# People who don't care about evidence



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Just how the hell do you talk to them and get through to them?

Don't worry, this isn't a religious discussion; I'm talking generally about people who either seem completely impenetrable to an evidence-based mindset, or who just have never really encountered the idea of empiricism and so think that intuition and anecdote are actually worthy ways of discovering the nature of things.

I ask this because I was just having another discussion with someone about whether music is a language or not. By talking about their syntactical properties, I quite simply (and tersely) demonstrated that, though some analogies can be useful, music is not a language in itself because it does not have units that convey thoughts and ideas directly; an essential property of language.

The retort was two-fold, repeated without the acceptance of challenge:

1) Language can be used musically (as in poetry), therefore music is language (non-sequitur of the year!).
2) "My proof is in practice ... wordy retorts are inefficient."

Their "practice" was the use of an image where language was supposedly used "musically." In my "wordy retort" (2 paragraphs), I had sufficiently taken the analogy apart.

My problem is that these people are not exceptions. These people are the rule. Vast, zombie-thinking swathes of idiotic humans do not open themselves up to the importance of stringent definitions, of evidence, of argument, of discussion. How do we make progress with such folk?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Feed them gingerbread men decorated as Santa.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I don't agree with you totally on this one Polednice, but I respect your position. I think I understand your premise, but I think it takes "evidence" too far as an overriding thing that makes one persons position superior to another. Humans are emotional by nature. Evidence is helpful, it can straighten things out if it needs to(and some people frustratingly lack the ablity to ever go there), but there are more irrational things at work in all of us and sometimes you just can't fight them. I'm not smart or wise enough often to understand the truth and lose out anyway, and there are often impure emotions behind my motivations anyway that I have to be conscious of. I sometimes take this a little too far.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Pole, do you really think of "Is music a language?" as the sort of question that can be discussed evidentially (scientifically)? 

Music has some of the properties we normally associate with language. It doesn't have all of them. That's about all there is to say.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"1) Language can be used musically (as in poetry), therefore music is language (non-sequitur of the year!)."

That is a special kind of non-sequitur. I don't have the formal training to come up with the definition of the fallacy, but if the statement had been "Language can be used musically, therefore language is music", one only needs to add 'sometimes' at the end to make the statement valid. The problem isn't idiocy, it's not understanding rules of logic. Eh?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Pole, do you really think of "Is music a language?" as the sort of question that can be discussed evidentially (scientifically)?
> 
> Music has some of the properties we normally associate with language. It doesn't have all of them. That's about all there is to say.


It doesn't have the crucial element: music cannot convey specific information. So it ain't language. (.)


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

At the casino where I work, New Year's Eve is a HUGE event. Our Player's Club (a casino loyalty program) made three lists: people who are invited to the party and will be first on the list to get a free room, people who are invited to the party and will be next on the list to get a free room, and people who are only invited to the party and will not receive a free room. We will open up a waiting list for people who are on property to get a room, and the expected rate for such a room would be around $500 (four times the normal rate). We were completely booked for Dec. 31 _two weeks ago_, yet people who didn't even receive an invitation insist that we must still have rooms left! The conversation goes something like this:

*Them:* Do you have any rooms for New Year's Eve?
*Me:* I'm sorry, but I do not. We are completely booked for New Year's Eve. If you received an invitation in the mail, I can put you on a waiting list, though.
*Them:* I didn't get an invitation. What about across the street at the Horseshu [our sister property]?
*Me:* I'm afraid not.
*Them:* Well, I have a coupon for a free room. Isn't that good for anything?
*Me:* No--like I said, a room for New Year's Eve is by invitation only, and we're already sold out.
*Them:* But I always get these coupons! Why didn't I get an invitation?
*Me (thought, not said):* Because you don't spend enough money.
*Me (said):* I don't know. The Player's Club made the list of who's invited...
*Them:* Fine--how much would a room be if I pay for it?
*Me:* If you're on property on December 31, we can put you on a waiting list for a room. If you do get a room then, you can expect to pay close to $500.
*Them:* How likely do you think it would be for me to get a room?
*Me:* Well, you had to receive an invitation just to be put on a waiting list, and that list is already as long as my leg...
*Them:* So you're basically telling me I've got no chance.
*Me:* Yeah.

