Continuation of issues arising from most forgotten thread...

Your misunderstanding of the philosophy of science you quote is monumental.  There is not a single reader here, nor anyone with a GCSE in science come to think about it, who could not put you right. 

"Read and learn" only works if you understand what you read. 

And your buddy Brodsky is on record here somewhere writing that science is based on opinion!  Perhaps you were both taught science by those trendy liberal teachers in the 60s who Brodsky rails against?

Heaven help us!  (That's another metaphor by the way.)

Vic.

Chris, if you cannot comprehend the difference between objective and subjective characteristics of music on the one hand, and the subjective nature of a concept of mind like "greatness" on the other, any attempt to discuss epistemology with you would be utterly futile. 

You have quoted sources before and been challenged on your interpretation of them.

With your comment, "Neither art nor science is provable Vic", which you have used before to "prove" that no fact is provable, I rest my case.

Employ your talents in other debates Chris.  You have nothing to add to this one.

Vic.

Well, let's agree to let others decide where the logic lies on that one shall we?

Good luck with the party.

Vic.

Science and art are best friends victor, they rib each other from time to time but they are best friends. Did art have the use of the Saxophone until science and technology gave it to art, No. Did art have the use of oil paints until science gave it to art, No. Art can't take it's ball home, it needs science victor. Where would an artist be without gravity victor, floating around in space, is that what you really want. Think victor, think, before it is too late.

Vic, I see your "allies" have left you at this crucial moment of the debate, while you are faced with your nemesis, in excellent if not brilliant form, and Chris, as not at all a "hapless" poster.

However, I have "good news" for you as for our debate. For some unexpected reason, you made two great leaps forward that may bring us, at least as for the result (not the method or the explanation), in a friendly concord.

Your paragraph on the "profound misunderstanding" is being developed to the very interesting statement that "no one is claiming 'Bach and Biber are of the same value", finishing with emphasis: "No one". For me this statement is enough, regardless of how you may explain it. If no one can (ever) claim anything else but Bach is a greater composer than Biber, then, we have the "common" result. For me, this is more objective and the incontestable truth on this subject. How you'll explain it, it's a different issue. As I explained in previous posts, the definition of Chambers (on line) on "objective" is very fine with me and with what I'm trying to say: Objective greatness is not affected by opinions or prejudices; it's impartial. This "no one" fully justifies this argument. Bach is a greater composer than Biber regardless of opinions or prejudices.

The next big leap forward is in the next paragraph on the "technical references" and "structural factors". Eventually, we move way ahead and we accept that, even if the "score, structure, chosen form" have to be evaluated, this has to be done by the "well-informed professions" only, who will "bring valuable insights to the evaluation process, and their opinion will guide and inform the rest of us, so that we may well come to the conclusion that there is more to be enjoyed and appreciated in Bach than in Biber, that the achievements of Beethoven are unsurpassed".

So, eventually, we come to a common understanding that the "well-informed, the well musically educated, the professionals" will proceed to the judgement. We, the grand public, cannot affect the value of the work with our opinions. If that is correct, then, let them do their task. We have nothing to do or worry about. How they will (or not) "evaluate" the score, structure, chosen form" is their business only.

After these two improvements in our understanding, do you (or we) need any "proof" of the objective (or subjective) value of the greatness of Classical Music composers and works? If we agree on the two above paragraphs, the issue of proof is irrelevant, at least to us. We, in any subjective way, cannot change or alter anything. Of course, it's our prerogative to accept (see comprehend) the view, the verdict, the evaluation of the "professionals", but, we cannot intervene or interfere in their work.

The debate whether Art is science is another huge subject, which, if we agree on the "greatness" one, we may proceed to that one, along with Chris, who is ready and willing to very actively participate.

Hoping to be in some sort of agreement, I convey to you my best wishes,

Parla

Parla, your capacity for self-delusion is truly breathtaking!

You accuse me of claiming all music is of equal value.  I give you evidence that is not what I claim or believe.  You see this as evidence of a welcome change of mind!

 It is absolute nonsense to claim that because the "well-informed can guide and inform our opinions" that "this makes the issue of proof irrelevant".  It doesn't matter how "well-informed" a critic may be.   If he/she has to evaluate your "structural factors", the evaluation is opinion not proof.  That's what evaluation means.  Once again you display internal contradiction in your argument.

Does your statement that we "cannot intervene or interfere" in the work of "the professionals" mean their judgments are infallible?  

Not only does your argument not make sense in its own terms, but you are clearly incapable of comprehending the possibility of any alternative viewpoint. 

I used to think your position obsessive. I am fast coming to the conclusion that it's fanatical.

Vic.

Parla,

You wrote in your previous post "I see your allies have left you..."  Do you think we are in a popularity contest or something?

Time and time again posters have stated their refusal to continue to engage with your blinkered, irrational and patronising nonsense.   Their decision shows wiser judgment than mine in continuing, and not as you seem to imply, that your opinions prevail.

Thinking that your position is bolstered by support from the bewildered Chris and the vindictively motivated Brodsky (who would take the contrary position if our roles were reversed) confirms not refutes your delusion, a delusion that everyone here sees as plain as day. 

You persist in arguing for an illogical premise with illogical statements.

Only you would think "no one making a claim to the opposite" constitutes "objective, incontestable truth".   Consensus is not proof.  Only in your world is the opinion of people like yourself "proof".

Only you can not see that by using the word "evaluation" here you admit the subjective. 

You mean like in science?

But:

Do you mean, why do I?

The pursuit of truth and the exposure of your defence of the indefensible.

Vic