Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Paul and Jerry show, act II

On 4/15/02 4:11 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 16
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:38:23 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment

Paul, I read this and almost decided to ignore it. I suggested we drop the
"logic" bit. Your insistence on perpetuating it is extremely annoying to me
(and to others here, I think).

My second thought is to ignore your post is to suggest that I have no
answers. Therefore, here goes:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Paul, *your* concern with *my* logic seems focused on irrelevant issues, as
>> I see it. In fact, your insistence on logic apart from assumptions (values)
>> is foreign to anything I have ever read or heard of.
>
> i take it you haven't gotten too deeply involved in any discipline
> that involves logical argument, then?

Paul, you can really be a jerk sometimes. Let's just talk nose to nose in
public and let the logic fall where it will.
>
>> Try this one for "logical." If your valid logic is based on different
>> assumptions than my valid logic, our conclusions are likely to be different.
>> True?
>
> yes. but i was focusing on _your_ assumptions and _your_ conclusions
> in this particular debacle.

In order to know *all* of my assumptions you would have to be psychic. I
have only stated the ones that seemed appropriate to the discussion.

By the way, what "conclusions" are you concerned about? That might be a good
start. I'm not aware that I stated any.
>
>> In this case, further productive communication is entirely dependent
>> on checking our assumptions (which are clearly based on values). So far, you
>> seem to avoid doing that.
>
> what am i avoiding? as i said, my assumptions aren't even part of the
> issue at hand.

Actually, they are. We are not always aware of our assumptions--the ideas
that cause us to "see" things one way or the other. That's why we try to
objectify our premises in order to validate conclusions. It doesn't always
work, however, as we certainly have seen in this exchange. I haven't
challenged your logic here because I can't be sure of your assumptions.
However, it seems quite obvious that your emotional defense of Bob is
certainly a strong "value" in the mix. (I considered that out *logically*,
by the way. Want to change my assumption? Figure out how do accomplish
that.)
>
>> By the way, where is your response to my post stating that I was able to
>> *predict* what I would hear in jerry10 by alternating between two different
>> perceptual focuses? Don't you think that's important?
>
> yes.

Okay. I'm listening.
>
>> I think it's
>> *enormously* important. Isn't it *logically* possible that Bob (given his
>> own statements about "casual" and "practiced" perceptions) had done the same
>> thing (whether he thought so or not)?
>
> yes, that's possible.

Still listening.
>
>> To my *logic*, it seems highly likely.
>
> perhaps. however, this particular point seems a rather *small* facet
> of an already *small* subset of the phenomena that could be remarked
> upon based on the jerry examples.

Which point is that? Logic or Bob's statement? Why "small"? I think that the
fact that Bob and I seem to have experienced the same (or similar)
phenomenon seems rather *large* to me. He and I appear to be the most
experienced people here in regard to choral tuning. If you would get past
the stance of defending his *words*, you might actually understand what I am
saying in that regard. The fact that you belittle this idea is significant.
Until you broaden your scope, your input here is quite worthless.
>
>> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the source of
>> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off the mark."
>> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about my "challenge" of the
>> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns were not
>> challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when taken as a
>> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to me as
>> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it. At that
>> point, you simply said I was being "illogical" and ignored my reasons *why*
>> I posed this possibility?
>
> correct. the only way such a claim on your part would be *meaningful*
> is if there were some objective experimental test which would
> ascertain which of the two possibilities in question was the correct
> one.

We're not at that point, Paul. We're simply trying to determine what Bob and
I have in common in regard to hearing jerry00. Why not deal with that
(without challenging my logic)?

Now, what "two possibilities" are in question? Does that indicate that you
are more concerned with "who wins" or with what seems to be happening here?
Take a long look in the mirror, Paul. Who do you see....defender or
inquisitor?

> however, there is no possibility in practice of ever comparing
> objective frequency with subjective pitch -- one can only compare
> objective frequency with objective frequency and subjective pitch
> with subjective pitch.

For the last week or more, I have spent *hours* demonstrating to you I have
no problem with that idea. Why do you insist on harping on it?????

> therefore, on a scientific basis, making
> either such a judgment as you would try to make above, or even the
> exact opposite of such a judgment (which is how you, unfairly, framed
> bob's own view), *meaningless*, and *neither* can serve as the
> foundation for further putative scientific explanations.

Whether or not my view of Bob's report of his perceptions are "fair," they
are based on *his* statements. When trying to discover a measure of "truth,"
it is certainly appropriate to question someone's *perception*. You, of all
people, should understand that. I "framed" Bob's *report* (not his view) as
I suspected it related to my own. His view is his. My view is mine. He
describes his. I describe mine. I think that's how it works.

At some point in the future, we can get scientific in the formal sense.
First, we have to formulate a theory. Next, we have do devise appropriate
methods of testing that theory. We're no where close at the moment.
>
> it seems that so far you have not understood this point.

It seems so far that you have not considered my responses to "this point."

> so satisfied
> are you with your "theory",

I don't know that I have a "theory." If you know what it is, please tell us
all.

> that you will not take the time to stop
> and think about this objection.

I've spent a week thinking about your "objection." To me, your "problem"
with my "logic" makes no sense to me. The more you persist in this silly
game, the less confidence I have in your ability to be effective in the
pursuit of the answers we seek. I have no more time to invest in this
nonsense. Please drop it.

> if you did stop and think about it,
> and understood what motivation was truly behind it (that of hoping to
> frame jerry's ideas in a logical way), you probably could have come
> up with a *meaningful* theory that reflects your viewpoint by now,
> and we wouldn't have lost bob.

What jibberish! You have moved from being the respected "guru" of the Tuning
List to resembling a flailing refugee from simple reason.

If Bob wants to be lost, he will be lost. That's his prerogative. As I
understand him, he intends to continue to participate. Why do you think he
is "lost"?
>
> bob and i tried to make the logical point above to you myriad times

Ask yourself why your "logic" has failed to communicate. The number of
repetitions is meaningless. All it does is infuriate me that you are *not*
listening.

> but you insisted on intermingling this purely logical point

If you think your point is "purely logical" you are more naïve than I had
imagined.

> with
> musical preferences bob and i had expressed, and tying it all
> together in a "conspiracy theory"

Clear evidence of your paranoia. (Which, by the way, is an expression of
*values*.)

> view of our reaction to
> your "theory".

For the umpteenth time, I *have* no theory. Why do you insist that I do? Is
this a "straw man" technique of defining an "enemy" in order to show
yourself a superior competitor? As far as I'm concerned, there is no
competition here. As long as you continue this "contest," there is not
likely to be much light shed here.

> this was incredibly insulting,

Why is honest questioning an insult? Only an *illogical* person would think
so. I have already apologized for any lack of diplomacy and tact I might
have exhibited. Shouldn't that be adequate to get past this illogical
"defense"?