The only way I could get it through to them that we don't have room was by explaining the situation in as extreme terms as I could: "You had to receive an invitation _just to be put on the waiting list_ and that list is already as long as my leg."

To get it through to people who refuse to understand, you have to reduce it to the simplest, most extreme (and therefore most understandable) terms possible.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> Just how the hell do you talk to them and get through to them?
> 
> Don't worry, this isn't a religious discussion; I'm talking generally about people who either seem completely impenetrable to an evidence-based mindset, or who just have never really encountered the idea of empiricism and so think that intuition and anecdote are actually worthy ways of discovering the nature of things.
> 
> ...


I think the best method is to point out logical fallacies to other people, in an uncondescending way, using practical analogies that they can understand, for the lapses in reasoning which we are all prone to. In my experience, this does tend to work, as often as not.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Show me evidence that they are un-progressive or are thinking incorrectly. See the problem here?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That is a special kind of non-sequitur. I don't have the formal training to come up with the definition of the fallacy, but if the statement had been "Language can be used musically, therefore language is music", one only needs to add 'sometimes' at the end to make the statement valid. The problem isn't idiocy, it's not understanding rules of logic. Eh?


It is indeed a logical fallacy, but it's past midnight here, and I can't think what the Latin name for it is. But you are right.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I don't agree with you totally on this one Polednice, but I respect your position. I think I understand your premise, but I think it takes "evidence" too far as an overriding thing that makes one persons position superior to another. Humans are emotional by nature. Evidence is helpful, it can straighten things out if it needs to(and some people frustratingly lack the ablity to ever go there), but there are more irrational things at work in all of us and sometimes you just can't fight them. I'm not smart or wise enough often to understand the truth and lose out anyway, and there are often impure emotions behind my motivations anyway that I have to be conscious of. I sometimes take this a little too far.


I'm not someone who thinks that we ought to divorce ourselves from all emotions in all circumstances. However, when our focus is on finding out the _truth_ about something, we have a duty to utterly disregard all of our emotions, all of our irrationalities, and all of our prejudices, because they do nothing but cloud our perception.



Webernite said:


> Pole, do you really think of "Is music a language?" as the sort of question that can be discussed evidentially (scientifically)?
> 
> Music has some of the properties we normally associate with language. It doesn't have all of them. That's about all there is to say.


Yes, it can be discussed evidentially when the proposition is (as was in this case) "Music _is_ a language. This is not an analogy." It takes two minutes to tear that assumption apart, and you did so yourself by pointing out that there are similarities and differences, meaning that it _is_ an analogy; not an exact likeness. The point I made about syntax is evidence against the proposition.



regressivetransphobe said:


> Show me evidence that they are un-progressive or are thinking incorrectly. See the problem here?


This is a problem I have been considering a lot lately - it was what partly inspired my "confidence in your beliefs" thread. I cannot say that I am thinking "correctly" or that they are thinking "incorrectly" - I don't think those statements make sense. What I can say is whether or not someone is thinking _usefully_ - whether they are thinking in such a way that is likely to bring them to a provable answer to a question, based on the successes of certain methods in previous lines of inquiry. Evidence-based thinking gets a big tick here. Intuition does not.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I think the best method is to point out logical fallacies to other people, in an uncondescending way, using practical analogies that they can understand, for the lapses in reasoning which we are all prone to. In my experience, this does tend to work, as often as not.


I did attempt to point out the logical fallacy, although, like others on this thread, I wasn't aware of the fancy shmancy Latin word for it - I just pointed out how it didn't work by expanding the logic a little.

Maybe I just came across a particularly annoying individual!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> [...]
> Maybe I just came across a particularly annoying individual!




You seem to come across a lot of those. Bad neighborhood?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You seem to come across a lot of those. Bad neighborhood?


