Casio CZ/VZ Files... part of CZsynth

poo-ing and name calling happen a ton when i make my samples from scratch
lol!
charlie


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "fzfan26116161" <smw-mail@...>
To: <CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:33 AM
Subject: [CZ-VZ-Files] Re: OT My new electronic music project


>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@yahoogroups.com
>> 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
>>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>