> and it is completely
> understandable that bob would therefore call into question your
> ability to reason objectively at all, and leave the discussion.

Given his response, I agree that he was offended. Okay. I apologized for my
aggressive "style." So now I am "illogical"? I find *that* offensive.
>
>> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
>> Please????
>
> uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
> scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)

Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears illogical,
we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no hope for
straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.

If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find out what
can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!

Peace (to borrow a phrase),

Jerry

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/17/02 10:19 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:27:49 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Paul and Jerry show, act II

Hi Bob. Nice to hear from you. I thought you were going to confine your
comments to the jerries. Glad to see you changed your mind.

I believe I will take the time soon (golf tournament today) to do a
*logical* review of the events in this exchange. Perhaps that will help you,
Paul and any interested others to follow my thinking.

Just a few overall comments here. Your suggestion that I don't "value" logic
is really pretty naïve. Your having said that says more about you than about
me. My doctoral committee likely wouldn't agree with you since they did
grant my degree. That of course doesn't guarantee my logic, it only suggests
that I may actually get it right once in a while. And there are quite a few
scatter-brained PhDs running around; however, I *do* try not to be one of
them.

I note that you agree that assumptions are simply the "raw material" that
logic *uses*. Here's the crux of the matter. Since you cannot possibly know
all of my assumptions, how can you therefore conclude that my *logic* is
faulty? Wouldn't it be more helpful to ask for clarification of my
*assumptions*?

Talk to you soon.

