Casio CZ/VZ Files... part of CZsynth

I think we might agree, but I am not sure. To me: 

(1) "Science" is over-rated, including claims made in the name of science, scientific inquiry, and scientific methodology. Yes, science has a place, but it is not to be worshiped uncritically.

(2) "Peer review" is over-rated. All that peer review means is that people of a collective mind set approve. Editors-in-chief and the editors they send potential articles to review are merely opinion leaders in specified fields. Yes, they may be better than some self-published, but these people are not without bias. They are opinion leaders with vested interests. 

(3) Qualitative methods of research, including musicology, can be just as valid as quantitative methods. Scientific methods from what I have seen tend to be quantitative methods, though I am not an expert and have not seen all possible scientific methods.  Also, I have seen some qualitative methods that do borrow from quantitative methods.

Going back to the Alzheimer's study I thought I mentioned, I am pretty sure that the minor/major study was rooted in scientific inquiry and scientific method--identifying a component of something larger, testing whether or not an identified variable has a measurable effect, etc.

To me that kind of study was a waste of time. Rather, I felt that an ethnographic study would have been more of a useful approach and more likely to produce significant results.

Anyhow, we do agree that "science" is an over used word.  When I taught college, I used it as an example of what some people in the field of rhetoric call a "god term"--basically a term that by its sheer usage carries persuasive impact.

Steve

PS: I have since looked at the site under discussion, and while I am not prepared to say the connections between certain forms for music or certain musical compositions and healing in certain, specified organs has been demonstrated, I am not prepared to rule it out. From what I can see "more research is needed" (to borrow a phrase from the rhetoric of science) and I would encourage Daniel in his efforts (and others who may be so inclined) to collaborate with researchers.

But I would not want to engage in poo-pooing, name-calling, etc. After all, the world used to be flat, the sun used to revolve around the earth, etc. not that many centuries ago. 

Maybe someone, someday will prove that everything in the universe is somehow related to vibrations--including vibrational energies, patterns, etc. and perhaps there are sympathetic (or other) vibrations which can promote healing, cell growth (general and targeted), etc. And if so, my guess is that both microscopic and macroscopic approaches would be useful tools on the journey to discovery.

Good discussion!

Steve


--- In CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com, Marvio Santos <marvcoolness@...> wrote:
>
> Amen Brotha!
> 
> Science, like Genius, is a grossly over used, and abused, word. There are more than a few scientific facts/finding/studies, whole field even, out there which would not stand to the simplest scientific scrutiny or peer review. Musicology is one of them, most of the claims made by it couldn't possibly be verified and are largely unreproducible to any degree of accuracy.
> 
> But yeah, keep selling your snake oil (to the OT)
> 
> To: CZ-VZ-Files@...m
> From: smw-mail@...
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:29:26 +0000
> Subject: [CZ-VZ-Files] Re: OT My new electronic music project
> 
> 
>       I started reading reviews for the book you recommend and found this:
> 
> 
> 
> "As a psychologist who is aware of some of the questionable research and clinical practices in psychology I read this book with interest. Many of the chapters were interesting and the criticisms valid. I was disappointed, however, that a book that claims to debunk pseudoscience seemed to have a major blindspot. For example Waschbusch and Hill's chapter examines treatments for ADHD without reference to the controversy that exists about the validity of ADHD as a neurobiological syndrome. There is debate about the unscientific manner in which groups of nonspecifc behaviours are named as syndromes, in the absence of any physical evidence. Discussing treatments for these "disorders" without mentioning this at all seems a glaring oversight in a book that devotes so much attention to issues of diagnosis and assessment and claims to expose pseudosicence. It hardly takes courage or insight to criticise the fringe elements, but what about blatant pseudoscientific practices carried out by mainstream psychologists? "
> 
> 
> 
> Having read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and having read scholarly articles and attended conference panels devoted to the rhetoric of science, I am very much aware that those who claim that science is on their side are not always right.  They might have persuasive and other power, but just because they invoke science on their side and condemn psuedoscience from others, doesn't make them right--just powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> STeve
> 
> 
> 
> --- In CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com, <synergeezer@> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > Looks like pseudoscience to me. See this:
> 
> >  Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology
> 
> >  Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr
> 
> >  Guilford Press, 2004
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >  - synergeezer
> 
> >
>