Casio CZ/VZ Files... part of CZsynth

 > wrote:
> Can you point us to peer-reviewed studies that support any of the  
> assertions on your website?
>

On 1 Jan, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Marvio Santos wrote:

>
>
> In one word?
>
> YES!
>
> Or at least have some sort of sound scientific hypothesis behind it
>
> To: CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com
> From: dan.for@...
> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:24:54 +0900
> Subject: Re: [CZ-VZ-Files] OT My new electronic music project
>
>
> Try anything about music therapy, psychosomatic or behavioral  
> medicine and similar. I'm quite sure you will find something :-)
>
> We will start some research next year if everything goes well.
>
> BTW, do you think everything must be scientifically proofed to work?  
> I believe in the power of music and started this project after 47  
> years of music study, composing, arranging, performing, improvising,  
> and after 40 years of experience with electronic instruments.
>
> So believe or not believe. Nobody is forced to spend his few coins  
> for it. If it works for somebody, OK. If not, at least there's 60  
> minutes of good music.
>
> All the best, happy new year 2014!
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 24 Dec, 2013, at 7:22 PM, <synergeezer@...> <synergeezer@... 
> > wrote:
> Can you point us to peer-reviewed studies that support any of the  
> assertions on your website?

>
> Can you point us to peer-reviewed studies that support any of the assertions on your website?
>

 > 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
>

>
> You can begin researching this for yourself here: http://www.musictherapy.org/ and here:
> http://www.wmich.edu/musictherapy/
> 
> --- In CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com, <synergeezer@> wrote:
> >
> > Can you point us to peer-reviewed studies that support any of the assertions on your website?
> >
>

>
> 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
>

From: "fzfan26116161" <smw-mail@...>
To: <CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:01 PM
Subject: [CZ-VZ-Files] Re: OT My new electronic music project


> The affective power of music has been written about over the course of 
> thousands of years. You could probably earn a Ph.D. studying it, if you 
> wanted to devote the time to it. There is quite a bit out there in a 
> variety of fields from a variety of perspectives.
>
> For the lay person, I suggest one easy to read book is this: 
> http://www.oliversacks.com/books/musicophilia/ .
>
> To be fair, I haven't looked at the website or the claims being made.
>
> A few decades ago, I got my hands on a study that looked at the affect of 
> major and minor melodies on people with Alzheimer's. To me the 
> approach--breaking music down into certain elements to test if some 
> characteristics of music produce an effect in a certain population is 
> wrong-headed. I would have recommended an ethnographic approach, such as 
> finding out what music individuals with Alzheimers had been exposed to/had 
> a long historical preference for/ etc. and testing for effects on an 
> individualized basis.
>
> There is credible scholarship in philosophy, psychology, musicology, 
> neuroscience, just to name a few areas. As for me, I have researched some 
> of the historical relationships between music theory and theories of 
> rhetoric. But I have found an interest in a wider diversity of the power 
> of music--not just music as a suasory form of communication.
>
> Where'd I put my bibliography?
>
> Steve
>
> --- In CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com, "ranczar" <ranczar@...> wrote:
>>
>> You can begin researching this for yourself here: 
>> http://www.musictherapy.org/ and here:
>> http://www.wmich.edu/musictherapy/
>>
>> --- In CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com, <synergeezer@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Can you point us to peer-reviewed studies that support any of the 
>> > assertions on your website?
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>
> 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
>

 > wrote:

>
>
> I agree that "music has charms to soothe the savage breast"!  It has  
> probably saved my life several times.  As I tried to point out, I  
> thought your music seems pretty good, if not exactly to my taste.   
> (I adhere strongly to the maxim "de gustibus no est disputandum".)   
> I strongly believe that music is an excellent treatment for the  
> metaphorical "savage breast".  For me it is the best treatment  
> (followed by spending time with the right woman [if you're male and  
> less than 47 years old, you'll probably want to elevate this one to  
> #1], and a day paddling around the river).
>
> Where I have a problem is at the point of saying "this music treats  
> problems with the lungs", or "listen to this for the good of your  
> heart" (while leaving the metaphorical sense behind).  That this is  
> taught in some (otherwise respectable) universities makes no actual  
> difference (argumentum ab auctoritate).  Just a few years ago, there  
> was a police-approved movement to end ritual Satanic abuse of  
> children in the US.  Nothing ever came of this, except the  
> governmental and societal abuse of, apparently, innocent and  
> mystified parents; no convictions, and it seems to have  
> disappeared.  Chiropractic is taught in some universities in the US,  
> and the NIH has a Center for Complementary and Alternative  
> Medicine.  I believe this displays a slide into quackery, and I hope  
> it is temporary.
>
> To respond to another response, Kuhn had some insight, but drew  
> grandiose conclusions from it.
>
> I would not have you stop making your music, but I think the claims  
> of specific medical curative properties (over and above the general  
> increase in well-being) are excessive.
>
> (I'll stop now, hopefully before the Admin kicks me off!)
>
> - synergeezer

>
> 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
> 
> >
>

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
>
>
>
>