Indeed - the internet.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think one big issue is that you can interpret the same evidence in different way. Eg. make different conclusions from the same evidence. That's what the legal system is built on, our adversarial system anyway, two legal advocates arguing both sides of the case before a judge & in some cases, a jury. It's similar in many fields, eg. science, economics, political sciences, theology, etc. Somebody above said to the effect that to argue about these things is human nature. Well, it probably is. WE inevitably take sides in these debates, the "us" and "them" mentality. That's what I don't like. When it denigrates into point scoring and mud-slinging. If somebody makes a point I hadn't thought of, I try to give them credit for that. Of course, often it's hard when I am passionate about an issue or a viewpoint.

Bottom line is that not everything, actually I'd say most things are not black and white matters in real life. They are usually shades of grey, many many shades of grey. Think of the many shades of grey, across the spectrum from "pure" black to "pure" white in a black and white photograph. That's kind of the way I see many of these arguments, and also many matters and small dilemmas, choices I have in everyday life...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Bottom line is that not everything, actually I'd say most things are not black and white matters in real life. They are usually shades of grey, many many shades of grey. Think of the many shades of grey, across the spectrum from "pure" black to "pure" white in a black and white photograph. That's kind of the way I see many of these arguments, and also many matters and small dilemmas, choices I have in everyday life...


I'm not saying that this is what you meant, Siddy, but I think a common misconception is that when people give great weight to evidence-based thought, they are trying to introduce a black-and-white approach to the question at hand. On the contrary, given the inherent admission in science that nothing is ever absolutely true, I think it is evidence that introduces us to the shades of grey, and combats our intuitions which - precisely because they are intuitive - feel so right, so black-and-white perfect, even though they may me ridiculously wrong.


----------



## AmateurComposer (Sep 13, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Just how the hell do you talk to them and get through to them?
> 
> Don't worry, this isn't a religious discussion; I'm talking generally about people who either seem completely impenetrable to an evidence-based mindset, or who just have never really encountered the idea of empiricism and so think that intuition and anecdote are actually worthy ways of discovering the nature of things.


The fact that many people ignore evidence has been a fact of life throughout human history, and maybe even prehistory. The Latin expression _ignoratio elenchi_ (ignoring the relevant issue) shows up in many debates (especially political and religious) and has been reflected in many prejudices. Sometimes this is because of a deliberate desire to maintain a pet opinion in spite of the evidence, such as when the discovery of Aristarchus of Samos that the earth moves around the sun and not vice versa was rejected by his ancient greek contemporaries on the grounds that the gods live here on earth. And today, how many people, scholars included, claim and believe that Copernicus is the discoverer of the heliocentric system when the evidence is clear that Aristarchus did so centuries earlier.

One may forever complain about that as well as other faults of human nature. Can anything be done about it? Things did change throughout history, but not everything, and _ignoratio elenchi_ seems to be among the latter.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Yes, it can be discussed evidentially when the proposition is (as was in this case) "Music _is_ a language. This is not an analogy." It takes two minutes to tear that assumption apart, and you did so yourself by pointing out that there are similarities and differences, meaning that it _is_ an analogy; not an exact likeness. The point I made about syntax is evidence against the proposition.


Well, you're assuming that the word "language" has a deeper meaning than the way it's used.

"Language" is a word, and like all other words, it's meaning is fuzzy. Whether music is a language is a matter of linguistic usage. Likewise, I don't see any fundamental difference between saying "Chopin is a poet" and "Keats is a poet." I'm just using the words differently. The definition of the words is created entirely by how we use them. There's nothing to appeal to beyond that.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Just how the hell do you talk to them and get through to them?
> 
> Don't worry, this isn't a religious discussion; I'm talking generally about people who either seem completely impenetrable to an evidence-based mindset, or who just have never really encountered the idea of empiricism and so think that intuition and anecdote are actually worthy ways of discovering the nature of things.


The only thing you can do is accept the fact that it's unlikely you will change their minds. And save your energy for discussions with open-minded people which will hopefully be more rewarding.

One of my 'pet' irritations is dog owners who insist that when their pooch licks their face, said pooch is giving them a 'kiss'. No. The animal is trying to make them regurgitate food & also likes the taste of salt (sweat). As far as I know human animals are the only animals which exchange saliva as a demonstration of affection. Dogs certainly don't.