Smiles,

Jerry
>
> Jerry:
>>>> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the source of
>>>> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off the mark."
>
> Bob:
> I did, in fact, do exactly that, and it was ignored competely.
>
> Jerry resumes:
>>>> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about my "challenge" of the
>>>> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns were not
>>>>challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when taken as a
>>>> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to me as
>>>> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it.
>
> Bob:
> If Jack is taller than Jill, then Jill is shorter than Jack. These
> are logically equivalent statements, so what difference does it make?
> One implies the other. Two different conditions cause us to perceive
> the same frequency as two different pitches.
>
> Why care which pitch we start with as long as we recognize that it is
> pitch that we perceive differently and that the embedded pitch is
> higher than the stand-alone and the stand-alone by clear implication
> is therefore lower than the higher? Why should you turn my choice of
> this latter equivalent into a "challenge"?
>
> But don't turn a pitch perception that changes with context by your
> own admission into an objective frequency, and then argue that you
> are hearing a higher frequency, when in fact the frequency does not
> change.
>
>
> Jerry later:
>>>> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
>>>> Please????
>
> Paul replied:
>>> uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
>>> scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>>
> Jerry replied:
>> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears illogical,
>> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no hope for
>> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>>
>> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find out what
>> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!
>
>
> Bob:
> Ignoring logic is the whole problem here. Jerry clearly fails to
> value it as evidenced in both his offline and online "arguments",
> which term, ignoring its vulgar sense, should normally imply the use
> of valid reasoning (good logic).
>
> There is nothing "silly" about logic. It is what saves discourse from
> incoherent ramblings that lead nowhere. By contrast, there is a
> lot "silly" about invalid, inconsistent, and circular "logic".
>
> Logic is indeed useless in the abstract, as Jerry points out, that
> is, unless it is applied to substance. However, its valid use can and
> should be assessed independent of substance. Solid substance is
> easily distorted by the use of invalid logic. Reliable conclusions,
> no matter how solid the substance, cannot issue from bad reasoning.
>
> The continual careless and insulting assignment of ulterior motives
> to "opponents" (his way of looking at it, not ours), psychobabble,
> and political posturing are not acceptable substitutes for good
> reasoning. Although I, too, am a performer, in this context I'm not
> interested in running for office or playing to the stands. I'm
> interested in the reliable, consistent processing of raw data in the
> service of meaningful results. This is just another way of defining
> logic.
>
> Yours in good sense (would that it were more common),
>
> Bob
>
> P.S. Jerry talks of "logical" perceptions and assumptions. Any
> logical novice knows that there is no "logic" in either perceptions
> or assumptions. They are what the process of reason uses as raw
> materials and are themselves totally devoid of any logic. Logic
> refers ONLY to the process to which these raw materials are subjected
> in order to make clearly explicit their practical implications and
> link observable phenomena with explanatory power.
>
> Jerry has clearly demonstrated with this misuse that he does not even
> understand what logic means, much less how to apply it. His
> insistence on eliminating logic while completely confusing it with
> perceptions and assumptions is tiresome, to put it mildly.
>
> I believe at this point Jerry's posts online here are sufficiently
> extensive to at least mildly represent what has been going on
> offline. To any clear-headed, well-reasoning reader, the rest should
> be obvious and anything I can add would be redundant. The less clear-
> headed can enjoy empathizing with Jerry, but heaven help them all if
> they disagree, since there can be no recourse but each person's
> refuge in his/her own sacred "position".
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>> On 4/15/02 4:11 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>>
>>> Message: 16
>>> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:38:23 -0000
>>> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...>
>>> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>>
>> Paul, I read this and almost decided to ignore it. I suggested we drop the
>> "logic" bit. Your insistence on perpetuating it is extremely annoying to me
>> (and to others here, I think).
>>
>> My second thought is to ignore your post is to suggest that I have no
>> answers. Therefore, here goes:
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul, *your* concern with *my* logic seems focused on irrelevant issues, as
>>>> I see it. In fact, your insistence on logic apart from
> assumptions (values)
>>>> is foreign to anything I have ever read or heard of.
>>>
>>> i take it you haven't gotten too deeply involved in any discipline
>>> that involves logical argument, then?
>>
>> Paul, you can really be a jerk sometimes. Let's just talk nose to nose in
>> public and let the logic fall where it will.
>>>
>>>> Try this one for "logical." If your valid logic is based on different
>>>> assumptions than my valid logic, our conclusions are likely to be
>>>>different. True?
>>>
>>> yes. but i was focusing on _your_ assumptions and _your_ conclusions
>>> in this particular debacle.
>>
>> In order to know *all* of my assumptions you would have to be psychic. I
>> have only stated the ones that seemed appropriate to the discussion.
>>
>> By the way, what "conclusions" are you concerned about? That might be a good
>> start. I'm not aware that I stated any.
>>>
>>>> In this case, further productive communication is entirely dependent
>>>> on checking our assumptions (which are clearly based on values). So far,
>>>> you seem to avoid doing that.
>>>
>>> what am i avoiding? as i said, my assumptions aren't even part of the
>>> issue at hand.
>>
>> Actually, they are. We are not always aware of our assumptions--the ideas
>> that cause us to "see" things one way or the other. That's why we try to
>> objectify our premises in order to validate conclusions. It doesn't always
>> work, however, as we certainly have seen in this exchange. I haven't
>> challenged your logic here because I can't be sure of your assumptions.
>> However, it seems quite obvious that your emotional defense of Bob
> is
>> certainly a strong "value" in the mix. (I considered that out *logically*,
>> by the way. Want to change my assumption? Figure out how do accomplish
>> that.)
>>>
>>>> By the way, where is your response to my post stating that I was able to
>>>> *predict* what I would hear in jerry10 by alternating between two different
>>>> perceptual focuses? Don't you think that's important?
>>>
>>> yes.
>>
>> Okay. I'm listening.
>>>
>>>> I think it's
>>>> *enormously* important. Isn't it *logically* possible that Bob (given his
>>>> own statements about "casual" and "practiced" perceptions) had done the
>>>> same thing (whether he thought so or not)?
>>>
>>> yes, that's possible.
>>
>> Still listening.
>>>
>>>> To my *logic*, it seems highly likely.
>>>
>>> perhaps. however, this particular point seems a rather *small* facet
>>> of an already *small* subset of the phenomena that could be remarked
>>> upon based on the jerry examples.
>>
>> Which point is that? Logic or Bob's statement? Why "small"? I think that the
>> fact that Bob and I seem to have experienced the same (or similar)
>> phenomenon seems rather *large* to me. He and I appear to be the most
>> experienced people here in regard to choral tuning. If you would get past
>> the stance of defending his *words*, you might actually understand what I am
>> saying in that regard. The fact that you belittle this idea is significant.
>> Until you broaden your scope, your input here is quite worthless.
>>>
>>>> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the source of
>>>> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off the mark."
>>>> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about my "challenge" of the
>>>> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns were not
>>>> challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when taken as a
>>>> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to me as
>>>> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it. At that
>>>> point, you simply said I was being "illogical" and ignored my reasons *why*
>>>> I posed this possibility?
>>>
>>> correct. the only way such a claim on your part would be *meaningful*
>>> is if there were some objective experimental test which would
>>> ascertain which of the two possibilities in question was the correct
>>> one.
>>
>> We're not at that point, Paul. We're simply trying to determine what Bob and
>> I have in common in regard to hearing jerry00. Why not deal with that
>> (without challenging my logic)?
>>
>> Now, what "two possibilities" are in question? Does that indicate that you
>> are more concerned with "who wins" or with what seems to be happening here?
>> Take a long look in the mirror, Paul. Who do you see....defender or
>> inquisitor?
>>
>>> however, there is no possibility in practice of ever comparing
>>> objective frequency with subjective pitch -- one can only compare
>>> objective frequency with objective frequency and subjective pitch
>>> with subjective pitch.
>>
>> For the last week or more, I have spent *hours* demonstrating to you I have
>> no problem with that idea. Why do you insist on harping on it?????
>>
>>> therefore, on a scientific basis, making
>>> either such a judgment as you would try to make above, or even the
>>> exact opposite of such a judgment (which is how you, unfairly, framed
>>> bob's own view), *meaningless*, and *neither* can serve as the
>>> foundation for further putative scientific explanations.
>>
>> Whether or not my view of Bob's report of his perceptions are "fair," they
>> are based on *his* statements. When trying to discover a measure of "truth,"
>> it is certainly appropriate to question someone's *perception*. You, of all
>> people, should understand that. I "framed" Bob's *report* (not his view) as
>> I suspected it related to my own. His view is his. My view is mine. He
>> describes his. I describe mine. I think that's how it works.
>>
>> At some point in the future, we can get scientific in the formal sense.
>> First, we have to formulate a theory. Next, we have do devise appropriate
>> methods of testing that theory. We're no where close at the moment.
>>>
>>> it seems that so far you have not understood this point.
>>
>> It seems so far that you have not considered my responses to "this point."
>>
>>> so satisfied
>>> are you with your "theory",
>>
>> I don't know that I have a "theory." If you know what it is, please tell us
>> all.
>>
>>> that you will not take the time to stop
>>> and think about this objection.
>>
>> I've spent a week thinking about your "objection." To me, your "problem"
>> with my "logic" makes no sense to me. The more you persist in this silly
>> game, the less confidence I have in your ability to be effective in the
>> pursuit of the answers we seek. I have no more time to invest in this
>> nonsense. Please drop it.
>>
>>> if you did stop and think about it,
>>> and understood what motivation was truly behind it (that of hoping to
>>> frame jerry's ideas in a logical way), you probably could have come
>>> up with a *meaningful* theory that reflects your viewpoint by now,
>>> and we wouldn't have lost bob.
>>
>> What jibberish! You have moved from being the respected "guru" of the Tuning
>> List to resembling a flailing refugee from simple reason.
>>
>> If Bob wants to be lost, he will be lost. That's his prerogative. As I
>> understand him, he intends to continue to participate. Why do you think he
>> is "lost"?
>>>
>>> bob and i tried to make the logical point above to you myriad times
>>
>> Ask yourself why your "logic" has failed to communicate. The number of
>> repetitions is meaningless. All it does is infuriate me that you are *not*
>> listening.
>>
>>> but you insisted on intermingling this purely logical point
>>
>> If you think your point is "purely logical" you are more naïve than I had
>> imagined.
>>
>>> with
>>> musical preferences bob and i had expressed, and tying it all
>>> together in a "conspiracy theory"
>>
>> Clear evidence of your paranoia. (Which, by the way, is an expression of
>> *values*.)
>>
>>> view of our reaction to
>>> your "theory".
>>
>> For the umpteenth time, I *have* no theory. Why do you insist that I do? Is
>> this a "straw man" technique of defining an "enemy" in order to show
>> yourself a superior competitor? As far as I'm concerned, there is no
>> competition here. As long as you continue this "contest," there is not
>> likely to be much light shed here.
>>
>>> this was incredibly insulting,
>>
>> Why is honest questioning an insult? Only an *illogical* person would think
>> so. I have already apologized for any lack of diplomacy and tact I might
>> have exhibited. Shouldn't that be adequate to get past this illogical
>> "defense"?
>>
>>> and it is completely
>>> understandable that bob would therefore call into question your
>>> ability to reason objectively at all, and leave the discussion.
>>
>> Given his response, I agree that he was offended. Okay. I apologized for my
>> aggressive "style." So now I am "illogical"? I find *that* offensive.
>>>
>>>> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
>>>> Please????
>>>
>>> uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
>>> scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>>
>> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears illogical,
>> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no hope for
>> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>>
>> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find out what
>> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!
>>
>> Peace (to borrow a phrase),
>>
>> Jerry
>
>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Jerry earlier:
> >> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about
my "challenge" of the
> >> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns
were not challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when
taken as a
> >> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to
me as
> >> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it.

