Week 1
Week 1
Here we will have a brief weekly document that summarizes the goals, main points and upcoming due-dates and tasks for the class.
Goals
The goals of this week are mostly introductory. In addition to going over the plan for the quarter, we discussed what we mean by “empirical”, how Popper would define “science” and the broader goals of scientific inquiry.
Sumary
In Week 1, we covered a few basic questions:
- What is science?
- What is meant by “Empirical”?
- How do we test theories?
The definitions we used in week 1 were largely drawn from Popper, and will be looking at other alternatives as we move forward. For Popper science is the progress of knowledge, and theories are meant to be tested, refuted, and built upon. This led us some of slogans from David Huron’s workshops, such as “Our aim is not to be right, but to be not not right.”
In terms of what we mean by empirical, the definitions ranged from “observable knowledge”, to dealing with data when one can be “data rich”. The first definition can be quite broad, and the second almost too specific. We are mainly focusing on studies that test hypotheses, but even that isn’t always true (exploratory studies, by their very nature are without hypotheses, for example).
See this page from Huron’s workshop for a nice description of these concepts.
Types of Studies
To-Do
For next week, it would be good to read the Introduction to Empirical Musicology, edited by Nicholas Cook and Eric Clarke (the introduction is written by them). Although it was published a while ago, it still holds up quite well.
It might be helpful to go through this exercise about conjectures, theories, and hypotheses before moving forward:
Conjectures, Theories, and Hypotheses Quiz
(Exercise from Huron’s Workshop)
Identify whether the following statements are questions, theories, conjectures, hypotheses or none.
Why do performers tend to slow down at the ends of phrases?
This is a question.
Beethoven’s metronome markings are too fast because his metronome was broken.
This is a theory: it proposes a causal explanation. Note the use of the word “because.” (A common mistake is to think that “theories” make big or sweeping generalizations; theories can be small and focus on minor phenomena.)
Much of the popularity of World Music is due to commercial exploitation.
This is a theory: it proposes a causal explanation — although the mechanism of influence (“commercial exploitation”) may be a bit vague. Note the use of the phrase “due to”.
How is it that listening to music can sometimes cause shivers to run up-and-down your spine?
This is a question.
The language we use shapes the way we think.
Note that the word “shapes” could be replaced by synonyms such as “affects” or “influences.” In effect, the claim is that language “causes” us to think differently. Consequently, it is appropriate to regard this as a theory.
Brahms uses a lot of hemiolas in his music.
This is a hypothesis. It is easily tested.
Brahms liked hemiolas.
Unless Brahms wrote a letter or otherwise communicated that he “likes” (or dislikes) hemiolas, it would be difficult or impossible to determine what he “likes.” Consequently, it is better to call this a conjecture rather than a hypothesis.
Africans have a better sense of rhythm than Europeans.
If you think “sense of rhythm” is not possible to measure, then this is a conjecture. Otherwise it is a hypothesis.
The music of Carl Nielsen echoes the spirit of the Danish people.
As written, this statement admits several different interpretations. It is often helpful to try re-writing a statement in order to gain some clarity. For example, we might re-write this statement as follows: “The Danish spirit is echoed in the music of Carl Nielsen.” This suggests that being Danish influenced Nielsen’s music. Formulated this way, the statement would be regarded as a theory.
“Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast.”
(Quote from William Congreve, 1697). This is a conjecture or hypothesis.
Raag Shree sounds sad to experienced Indian listeners.
This is a hypothesis. In principle, this claim could be easily tested.
The music of the Lakota has been influential primarily because of frequent portrayals of Plains Indians in Hollywood films.
This is a theory: it proposes a causal explanation for the widespread influence of Lakota music. Note the use of the word “because.”
The purpose of our research is to study the relationship between music and ritual.
This is not a question.
It is not a theory since no cause is proposed.
It could be construed as a conjecture or hypothesis if there were some doubt about the purpose of the research (say, if two collaborators were arguing about what they are doing). E.g.
Researcher 1: The purpose of our research is … music and ritual. Researcher 2: No, no, the purpose of our research is … music and dance.
But this is a stretch.
The best answer is “none.”
Notice that, as a research goal, it would be much better to say “The purpose of our research is to understand the relationship between music and ritual.” The “study” of something may be a reasonable goal for a student, but not for a researcher.