.
(our "money" for example)

Anyway, bottom line, this is why agreement of subjective observation
(about how and why a thing works... or what a thing "really" is...)
is something other than scientific theory.

 

[Frank Merton]

Anyway, bottom line, this is why agreement of subjective observation
(about how and why a thing works... or what a thing "really" is...)
is something other than scientific theory.

What do you (or anyone) think it might be? Is this a chink in the physicalist (aka materialist) armor?

 

[blackout]

Anyway, bottom line, this is why agreement of subjective observation
(about how and why a thing works... or what a thing "really" is...)
is something other than scientific theory.

What do you (or anyone) think it might be? Is this a chink in the physicalist (aka materialist) armor?

I think it is (aparant) agreement of subjective observation.

Science is more of a stringently exacting kind of thing.
Thus it will only ever be able to measure certain kinds of things
(with "scientific accuracy")
Other things, science will never be able to address.
(not that they are unaddressable in other ways)

Aparantely the perceptive nature of what we hear
will never (likely) be one of those things.

(though I suppose some new "measuring" device could change that)
But these things are way out of my field.

 

[Frank Merton]

Other things, science will never be able to address.
(not that they are unaddressable in other ways)

Aparantely the perceptive nature of what we hear
will never (likely) be one of those things.

My problem is that I don't think we have anything other than "science."

I had better elaborate and not leave that undefined, as the denizens about otherwise will start jumping up and down.

To my mind the only route to knowledge is observation and experiment (by ourselves, but mostly by taking the word of others we trust). Sometimes observations are unrepeatable (they are personal), and that does not rule them out.

To my mind the only route to understanding is to reason about the knowledge you have.

Isn't this what science is? Other definitions are possible -- especially when one gets into the institutional aspects of it (one does not want to spend millions on unrepeatable observations), but in the end science is experiment and observation, thereby accumulating knowledge (facts) and then thinking about these facts, thereby perhaps achieving understanding (in the form of theories).

 

[blackout]

My problem is that I don't think we have anything other than "science."

I had better elaborate and not leave that undefined, as the denizens about otherwise will start jumping up and down.

To my mind the only route to knowledge is observation and experiment (by ourselves, but mostly by taking the word of others we trust). Sometimes observations are unrepeatable (they are personal), and that does not rule them out.

To my mind the only route to understanding is to reason about the knowledge you have.

Isn't this what science is? Other definitions are possible -- especially when one gets into the institutional aspects of it (one does not want to spend millions on unrepeatable observations), but in the end science is experiment and observation, thereby accumulating knowledge (facts) and then thinking about these facts, thereby perhaps achieving understanding (in the form of theories).

Well I really don't know Frank.

I find that the longer I'm on these forums,
the more I realize that people define words and label things...
as they see fit(s).

I don't know why, I'm suprised to see this happen with the word 'science' actually.
Science is "supposed to be" a "just so" kinda thing. ? No?
But in the end, It's just another word, another label,
and we're all people busy packing and unpacking it.

I opened another thread not that long ago
asking what specifically qualifies religion as religion.
Based on the non consensis of that thread,

I will never know the (objective) answer.

My home is in the subjective.
The Objective world is just a place
I visit when I want to step out for a bit.
(like I attempted to do in this thread)

Music and magic are my life's practice.
I'll leave the science debates to those more suited.

Thanks for the convo.

 

[Frank Merton]

Well I really don't know Frank.

I find that the longer I'm on these forums,
the more I realize that people define words and label things...
as they see fit(s).

I don't know why, I'm suprised to see this happen with the word 'science' actually.
Science is "supposed to be" a "just so" kinda thing. ? No?
But in the end, It's just another word, another label,
and we're all people busy packing and unpacking it.

I opened another thread not that long ago
asking what specifically qualifies religion as religion.
Based on the non consensis of that thread,

I will never know the (objective) answer.

My home is in the subjective.
The Objective world is just a place
I visit when I want to step out for a bit.
(like I attempted to do in this thread)

Music and magic are my life's practice.
I'll leave the science debates to those more suited.

Thanks for the convo.

You of course are right; there is no way to know anything of the world except through our senses, and they are subjective. We call the activity of trying to organize our sensual inputs "experience," or "science," but in the end it ends up being art.

 

[newhope101]

Outhouse,
It's nice to hear I am not alone!

It is so troubling to me that there are so many people out there who belligerently refuse to face reality, only because they have a personal investment in some superstitious belief whose time has come and gone.
Rubbish!
One example is the tedious "debate" over evolution. Here we have an agenda-driven attack on a certain scientific fact, waged by a disgruntled religious group interested only in preserving their comforting Iron Age beliefs. Truth is not a priority, it is a threat.
The theory of evolution remains a theory in evolution
Hence, we find ourselves engaged in pseudo debates over the meaning of words or the truth of scientific theories, when, all along, there is no debate or clarification required. Rather than engaging in futile debates, these poor souls would be better off investing their time seeking counseling to help them adjust to the real world.
I have self esteem and do not call myself a craphouse. What about you?
Fortunately, not all topics are contrived. Recently, UltraViolet queried as to whether music theory qualified as a scientific theory. That was an honest speculation and an interesting topic. No one who participated in this discussion had a vested interest in its outcome and we all expressed our opinions in the spirit of collaboration toward reaching an answer. How refreshing.

Theories vs. theorems
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation.

Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory
Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html?full=true

I believe your TOE has been falsified on many occasions. Punctuated evolution, accelerated evolution, convergent evolution etc, are illustrations of the evolution of your theory as it is refuted time and time again. Chaos theory gives further clues.

Your theory is the only thing that is evolving around here on a macroevolutionary scale.