Bob earlier replied:
If Jack is taller than Jill, then Jill is shorter than Jack. These
are logically equivalent statements, so what difference does it make?
One implies the other. Two different conditions cause us to perceive
the same frequency as two different pitches.

Why care which pitch we start with as long as we recognize that it is
pitch that we perceive differently and that the embedded pitch is
higher than the stand-alone and the stand-alone by clear implication
is therefore lower than the higher, although the *frequency* is the
same.

Bob now:
Jerry, why should you describe my choice of the latter absolute
logical equivalent as "defensive nonsense"? Is this not insulting,
and without any basis whatsoever? Who is really guilty of "defensive
nonsense" here?

Very importantly, Jerry, if you do indeed value logic, why do you
persistently fail to answer issues like the one I referred to
immediately above? Can you answer the question as to why the
statement "Jack is taller than Jill" is any better or worse or other
than logically equivalent to "Jill is shorter then Jack"?

If so, and if subjective pitches A and B perceived from the same
frequency are different under different conditions A and B, can you
tell me why it is "defensive nonsense" to say:

Subjective pitch B is lower than subjective pitch A...

instead of

Subjective pitch A is higher than subjective pitch B?

Jerry earlier:
> I note that you agree that assumptions are simply the "raw
material" that
> logic *uses*. Here's the crux of the matter. Since you cannot
possibly know
> all of my assumptions, how can you therefore conclude that my
*logic* is
> faulty? Wouldn't it be more helpful to ask for clarification of my
> *assumptions*?

Bob replies:
Jerry, you just said, "I note that you agree that assumptions are
simply the "raw material" that logic *uses*. " How does your next
statement below demonstrate that you believe this? Think about it, if
you can force yourself to do so.

You said, "Since you cannot possibly know all of my assumptions, how
can you therefore conclude that my *logic* is faulty?" This question
clearly implies that logic is somehow embedded in your assumptions,
and you just said that I (Bob) "agree that assumptions are simply
the "raw material" that logic *uses*," implying precisely the
opposite. It also implies that no one can ever evaluate anyone else's
logic (a very comfortable position for you), since no one can ever
know all of anyone else's assumptions! Wow! You should publish a
paper on that in Scientific American!

I only evaluate the "logic" you apply to the assumptions you are
attempting to operate on with it, and the whole scientific community
knows that's all that's ever necessary. Go argue with them if you
don't agree. This is why this whole enterprise seems to me so clearly
hopeless.

Jerry earlier:
Your suggestion that I don't "value" logic
> is really pretty naïve. Your having said that says more about you
than about
> me. My doctoral committee likely wouldn't agree with you since they
did
> grant my degree. That of course doesn't guarantee my logic, it only
suggests
> that I may actually get it right once in a while. And there are
quite a few
> scatter-brained PhDs running around; however, I *do* try not to be
one of
> them.

Bob:
In the light of the previous dialog immediately before and above the
preceding comments from Jerry, I leave it to the readers to decide
regarding your success in this regard.

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Jerry:
> >> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the
source of
> >> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off
the mark."

Bob:
I did, in fact, do exactly that, and it was ignored competely,

Jerry resumes:
> >> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about
my "challenge" of the
> >> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns
were not challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when
taken as a
> >> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to
me as
> >> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it.

Jerry later:
> >> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the
fuss.
> >> Please????

Paul replied:
> > uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
> > scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>
Jerry again:
> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears
illogical,
> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no
hope for
> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>
> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find
out what
> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!

Bob:
Ignoring logic is the whole problem here. Jerry clearly fails to
value it as evidenced in both his offline and online "arguments",
which term, ignoring its vulgar sense, should normally imply the use
of valid reasoning (good logic).

There is nothing "silly" about logic. It is what saves discourse from
incoherent ramblings that lead nowhere. By contrast, there is a
lot "silly" about invalid, inconsistent, and circular "logic".

Logic is indeed useless, as Jerry points out, in the abstract, that
is, unless it is applied to substance. However, its valid use can and
should be assessed independent of substance. Solid substance is
easily distorted by the use of invalid logic. Reliable conclusions,
no matter how solid the substance, cannot issue from bad reasoning.

Continual careless and insulting assigning of ulterior motives to
opponents, psychobabble, and political posturing are not acceptable
substitutes for good reasoning. Although I, too, am a performer, in
this context I'm not interested in running for office or playing to
the stands. I'm interested in the reliable, consistent processing of
raw data in the service of meaningful results. This is just another
way of defining logic.

