Vocalist.org archive


From:  LesTaylor@a...
LesTaylor@a...
Date:  Tue Oct 24, 2000  8:56 pm
Subject:  Re: Empirical Science


Dear Friends,
I have nothing against anyone shooting my propositions full of holes. I'm
willing to discuss just about anything with anybody as long as it's polite
and impersonal. Let's stick to the subject and not presume that we know
what the other person is thinking.

Dr, Hollis wrote:
> 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.
No one knows what another person thinks and feels. To say that one
does is presumptuous, pure and simple.

> 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.
Find the nearest black board and a good piece of chalk and write
"I will not resort to name calling when I can't present a rational argument
about the subject." 500 times.

> I am, to be frank, a little annoyed that you continue to propagate the
> myth that science and art are in conflict.
Be precise instead of leveling vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
Quote the statement or statements, then we can discuss them
reasonably.

> (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.)
Admit that I propagate a myth that science and art are in conflict?
NO.
1.) I don't believe that science and art are in conflict.
2.) Precisely what insinuations? Specify.
3.) I will proudly claim my writing, imperfect as it may be.
4.) I've been attacked for what I wrote thus far, without a single clear
example having been cited.

> You are in a position of influence both on the list, and presumably
> within your academic environment.
If I am, I certainly am not aware of it. I am an engineer by trade, who works
for an aircraft manufacturer. I deal with science daily. I write to this
list
because I love everything about singing and teaching singing. I have a
private voice studio and am not currently a member of academia.

> 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.
Where are the examples? What fallacies? What preconceptions? List them.
Cite examples. Be precise. Real scientists are precise, they don't deal in
innuendo.

> I feel that this is an abuse of your position.
What position? What abuse? Be precise.

> It seems that you cannot grasp this basic tenet of science.
What is the basic tenet of science? Enlighten me.

> Voice teachers and voice professionals deal in different
> questions from those of science.
What precisely are the questions in which voice professionals deal, what
are the questions in which scientists deal, and how are they different?

> 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.
What spectre? My academic integrity???????????????
Sincere warmest regards,
Les


emusic.com