Vocalist.org archive


From:  "Caio Rossi" <caioross@z...>
"Caio Rossi" <caioross@z...>
Date:  Tue Nov 7, 2000  11:01 am
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] Re: LARYNX: up, down or at rest?


Lloyd wrote:

> It is always easy and possible to redefine any research to disqualify it
> after it is finished.

No, it's not! It's possible to do that only to bad research. I've
analyzed hundreds of researches at the university. Many of them were really
BAD, and many were very good. I just can't accept a research does really
answer a question when it doesn't.

> One has only to change the parameters under which
> the research was conducted and it is no longer valid within the new
> parameters. But to do this is to deny the essence of research and,
> basically, to imply that any research that does not meet the needs of the
> one changing the parameters is not of consequence.

Lloyd, you can't accept the conclusions of a misconducted research just
because it pleases you or because it's all you have or all you can do! When
you conduct a research you HAVE TO try to answer the questions that you can
really answer. If you can't, just don't
pretend you have done it. If FDA followed what you think science is, they
would never test drugs against the placebo effect.

In science, if you want to be serious, you have to respect reality, not
wishful thinking.

> You are doing this within your last post. Consequently, your last post is
> not fair nor is it a reflection of rational thought as it pertains to
> research. Your allegations would not hold up in any graduate program and
> your allegations would be discounted. You are asking the researcher to
> shoot at a moving target.

NO, I'm asking the researcher to ask plausible questions and to get to
conclusions his data do really lead to. And they didn't ( concerning that
one about classical X pop singing ). If you can't follow the target due to
its moving nature, just don't shoot!
>
> That being said, your concerns are important and valid. They are just not
> valid in the context into which you have placed them.

Lloyd: the context I'm referring to is the real world. One can't base
conclusions about the whole population when studying only part of the
population. A good example: it's widely known among genetics researchers
that some genes cause certain diseases in certain ethnic groups and not in
others. A geneticist who generalizes discoveries based upon limited data
would not be respected by his peers. Of course, there's always the resource
of saying what people want to hear, regarless of precision. But that's not
science ( dialectics + logic ), that's politics ( rhetoric ).

The same about the larynx: if you base your conclusions upon people who
looked for help only, you can't get to conclusions for the whole population.
When I started teaching English I took a training course with a very
experienced teacher who said we shouldn't suppose our students would learn a
foreign language as easily as we did since the fact that we were postulating
to become teachers demonstrated we had special language skills. Experience
has shown to me she was definitely right.

>This is the reason that a pops singer can
> appear from nowhere, with little or no training and survive and be
> successful on basic music talent alone. Training is not as necessary.

I never said the opposite! BTW, much on the contrary! But that doesn't
answer my questions! I'm from South America, but YOU are talking bananas :-)

Best regards,

Caio Rossi




emusic.com