Yours in good sense (would that it were more common),

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 4/15/02 4:11 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 16
> > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:38:23 -0000
> > From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> Paul, I read this and almost decided to ignore it. I suggested we
drop the
> "logic" bit. Your insistence on perpetuating it is extremely
annoying to me
> (and to others here, I think).
>
> My second thought is to ignore your post is to suggest that I have
no
> answers. Therefore, here goes:
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul, *your* concern with *my* logic seems focused on irrelevant
issues, as
> >> I see it. In fact, your insistence on logic apart from
assumptions (values)
> >> is foreign to anything I have ever read or heard of.
> >
> > i take it you haven't gotten too deeply involved in any discipline
> > that involves logical argument, then?
>
> Paul, you can really be a jerk sometimes. Let's just talk nose to
nose in
> public and let the logic fall where it will.
> >
> >> Try this one for "logical." If your valid logic is based on
different
> >> assumptions than my valid logic, our conclusions are likely to
be different.
> >> True?
> >
> > yes. but i was focusing on _your_ assumptions and _your_
conclusions
> > in this particular debacle.
>
> In order to know *all* of my assumptions you would have to be
psychic. I
> have only stated the ones that seemed appropriate to the discussion.
>
> By the way, what "conclusions" are you concerned about? That might
be a good
> start. I'm not aware that I stated any.
> >
> >> In this case, further productive communication is entirely
dependent
> >> on checking our assumptions (which are clearly based on values).
So far, you
> >> seem to avoid doing that.
> >
> > what am i avoiding? as i said, my assumptions aren't even part of
the
> > issue at hand.
>
> Actually, they are. We are not always aware of our assumptions--the
ideas
> that cause us to "see" things one way or the other. That's why we
try to
> objectify our premises in order to validate conclusions. It doesn't
always
> work, however, as we certainly have seen in this exchange. I haven't
> challenged your logic here because I can't be sure of your
assumptions.
> However, it seems quite obvious that your emotional defense of Bob
is
> certainly a strong "value" in the mix. (I considered that out
*logically*,
> by the way. Want to change my assumption? Figure out how do
accomplish
> that.)
> >
> >> By the way, where is your response to my post stating that I was
able to
> >> *predict* what I would hear in jerry10 by alternating between
two different
> >> perceptual focuses? Don't you think that's important?
> >
> > yes.
>
> Okay. I'm listening.
> >
> >> I think it's
> >> *enormously* important. Isn't it *logically* possible that Bob
(given his
> >> own statements about "casual" and "practiced" perceptions) had
done the same
> >> thing (whether he thought so or not)?
> >
> > yes, that's possible.
>
> Still listening.
> >
> >> To my *logic*, it seems highly likely.
> >
> > perhaps. however, this particular point seems a rather *small*
facet
> > of an already *small* subset of the phenomena that could be
remarked
> > upon based on the jerry examples.
>
> Which point is that? Logic or Bob's statement? Why "small"? I think
that the
> fact that Bob and I seem to have experienced the same (or similar)
> phenomenon seems rather *large* to me. He and I appear to be the
most
> experienced people here in regard to choral tuning. If you would
get past
> the stance of defending his *words*, you might actually understand
what I am
> saying in that regard. The fact that you belittle this idea is
significant.
> Until you broaden your scope, your input here is quite worthless.
> >
> >> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the
source of
> >> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off
the mark."
> >> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about
my "challenge" of the
> >> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns
were not
> >> challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when
taken as a
> >> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to
me as
> >> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it.
At that
> >> point, you simply said I was being "illogical" and ignored my
reasons *why*
> >> I posed this possibility?
> >
> > correct. the only way such a claim on your part would be
*meaningful*
> > is if there were some objective experimental test which would
> > ascertain which of the two possibilities in question was the
correct
> > one.
>
> We're not at that point, Paul. We're simply trying to determine
what Bob and
> I have in common in regard to hearing jerry00. Why not deal with
that
> (without challenging my logic)?
>
> Now, what "two possibilities" are in question? Does that indicate
that you
> are more concerned with "who wins" or with what seems to be
happening here?
> Take a long look in the mirror, Paul. Who do you see....defender or
> inquisitor?
>
> > however, there is no possibility in practice of ever comparing
> > objective frequency with subjective pitch -- one can only compare
> > objective frequency with objective frequency and subjective pitch
> > with subjective pitch.
>
> For the last week or more, I have spent *hours* demonstrating to
you I have
> no problem with that idea. Why do you insist on harping on it?????
>
> > therefore, on a scientific basis, making
> > either such a judgment as you would try to make above, or even the
> > exact opposite of such a judgment (which is how you, unfairly,
framed
> > bob's own view), *meaningless*, and *neither* can serve as the
> > foundation for further putative scientific explanations.
>
> Whether or not my view of Bob's report of his perceptions
are "fair," they
> are based on *his* statements. When trying to discover a measure
of "truth,"
> it is certainly appropriate to question someone's *perception*.
You, of all
> people, should understand that. I "framed" Bob's *report* (not his
view) as
> I suspected it related to my own. His view is his. My view is mine.
He
> describes his. I describe mine. I think that's how it works.
>
> At some point in the future, we can get scientific in the formal
sense.
> First, we have to formulate a theory. Next, we have do devise
appropriate
> methods of testing that theory. We're no where close at the moment.
> >
> > it seems that so far you have not understood this point.
>
> It seems so far that you have not considered my responses to "this
point."
>
> > so satisfied
> > are you with your "theory",
>
> I don't know that I have a "theory." If you know what it is, please
tell us
> all.
>
> > that you will not take the time to stop
> > and think about this objection.
>
> I've spent a week thinking about your "objection." To me,
your "problem"
> with my "logic" makes no sense to me. The more you persist in this
silly
> game, the less confidence I have in your ability to be effective in
the
> pursuit of the answers we seek. I have no more time to invest in
this
> nonsense. Please drop it.
>
> > if you did stop and think about it,
> > and understood what motivation was truly behind it (that of
hoping to
> > frame jerry's ideas in a logical way), you probably could have
come
> > up with a *meaningful* theory that reflects your viewpoint by now,
> > and we wouldn't have lost bob.
>
> What jibberish! You have moved from being the respected "guru" of
the Tuning
> List to resembling a flailing refugee from simple reason.
>
> If Bob wants to be lost, he will be lost. That's his prerogative.
As I
> understand him, he intends to continue to participate. Why do you
think he
> is "lost"?
> >
> > bob and i tried to make the logical point above to you myriad
times
>
> Ask yourself why your "logic" has failed to communicate. The number
of
> repetitions is meaningless. All it does is infuriate me that you
are *not*
> listening.
>
> > but you insisted on intermingling this purely logical point
>
> If you think your point is "purely logical" you are more naïve
than
I had
> imagined.
>
> > with
> > musical preferences bob and i had expressed, and tying it all
> > together in a "conspiracy theory"
>
> Clear evidence of your paranoia. (Which, by the way, is an
expression of
> *values*.)
>
> > view of our reaction to
> > your "theory".
>
> For the umpteenth time, I *have* no theory. Why do you insist that
I do? Is
> this a "straw man" technique of defining an "enemy" in order to show
> yourself a superior competitor? As far as I'm concerned, there is no
> competition here. As long as you continue this "contest," there is
not
> likely to be much light shed here.
>
> > this was incredibly insulting,
>
> Why is honest questioning an insult? Only an *illogical* person
would think
> so. I have already apologized for any lack of diplomacy and tact I
might
> have exhibited. Shouldn't that be adequate to get past this
illogical
> "defense"?
>
> > and it is completely
> > understandable that bob would therefore call into question your
> > ability to reason objectively at all, and leave the discussion.
>
> Given his response, I agree that he was offended. Okay. I
apologized for my
> aggressive "style." So now I am "illogical"? I find *that*
offensive.
> >
> >> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the
fuss.
> >> Please????
> >
> > uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
> > scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>
> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears
illogical,
> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no
hope for
> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>
> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find
out what
> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!
>
> Peace (to borrow a phrase),
>
> Jerry

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/17/02 10:19 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:27:49 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Paul and Jerry show, act II
>
> Jerry:
>>>> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the source of
>>>> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off the mark."
>
> Bob:
> I did, in fact, do exactly that, and it was ignored competely.

As I remember, you and Paul could not understand why I would even ask the
question. I don't think weeks of discussion constitutes "ignoring
completely."
>
> Jerry resumes:
>>>> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about my "challenge" of the
>>>> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns were not
>>>>challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when taken as a
>>>> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to me as
>>>> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it.
>
> Bob:
> If Jack is taller than Jill, then Jill is shorter than Jack. These
> are logically equivalent statements, so what difference does it make?
> One implies the other. Two different conditions cause us to perceive
> the same frequency as two different pitches.

If Jack and Jill both measure the same height (physical evidence), yet Jack
seems to appear taller than Jill (perceptual evidence), or vice versa, there
must be something going on with the perception, perhaps an illusion of some
sort.