No amount of thoroughly researched evidence will make owners change their minds so I don't bother now.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> Well, you're assuming that the word "language" has a deeper meaning than the way it's used.
> 
> "Language" is a word, and like all other words, it's meaning is fuzzy. Whether music is a language is a matter of linguistic usage. Likewise, I don't see any fundamental difference between saying "Chopin is a poet" and "Keats is a poet." I'm just using the words differently. The definition of the words is created entirely by how we use them. There's nothing to appeal to beyond that.


And by extension, my leg is a poet...

I don't want to get into a big debate on semantics, but language, though malleable, works by having generally accepted definitions. The words "language" and "poet" don't mean anything the hell you like depending on how you feel like using them, that would be useless anarchy. The words remain open to a degree of interpretation, but in the case of a word like "language", there are some fundamental definitions widely accepted (such as having the attributes of grammar, syntax and so on). The person I mentioned fully acknowledged this definition anyway, because they made a point of saying that their comparison was not an analogy and that music _does_ have these attributes. Well, on an evidential basis, it is demonstrable that music does _not_ have syntax.

Though hard to pin down, there's no use in saying it's all fuzzy so let's not bother. What we have to do with fuzzy words is agree on a definition to start with before then having the discussion. In this case, we both agreed on the definition including grammar and syntax, meaning that it can be simply shown that he was wrong to use the word "language" in the way he did.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Welcome to my extended family. Family gatherings usually involve me not saying anything because it would be drowned out by swathes of stupid.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> And by extension, my leg is a poet...
> 
> I don't want to get into a big debate on semantics, but language, though malleable, *works by having generally accepted definitions*. The words "language" and "poet" don't mean anything the hell you like depending on how you feel like using them, that would be useless anarchy. The words remain open to a degree of interpretation, but in the case of a word like "language", there are some fundamental definitions *widely accepted* (such as having the attributes of grammar, syntax and so on).


OK, but the fact is that lots of people _do_ say things like "the language of music," "the poet of the piano," etc. And everyone knows what these things mean, which is not the case with "my leg is a poet."



Polednice said:


> The person I mentioned fully acknowledged this definition anyway, because they made a point of saying that their comparison was not an analogy and that music _does_ have these attributes. Well, on an evidential basis, it is demonstrable that music does _not_ have syntax.
> 
> Though hard to pin down, there's no use in saying it's all fuzzy so let's not bother. What we have to do with fuzzy words is agree on a definition to start with before then having the discussion. In this case, we both agreed on the definition including grammar and syntax, meaning that it can be simply shown that he was wrong to use the word "language" in the way he did.


The person you were arguing with sounds stupid, no doubt. But I'm too much of a pessimist (Brahmsian) to share your 18th-century belief that arguments can be boiled down to logic and then one person can be "shown" to be wrong and the other right.

I think you have Christopher Hitchens's ghost on your side, though.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Polednice said:


> ...in the case of a word like "language", there are some fundamental definitions widely accepted (such as having the attributes of grammar, syntax and so on).


In light of this- I have to ask earnestly...

Have your Literature Studies covered late James Joyce, yet?!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> OK, but the fact is that lots of people _do_ say things like "the language of music," "the poet of the piano," etc. And everyone knows what these things mean, which is not the case with "my leg is a poet."


Yes, I have no problem with descriptions like those because they are obviously meant as metaphors. This particular person just made a point of saying that "music is a language, it really, really is!" and I was showing that the metaphor works, but an exact comparison is nonsense. 



Chi_townPhilly said:


> In light of this- I have to ask earnestly...
> 
> Have your Literature Studies covered late James Joyce, yet?!


Hahaha, I'm a medievalist so you won't see me touching anything post-Chaucer - not even Shakespeare!  In your joke is a fair point though, so I will qualify my definition of language by saying that I am discussing it from an anthropological point of view, i.e. how it functions on a simple social level, rather than how it can be exploited in self-conscious art. Of course, the effect Joyce achieves is dependent on the syntax necessary to language, simply so he can defy it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have read a number of articles recently on this exact subject. Apparently emotion is closely tied to how data is interpreted. If someone is presented with data along with negative emotions (the presenter is viewed negatively, the obvious interpretation is viewed negatively, etc.), that data may not be remembered or may be viewed with suspicion. In fact, there is evidence that studies that elicit negative emotions may actually reinforce the original belief. 

