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.
|