The illusion is either in the perception of Jack's height or in the
perception of Jill's height, or perhaps both. Suppose we have evidence that
some people see men as taller than objectively measured, but no evidence
that anyone sees women as shorter than objectively measured. Logically, the
illusion is more likely in the perception of men's height.

*That's* the difference it makes.
>
> Why care which pitch we start with as long as we recognize that it is
> pitch that we perceive differently and that the embedded pitch is
> higher than the stand-alone and the stand-alone by clear implication
> is therefore lower than the higher? Why should you turn my choice of
> this latter equivalent into a "challenge"?

Your report on jerry00 was apparently based on your confidence that the
embedded pitch was JI (likely based on its lack of beating) and therefore
the naked pitch appeared to be lower than JI. A reasonable conclusion, by
the way, assuming your assumptions are correct.

Since you didn't know what the frequencies were before you went on record,
and because you were certain that the embedded third was JI, your report was
quite logical--but only if you ignore your statement of having previously
experienced the high third.

You had commented to Joe (I believe) that you *had* experienced the high
third but, through practice, had learned to ignore it. Therefore, I
considered that your report of hearing the naked third lower might evidence
your having heard the embedded pitch as the illusionary one (as some of us
had done) and the naked one as JI. Since you seemed to consider hearing the
high third as an anomaly, I suspected that you may not take kindly to the
suggestion that your report may not fully consider all of the factors. In
the interest of exploring the matter, I inquired anyway. (Fools walk in....)

Since you are an experienced choral director, and because of your confidence
regarding your ability to hear a JI third "in the clear," I thought it more
likely that you would hear the naked third as an accurate "pitch/frequency
correlation" (to use your term) than the embedded one (which appears to be
subject to the illusion).

Paul jumped on my "illogical" premise that one could not perceive the naked
third as JI because it was not sounding against another tone. I told him
that I had little difficulty hearing the pitch as JI in jerry00, just as I
would in a melodic context. (I suspect Bob can do this as well.) Paul
wouldn't hear of it. To him, I was simply being illogical and confusing
frequency with pitch. I assured him I was not, but he preferred to tell me I
know nothing of scientific thinking.

I asked you whether you might reconsider your conclusion about the naked
third appearing lower than JI, and to consider that the difference may be
due to hearing a "known" phenomenon. You took my asking as an affront to
your integrity. *That* was the beginning of the end.

Paul quickly came to your rescue with arguments that you also heard the
naked third lower in the other jerries. However, in order to make that stick
he had to ignore your report that the difference was "fuzzy" in the others
and nowhere as pronounced as in jerry00.

He also insisted that I didn't know the difference between physical evidence
and perception, and therefore my "logic" was faulty. I assured him that his
fears were unfounded, and demonstrated that I clearly understood the
procedures of scientific discussion and research methods.

When Paul continued his insistence that my logic was faulty, even when I
pointed out to him that in order to do that he must first examine my
assumptions and premises, I considered that (1) he felt defending you was
more important than examining my assumptions, (2) he had not seriously
considered my stated reasons for questioning your report, or (3) that Paul
was not quite as brilliant as I had previously thought. I'm still weighing
these possibilities as we speak. (My respect is still there, Paul. Its just
bent a bit.)

At this point, I don't think there is a chance in hell that you will even
consider the merits of my questioning your report. So long as you consider
your report as the *only* logical explanation, that is where you will
remain. Please understand that I respect your right to believe whatever you
believe (call them values, assumptions, integrity, or whatever). I'll do the
same. My questioning your report was not intended to question your sincerity
or honesty. It is very unfortunate for this discussion that you seem to have
assumed that.

> But don't turn a pitch perception that changes with context by your
> own admission into an objective frequency, and then argue that you
> are hearing a higher frequency, when in fact the frequency does not
> change.
>
You seem to *want* to perpetuate this myth that I don't know the difference.
*Why* is that, do you think?

> Jerry later:
>>>> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
>>>> Please????
>
> Paul replied:
>>> uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
>>> scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>>
> Jerry replied:
>> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears illogical,
>> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no hope for
>> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>>
>> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find out what
>> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!
>
>
> Bob:
> Ignoring logic is the whole problem here. Jerry clearly fails to
> value it as evidenced in both his offline and online "arguments",
> which term, ignoring its vulgar sense, should normally imply the use
> of valid reasoning (good logic).

No one here is *ignoring* logic. What an asinine thing to say.
>
> There is nothing "silly" about logic. It is what saves discourse from
> incoherent ramblings that lead nowhere. By contrast, there is a
> lot "silly" about invalid, inconsistent, and circular "logic".

I think impassioned defensive behavior is more likely to result in poor
reasoning, for example this tirade about faulty logic without examining
assumptions and premises.
>
> Logic is indeed useless in the abstract, as Jerry points out, that
> is, unless it is applied to substance. However, its valid use can and
> should be assessed independent of substance. Solid substance is
> easily distorted by the use of invalid logic. Reliable conclusions,
> no matter how solid the substance, cannot issue from bad reasoning.

Hallelujah! At last....some reason. Good paragraph, Bob. Now will you apply
these values to my paragraphs above and tell me where my logic has distorted
substance. Frankly, I would think my premises are far more fragile than my
logic, but have at it if you like.
>
> The continual careless and insulting assignment of ulterior motives
> to "opponents" (his way of looking at it, not ours),

Are you sure???

> psychobabble,
> and political posturing are not acceptable substitutes for good
> reasoning.

Then why are you doing it?

> Although I, too, am a performer, in this context I'm not
> interested in running for office or playing to the stands. I'm
> interested in the reliable, consistent processing of raw data in the
> service of meaningful results.

Then why didn't you take my questioning of your report on jerry00 as an
expression of *my* interest in "reliable, consistent processing of raw data
in the service of meaningful results"? That was the spirit in which it was
offered.

> This is just another way of defining logic.

In a way, yes. However, the difficulties we are having here have more to do
with identifying the raw date than with processing it. And, as I said above,
*your* "raw data" was not described by you as the same "raw data" as what I
observed and described.
>
> Yours in good sense (would that it were more common),

Does that imply that your thinking is usually flawless? If so, tell me how
you do it and I'll aspire to think on your level when I grow up.
>
> Bob
>
> P.S. Jerry talks of "logical" perceptions and assumptions. Any
> logical novice knows that there is no "logic" in either perceptions
> or assumptions. They are what the process of reason uses as raw
> materials and are themselves totally devoid of any logic. Logic
> refers ONLY to the process to which these raw materials are subjected
> in order to make clearly explicit their practical implications and
> link observable phenomena with explanatory power.