There was a study that gave a fictitious researcher's bio (went to a top level school, member of National Academy of Sciences, published many topical articles in pier-reviewed journals, currently professor at good school). The study then showed results from a climate change paper from that researcher. In some cases the results supported anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and in other cases the results refuted AGW. The study lated asked how the subjects viewed the researcher. Those who believed in AGW rated the researcher more respectable if the results supported AGW, and those who did not believe AGW rated the researcher more respectable if the results did not support AGW. In all cases the researcher's bio was identical.

Unfortunately, I do not have references for the articles I read. 

One way around this problem is to present data or theories along with something that elicits positive feelings. For example, many conservatives who are skeptical about climate change are also strongly religious. For those people, if a respected religious figure presents climate change not in terms of data from scientists but rather as a threat to God's creation, they may be more receptive.


----------



## CountessAdele (Aug 25, 2011)

@mmsbls:
So in short, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. 

This reminds me of how some people can easily talk others down. For instance, when a fight is about to break out and nobody can get through to the aggressor, it takes someone who knows how to explain things like a friend 'looking out' for the aggressor for him to be able to accept it. I suppose if you can seem amiable and open minded to the person you're debating with then they will probably pick up on that and be more open minded in return. 

...At least that's the theory anyway.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Just how the hell do you talk to them and get through to them?


I simply love them. From the bottom of my heart. I get to their core, find what makes them really who they are, and challenge them with good questions.

On the side, I think here's a good example of "People who don't care about evidence" and how they were overturned rather painfully.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

There are many people who not only don't care about the evidence, but denied it. Best example are the Holocaust deniers. It's useless to show to them nazi documents, pictures, films, diaries, testimonies. They say it's all fake and nothing so happen.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Odnoposoff said:


> There are many people who not only don't care about the evidence, but denied it. Best example are the Holocaust deniers. It's useless to show to them nazi documents, pictures, films, diaries, testimonies. They say it's all fake and nothing so happen.


Yeah, that could be a 'best example', but I like the men-on-the-moon deniers who based their disbelief on the lack of reports describing the green cheese.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> On the side, I think here's a good example of "People who don't care about evidence" and how they were overturned rather painfully.


To clarify here, it's not Greenpeace's own data--the title of that article is misleading--and it applies to floating Arctic ice, not the Greenland icecap. Gerd Leipold should have known that, but his mistake doesn't prove that the climate scientists are wrong.


----------



## Goldberg (Oct 6, 2011)

Odnoposoff said:


> There are many people who not only don't care about the evidence, but denied it. Best example are the Holocaust deniers. It's useless to show to them nazi documents, pictures, films, diaries, testimonies. They say it's all fake and nothing so happen.


In general, there are several types of Holocaust denial: The claim that this historic episode has never happened - these make up an insignificant and relatively small section from the rest of the group and their opinions are considered worthless by everyone. Other claims are more common among them, such as the one that the measures attributed to the Holocaust by mainstream historians are inordinate, or that the Holocaust wasn't organized and directed by the Nazi government in Germany, or wasn't directed specifically toward Jews, and more.

The last claims are usually made by people who call themselves "Historical Revisionists", and in fact that verbal transformation per se shows their basic strategy of denial. They do not completely evade the Holocaust but rather diminish its power in all kinds of arguments that are not always scientific and disguising it under pseudo-academic research methods which discovered by time to be clearly distorted and evidently non-scientific (here, by the way, many would mention the phenomenon of "evolution theory" believers as an almost exact parallel to the issue).


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I'm not too sure which side you are on here, evolution or creationism, but evolution has almost all of the available evidence on its side. Even if it didn't happen, creationism is still less likely, so it would be necessary to look at other possibilities, such as panspermia.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)




----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

dmg said:


> Welcome to my extended family. Family gatherings usually involve me not saying anything because it would be drowned out by swathes of stupid.


