Les,
I find it disappointing that in the three years I have, on and off, been part of vocalist your general position on the role of science in singing has little changed. Whilst you readily accept that science has something to say on the subject of the voice, you still feel the need to protect your enclave against what you see as the probing attacks of science into art. This leads you very close to attacking what, if you mananged to be less fearful, or more knowledgeable perhaps, you would find to be an invisible enemy.
I am, to be frank, a little annoyed that you continue to propagate the myth that science and art are in conflict. (I doubt that you will admit to this because you generally make insinuation rather than stating your opinions in this matter boldly, but your writing speaks for you.) Except perhaps in the field of obtaining government funding, I do not believe that this has ever been, or will ever be the case.
You are in a position of influence both on the list, and presumably within your academic environment. You write in a style which is fluent and appears logical, but often in this area contains fallacies which I believe are based more on your preconceptions of science than through listening carefully to the opinions of scientists on the list and in the field of voice science. I feel that this is an abuse of your position.
Of course it is true that in discussing the function of the voice, scientists will often not include reference to the subject values and feelings involved in producing great art. This does not imply that they are denigrating those subjective values, they are simply not relevant to _the questions which they have posed themselves_. It seems that you cannot grasp this basic tenet of science. Science attempts to ask specific, often small, questions about a subject, and to answer them in a way which is complete within the scientific methodology in which they deal. In fact a good scientist should attempt to completely ignore his own subjective opinions. You will not find a scientist willing to say that 'scienxce will ultimately explain all of the art of singing', so you should stop attempting to defend yourself against this non-existant enemy.
Voice teachers and voice professionals deal in different questions from those of science. It is useful, but not essential for them to completely understand the physiology of the voice. At points the picture of voice function they have built up from their subjective observations will be physiologically wrong. However, since the question they are asking is 'How do I produce good voices in my pupils?', their perspective may be completely correct with respect to this question. When faced with scientific research they must then decide whether to attempt to modify their perspective to take this on board and modify their understanding. This does not detract from the fact that they were producing good voices and is not an attack on their acheivements.
This is a recurrent spectre which I would like to help you lay to rest for the sake of the list and your own academic integrity. However 'warm your regards' may be, your sentiments cause me grave offence, which I have no doubt you will claim is not intended or is due to my misinterpreting your post but which runs as an undercurrent in much of your writing.
Yours, a little coolly
Dr Kevin Hollis.
(My apologies to the list for expressing such personal sentiment in public, however, I find the fear and consequent denigration of voice science to be an insidious barrier to the incorporation of scientific thinking into the art of singing which it is simply unacceptable to propagate.)
And so to your post.
> There seems to be an assumption among many that emperical learning is not > scientific.
I believe that the 'many' of whom you speak exist only in your preconceptions.The many of whom you speak would certainly not exist within the scientific community. In addition, there is an unspoken assumption here that these invisible many also believe that 'scientific' is superior to 'emperical' in some way.
> I'm not so sure. How "scientific" anything is, I suppose, depends > on how objectively and factually it is dealt with. Science attempts to > measure, document, examine and organize information about the world and how > it really works as objectively and factually as it possible can.
True. _Within the framework of its own methodology_.
> As applied to singing, science attempts to measure, document, examine and > organize information about the voice and how it really works as objectively > and factually as possible.
Also true._Within the limits of the questions it is asking_.
> When any of those elements are avoided, ignored, > circumvented or overlooked, science goes out the window. Even in so called > "scientific" fields of study, true, properly applied scientific method is not > always practiced. It depends on the scientist's perspicacity and work ethic.
A little naive. ALL scientists work in the real world where time, money and resources are limited. Where funding depends upon choosing the correct buzz words in grant proposal and where steps are jumped and assumptions made out of necessity.
> Not everything that claims to be scientific really is.
I think this is referenced to your rather naive and rather elevated view of the word 'scientific'.
>To my mind, there is > very little good science in evidence today.
In the opinion of an academic in the field of voice.
> I see plenty of very bad science usually tainted by political correctness or > a profit motive in evidence today. Too often we do things merely because we > can and not because we should.
The scientific community would agree with you whole heartedly and scream, "Give us unlimited funding to chase science with religious purity to wherever it leads us".
> Singing is an experience the we judge according to values and feelings. > Values and feelings are subjective. Anything subjective cannot be scientific > because science must be objective or it is not science.
And the only scientists who you would find to claim that science can explain all of singing exist in your own mind. Scientists are looking at 'the physiology of the voice' not 'how to sing'. (Note: Here you imply that scientific thought can't apply to the subjective field of singing and ......)
>There, precisely, is > the conflict between science and art.
GRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!
> But, just because some aspect of an > art, like singing, is not completely scientific doesn't mean everything about > it isn't scientific. There are many things about singing to which we can > apply good, solid science. It simply makes good sense to use science. > Organized fact is much easier to deal with than chaos isn't it?
Ah! A pearl of wisdom hidden among the grime. (......here you think it can !)
> Some scientific matters can only be discussed in theoretical terms.
Very few, perhaps some current astrophysics, but then only until we develop sophisticated enough apparatus to investigate the question being considered.
>You can't > touch, see, hear, smell or taste an electron. Is it real if you can't sense > it or just some abstract idea?
You can't sense it with the limited resources of the human body but you can detect it. I think you may be getting out of your depth here.
>It is amusing and ironic that mathematics is > considered to be so scientific but in fact, it only deals with concepts and > nothing real! One and one are two, but can you hold a "one" in your hand? How > about a zero?:-)
If this is an unnesessary attempt to reduce the value of the word 'scientific' then your philosophy is rather heavily flawed. In fact mathematics manages to remain closest to your own purist idea of 'scientific' because it can exist without application to the real world.
> The problem with theory is that it is never absolute fact. It's always a mere > educated guess because there's always the possibility that our information is > incomplete or wrong.
I think you would find agreement from the vast majority of scientists. In fact they would also apply your 'never absolutely fact' statement to current scientific knowledge. It is only ever the best answer we have to the question we have set ourselves.
> How scientific something is depends on how methodically scientific method is > applied to it.
A 'thing' can't be scientific, only an approach to the thing can.
|