Very nicely stated, Bob. Except that "raw material" is commonly processed by
*inductive" reasoning (a kind of logic) which leads to the premises that
*deductive* reasoning (the kind of logic you are talking about here, I
presume) then uses to reach conclusions (or theories).
>
> Jerry has clearly demonstrated with this misuse that he does not even
> understand what logic means, much less how to apply it. His
> insistence on eliminating logic while completely confusing it with
> perceptions and assumptions is tiresome, to put it mildly.

I think my preceding paragraph suggests that I might have some clue
regarding logic and scientific method. It appears, Bob, that you have
created a "straw man" in order to demonstrate your logical superiority. In
the process, I think you have likely demonstrated that you are something
other than that.
>
> I believe at this point Jerry's posts online here are sufficiently
> extensive to at least mildly represent what has been going on
> offline. To any clear-headed, well-reasoning reader, the rest should
> be obvious and anything I can add would be redundant. The less clear-
> headed can enjoy empathizing with Jerry, but heaven help them all if
> they disagree, since there can be no recourse but each person's
> refuge in his/her own sacred "position".

Now that's what I call a *true* statement. I said offline essentially what I
have said here. And there, as here, the scarcity of clear-headed responses
to my questions has dominated.

Bob, I thought you said your intention was not to "grandstand." What do you
call your paragraph above, if not grandstanding? Okay, all you muddle-headed
morons get on my side of the room where we can discuss each other's "sacred
positions," provided we are open to benefit from the exchange of experiences
and ideas. No "refuging" allowed (for example, refusing to reconsider a
stated "position").

One of the things I said to you offline was that you appear to be a pompous
sort of person. I told you I thought so because when you first re-entered
the list you posted a "this I believe about jazz" position paper (presumably
for my benefit, since you referred to me as "this jazz choir fellow")
without any idea of what the issues were. Your closing paragraph above
demonstrates, better than anything I could possibly say, that my assessment
was accurate.

Now, if you will excuse me, Bob, I'll not spend any more time on this
exchange. If you are helped by it, I'm glad. If not, I'm sorry. But in
either case, I'm *done*.

Jerry

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Jerry:
> >> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the
source of
> >> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off
the mark."

Bob:
I did, in fact, do exactly that, and it was ignored competely.

Jerry later:
> >> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the
fuss.
> >> Please????

Paul replied:
> > uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
> > scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>
Jerry replied:
> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears
illogical,
> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no
hope for
> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>
> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find
out what
> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!

There is nothing "silly" about logic. It is what saves discourse from
incoherent ramblings that lead nowhere. By contrast, there is a
lot "silly" about invalid, inconsistent, and circular "logic".

Yours in good sense (would that it were more common),

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 4/15/02 4:11 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 16
> > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:38:23 -0000
> > From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> Paul, I read this and almost decided to ignore it. I suggested we
drop the
> "logic" bit. Your insistence on perpetuating it is extremely
annoying to me
> (and to others here, I think).
>
> My second thought is to ignore your post is to suggest that I have
no
> answers. Therefore, here goes:
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul, *your* concern with *my* logic seems focused on irrelevant
issues, as
> >> I see it. In fact, your insistence on logic apart from
assumptions (values)
> >> is foreign to anything I have ever read or heard of.
> >
> > i take it you haven't gotten too deeply involved in any discipline
> > that involves logical argument, then?
>
> Paul, you can really be a jerk sometimes. Let's just talk nose to
nose in
> public and let the logic fall where it will.
> >
> >> Try this one for "logical." If your valid logic is based on
different
> >> assumptions than my valid logic, our conclusions are likely to
be different.
> >> True?
> >
> > yes. but i was focusing on _your_ assumptions and _your_
conclusions
> > in this particular debacle.
>
> In order to know *all* of my assumptions you would have to be
psychic. I
> have only stated the ones that seemed appropriate to the discussion.
>
> By the way, what "conclusions" are you concerned about? That might
be a good
> start. I'm not aware that I stated any.
> >
> >> In this case, further productive communication is entirely
dependent
> >> on checking our assumptions (which are clearly based on values).
So far, you
> >> seem to avoid doing that.
> >
> > what am i avoiding? as i said, my assumptions aren't even part of
the
> > issue at hand.
>
> Actually, they are. We are not always aware of our assumptions--the
ideas
> that cause us to "see" things one way or the other. That's why we
try to
> objectify our premises in order to validate conclusions. It doesn't
always
> work, however, as we certainly have seen in this exchange. I haven't
> challenged your logic here because I can't be sure of your
assumptions.
> However, it seems quite obvious that your emotional defense of Bob
is
> certainly a strong "value" in the mix. (I considered that out
*logically*,
> by the way. Want to change my assumption? Figure out how do
accomplish
> that.)
> >
> >> By the way, where is your response to my post stating that I was
able to
> >> *predict* what I would hear in jerry10 by alternating between
two different
> >> perceptual focuses? Don't you think that's important?
> >
> > yes.
>
> Okay. I'm listening.
> >
> >> I think it's
> >> *enormously* important. Isn't it *logically* possible that Bob
(given his
> >> own statements about "casual" and "practiced" perceptions) had
done the same
> >> thing (whether he thought so or not)?
> >
> > yes, that's possible.
>
> Still listening.
> >
> >> To my *logic*, it seems highly likely.
> >
> > perhaps. however, this particular point seems a rather *small*
facet
> > of an already *small* subset of the phenomena that could be
remarked
> > upon based on the jerry examples.
>
> Which point is that? Logic or Bob's statement? Why "small"? I think
that the
> fact that Bob and I seem to have experienced the same (or similar)
> phenomenon seems rather *large* to me. He and I appear to be the
most
> experienced people here in regard to choral tuning. If you would
get past
> the stance of defending his *words*, you might actually understand
what I am
> saying in that regard. The fact that you belittle this idea is
significant.
> Until you broaden your scope, your input here is quite worthless.
> >
> >> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the
source of
> >> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off
the mark."
> >> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about
my "challenge" of the
> >> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns
were not
> >> challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when
taken as a
> >> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to
me as
> >> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it.
At that
> >> point, you simply said I was being "illogical" and ignored my
reasons *why*
> >> I posed this possibility?
> >
> > correct. the only way such a claim on your part would be
*meaningful*
> > is if there were some objective experimental test which would
> > ascertain which of the two possibilities in question was the
correct
> > one.
>
> We're not at that point, Paul. We're simply trying to determine
what Bob and
> I have in common in regard to hearing jerry00. Why not deal with
that
> (without challenging my logic)?
>
> Now, what "two possibilities" are in question? Does that indicate
that you
> are more concerned with "who wins" or with what seems to be
happening here?
> Take a long look in the mirror, Paul. Who do you see....defender or
> inquisitor?
>
> > however, there is no possibility in practice of ever comparing
> > objective frequency with subjective pitch -- one can only compare
> > objective frequency with objective frequency and subjective pitch
> > with subjective pitch.
>
> For the last week or more, I have spent *hours* demonstrating to
you I have
> no problem with that idea. Why do you insist on harping on it?????
>
> > therefore, on a scientific basis, making
> > either such a judgment as you would try to make above, or even the
> > exact opposite of such a judgment (which is how you, unfairly,
framed
> > bob's own view), *meaningless*, and *neither* can serve as the
> > foundation for further putative scientific explanations.
>
> Whether or not my view of Bob's report of his perceptions
are "fair," they
> are based on *his* statements. When trying to discover a measure
of "truth,"
> it is certainly appropriate to question someone's *perception*.
You, of all
> people, should understand that. I "framed" Bob's *report* (not his
view) as
> I suspected it related to my own. His view is his. My view is mine.
He
> describes his. I describe mine. I think that's how it works.
>
> At some point in the future, we can get scientific in the formal
sense.
> First, we have to formulate a theory. Next, we have do devise
appropriate
> methods of testing that theory. We're no where close at the moment.
> >
> > it seems that so far you have not understood this point.
>
> It seems so far that you have not considered my responses to "this
point."
>
> > so satisfied
> > are you with your "theory",
>
> I don't know that I have a "theory." If you know what it is, please
tell us
> all.
>
> > that you will not take the time to stop
> > and think about this objection.
>
> I've spent a week thinking about your "objection." To me,
your "problem"
> with my "logic" makes no sense to me. The more you persist in this
silly
> game, the less confidence I have in your ability to be effective in
the
> pursuit of the answers we seek. I have no more time to invest in
this
> nonsense. Please drop it.
>
> > if you did stop and think about it,
> > and understood what motivation was truly behind it (that of
hoping to
> > frame jerry's ideas in a logical way), you probably could have
come
> > up with a *meaningful* theory that reflects your viewpoint by now,
> > and we wouldn't have lost bob.
>
> What jibberish! You have moved from being the respected "guru" of
the Tuning
> List to resembling a flailing refugee from simple reason.
>
> If Bob wants to be lost, he will be lost. That's his prerogative.
As I
> understand him, he intends to continue to participate. Why do you
think he
> is "lost"?
> >
> > bob and i tried to make the logical point above to you myriad
times
>
> Ask yourself why your "logic" has failed to communicate. The number
of
> repetitions is meaningless. All it does is infuriate me that you
are *not*
> listening.
>
> > but you insisted on intermingling this purely logical point
>
> If you think your point is "purely logical" you are more naïve than
I had
> imagined.
>
> > with
> > musical preferences bob and i had expressed, and tying it all
> > together in a "conspiracy theory"
>
> Clear evidence of your paranoia. (Which, by the way, is an
expression of
> *values*.)
>
> > view of our reaction to
> > your "theory".
>
> For the umpteenth time, I *have* no theory. Why do you insist that
I do? Is
> this a "straw man" technique of defining an "enemy" in order to show
> yourself a superior competitor? As far as I'm concerned, there is no
> competition here. As long as you continue this "contest," there is
not
> likely to be much light shed here.
>
> > this was incredibly insulting,
>
> Why is honest questioning an insult? Only an *illogical* person
would think
> so. I have already apologized for any lack of diplomacy and tact I
might
> have exhibited. Shouldn't that be adequate to get past this
illogical
> "defense"?
>
> > and it is completely
> > understandable that bob would therefore call into question your
> > ability to reason objectively at all, and leave the discussion.
>
> Given his response, I agree that he was offended. Okay. I
apologized for my
> aggressive "style." So now I am "illogical"? I find *that*
offensive.
> >
> >> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the
fuss.
> >> Please????
> >
> > uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
> > scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>
> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears
illogical,
> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no
hope for
> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>
> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find
out what
> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!
>
> Peace (to borrow a phrase),
>
> Jerry