You're not alone there. I do love these people but wonder why they want me to be a carbon copy of them. Or is it just gamesmanship, mud-slinging, point scoring, enjoying this kind of stuff? Hope not, that would be very sad if they enjoy these trivial things instead of looking at the big picture. Fundamentally I believe that we are all humans and there is more to unite us than to divide us. That's if we shed largely irrelevant things like ideology and politics, even money/status/power, where you've gotten in life, etc. Is that possible I wonder?...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I'm not saying that this is what you meant, Siddy, but I think a common misconception is that when people give great weight to evidence-based thought, they are trying to introduce a black-and-white approach to the question at hand. On the contrary, given the inherent admission in science that nothing is ever absolutely true, I think it is evidence that introduces us to the shades of grey, and combats our intuitions which - precisely because they are intuitive - feel so right, so black-and-white perfect, even though they may me ridiculously wrong.


I know what you mean, which mirrors the saying "the truth sets you free." Which I think some religious person said, ironically in terms of you being anti-that, but the saying is what came to mind when I read your post quoted above.

Of course, there can be issues where there is more than one "truth," or more accurately, not just one plausible conclusion based on the evidence, but many, which kind of muddies this saying. Like all sayings of this type, all smart one liners, it does have it's limitations. Life seems infinitely complex from where I'm standing, even from my "average" position here on the ground...


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Music does have a syntax, but it is uniquely musical - a regular phrase structure suddenly interrupted by a shorter or longer phrase is noticeable immediately - not as something wrong (necessarily), but as something that changed expectations. This is directly analogous to good or imaginative sentence construction and punctuation in writing. Every style of music is created most significantly by its syntax, which incorporates many qualities - i.e. monophonic as opposed to polyphonic texture, harmony in 4ths as opposed to 3rds, tonal as opposed to atonal etc. The overriding syntax of 18th century classicism is found in the antecedent/consequent phrases and 'periodic' structure set against a practice of modulation that was pervasive (but not without plenty of variation). These characteristics are what give neoclassicism its primarily form-based aesthetic.

And to answer your question about people who refuse to consider the evidence: without meaning any condescension whatsoever, I determine as best as I can whether this is a discussion/argument worth having. Some are incapable of the fine level of concentration required for such inquiries... I'm not too fast on the draw myself, I must admit.

Music is a language, having a constructional syntax, creating questions and affirmations etc., but it is only self-referential - it cannot step outside its own musical logic and make statements about anything. So...it's not the greatest for giving directions to the nearest acupuncturist. (All of which you, the OP and responders, know - just saying).

I am clearly out of my depth here, but Polednice has again made me think about **** I don't generally ponder as I am deeply shallow  cheers! Listening to: Beethoven String Quartet Op. 130 in Bb by Guarneri Quartet comparing it to my new Kodaly set. The litmus test will be the '_Cavatina_' and '_Der grosse fuge_'. 
LATER EDIT: the Guarneri's 'Grosse Fuge' is brilliant and now my favorite recording of the work.



Polednice said:


> Well, on an evidential basis, it is demonstrable that music does _not_ have syntax.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm glad I made you think! Although you're right, it is all ****. 

I accept the structures that you identify in much music, but I would offer you a simple refutation.

To say:



NightHawk said:


> Music does have a syntax, but it is uniquely musical


and


NightHawk said:


> Music is a language, having a constructional syntax, creating questions and affirmations etc., but it is only self-referential


is to say that music is a language with syntax, but not a _real_ language with _real_ syntax. Hence my original statement that it is a useful analogy, but not an exactly applicable comparison.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

NightHawk said:


> [...]
> I am clearly out of my depth here, but Polednice has again made me think about **** I don't generally ponder as I am deeply shallow  cheers! Listening to: Beethoven String Quartet Op. 130 in Bb by Guarneri Quartet comparing it to my new Kodaly set. The litmus test will be the '_Cavatina_' and '_Der grosse fuge_'.


You may find that the 'test' here is whether you can tolerate the wandering pitch of the Kodaly first fiddle.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

...well, I guess I can tolerate it 



Hilltroll72 said:


> You may find that the 'test' here is whether you can tolerate the wandering pitch of the Kodaly first fiddle.


----------