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Jerry earlier:
> >> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the
fuss.
> >> Please????

Paul replied:
> > uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
> > scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)
>
Jerry then replied:
> Why not just normal conversational exchange? If something appears
illogical,
> we can request clarification (in public). Beyond that, there is no
hope for
> straight ahead honest exchange of ideas.
>
> If you can drop the silly "logic" thing, I'll hang out here to find
out what
> can be learned. If not....I'm outa here!

There is nothing "silly" about logic. It is what saves discourse from
incoherent ramblings that lead nowhere. By contrast, there is a
lot "silly" about invalid, inconsistent, and circular "logic".

Jerry to Paul earlier:
I haven't
> challenged your logic here because I can't be sure of your
assumptions.
> However, it seems quite obvious that your emotional defense of Bob
is
> certainly a strong "value" in the mix. (I considered that out
*logically*,
> by the way. Want to change my assumption? Figure out how do
accomplish
> that.)

Bob:
Jerry often talks of "logical" perceptions and assumptions. Any
logical novice knows that there is no "logic" in either perceptions
or assumptions. They are what the process of reason uses as raw
materials and are themselves totally devoid of any logic. Logic
refers ONLY to the process to which these raw materials are subjected
in order to make clearly explicit their practical implications and
link observable phenomena with explanatory power.

Jerry has clearly demonstrated with this persistent misuse that he
does not even understand what logic means, much less how to apply it.
His insistence on eliminating logic while completely confusing it
with perceptions and assumptions is tiresome, to put it mildly.

Logic is indeed useless in the abstract, as Jerry points out, that
is, unless it is applied to substance. However, its valid use can and
should be assessed independent of substance. Solid substance is
easily distorted by the use of invalid logic. Reliable conclusions,
no matter how solid the substance, cannot issue from bad reasoning.

Scientific method is not, as Jerry has very naively stated offline, a
mere consensus of the scientific community, as if this community
simply subjected their various opinions to a democratic vote to
arrive at its conclusions. Perhaps this idea of his is why we're
getting such blatant political posturing instead of clear reasoning
from Jerry.

The continual careless and insulting assignment of ulterior motives
to "opponents" (his way of looking at it, not ours), psychobabble,
and political posturing are not acceptable substitutes for good
reasoning. Although I, too, am a performer, in this context I'm not
interested in running for office or playing to the stands. I'm
interested in the reliable, consistent processing of raw data in the
service of meaningful results. This is just another way of defining
logic.

I believe at this point Jerry's posts online here are sufficiently
extensive to at least mildly represent what has been going on
offline. To any clear-headed, well-reasoning reader, the rest should
be obvious and anything I can add would be redundant. The less clear-
headed can enjoy empathizing with Jerry, but heaven help them all if
they disagree, since there can be no recourse but each person's
refuge in his/her own sacred "position" while desperately lobbing
mortars of "defensive nonsense" at each other.

Yours in good sense (would that it were more common),

Bob