Most commonly misunderstood field of study?

[Zaia]

But nevertheless, they understand that musicians play music, composers write music, directors direct musicians in playing music, and so on and so forth.

Ok, those are essentially elementary school definitions. If you're going to compare music and science, you need to talk about your generic 'scientists' in the same manner that you spoke of musicians for it to be fair: botanists work with plants, veterinarians work with animals, etc. Right?

I still think that the more scientifically-inclined folks here are dumbing music down. Perhaps overall music doesn't beat out the all-inclusive field of "science," but in my opinion, it deserves a bit more respect than it has received.

[Larz]

Okay all of you who are happily skipping over my point. I've seen medicine, bridge building, vet, botanist, and such. Great, you all have defined medicine, bridge builders, vets, botanists, and such. Now, here's the point. What does a chemist do? What does a physicist do? What does a biologist do?

And please remember that yes, I am bringing careers down to elemntry terms, but one must remember we are talking about the sociaty in general. Such definitions are usually used. I'm not dumbing anything down, I'm trying to view these majors from the vantage of the average individual with no fore-knowledge of the said majors.

[Darth Wong]

*ahem* music is an arrangement of sounds chosen for aesthetic appeal. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. The techniques used to make music sound good may be quite complex, but that does not change the fact that the definition of music is simple and widely recognized. This "true nature of music" argument is an attempt to confuse the methods of music with the base concept, which is simply an aesthetically pleasing collection of sounds. This is not a secret. Most people, if given even a minute or two to think about it, can come up with a reasonable definition of what music is, even if they can't play it or compose it (neither of which is necessary to know what music is, as opposed to how music is done).

Once again, contrast that to science, for which most people couldn't come up with a remotely accurate definition to save their lives.

[Trytostaydead]

*ahem* music is an arrangement of sounds chosen for aesthetic appeal.

I guess.. if you take the definition of aesthetic to its bare bones. But would you say that someone writes a book for "aesthetic appeal?" If anything, music.. good music at least, is very much like a book. A book can have multiple layers of meaning, just as music can. Certain forms of music can also appeal to many broad tastes and somehow evoke the same longings in each person.

[Middleclass]

Music, from what I understand, can be quite technical and scientific if you get right down to it. The mathematics behind composition are fascinating, and easily misunderstood.

For the aesthetics, however, the total subjectivity nullifies anything that could even resemble understanding. I could, to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, play you Beethoven's Fifth and then kick a bucket down a flight of stairs. The only real honest response is "I liked what Beethoven did, but I hate what the bucket did".

[jairyn_1]

*ahem* music is an arrangement of sounds chosen for aesthetic appeal. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

How many average people do you expect will come up with an answer like that?

The techniques used to make music sound good may be quite complex, but that does not change the fact that the definition of music is simple and widely recognized. This "true nature of music" argument is an attempt to confuse the methods of music with the base concept, which is simply an aesthetically pleasing collection of sounds. This is not a secret.

Agreed...

Most people, if given even a minute or two to think about it, can come up with a reasonable definition of what music is, even if they can't play it or compose it (neither of which is necessary to know what music is, as opposed to how music is done).

Once again, contrast that to science, for which most people couldn't come up with a remotely accurate definition to save their lives.

Most people will come up with a definition. Whether it's accurate or not is something else entirely.

And besides, many people's definitions of music would be highly inaccurate, as well, with most people answering with a genre, or something far too specific for the broadness that is music. Granted, your definition encompasses it very well, but we're not talking about music itself. It's the field of study that we're concerned with, which is the techniques, and is the mechanics of music. And that is what is misconceived.

Music, from what I understand, can be quite technical and scientific if you get right down to it. The mathematics behind composition are fascinating, and easily misunderstood.

Yes, it can be. Composing music is something entirely different from either listening to or playing music, and arranging music very different from composing music. It takes good knowledge of what instruments will sound liek at different volumes and pitches and quantities.

For the aesthetics, however, the total subjectivity nullifies anything that could even resemble understanding. I could, to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, play you Beethoven's Fifth and then kick a bucket down a flight of stairs. The only real honest response is "I liked what Beethoven did, but I hate what the bucket did".

Right. And many people's definitions of music are far too defined or generalised to be accurate, anyhow, with most people thinking of music along the lines of rock or techno or classical or something in between.

[Darth Wong]

*ahem* music is an arrangement of sounds chosen for aesthetic appeal. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

How many average people do you expect will come up with an answer like that?

Oh come on, Joe Six-Pack might say something about instruments and singing instead of a "collection of sounds", but he won't be too far off.

Once again, contrast that to science, for which most people couldn't come up with a remotely accurate definition to save their lives.

Most people will come up with a definition. Whether it's accurate or not is something else entirely.

I guarantee you that the average person's definition of science will be VASTLY more inaccurate than his definition of music.

And besides, many people's definitions of music would be highly inaccurate, as well, with most people answering with a genre, or something far too specific for the broadness that is music. Granted, your definition encompasses it very well, but we're not talking about music itself. It's the field of study that we're concerned with, which is the techniques, and is the mechanics of music. And that is what is misconceived.

True, and it is also misconceived in the case of science. However, since people don't even know what science IS, never mind how it's actually done, it's pretty clear that science is more badly misunderstood.

[Darth Wong]

I still think that the more scientifically-inclined folks here are dumbing music down. Perhaps overall music doesn't beat out the all-inclusive field of "science," but in my opinion, it deserves a bit more respect than it has received.

With all due respect Zaia, this is not the subject of the thread. The question of whether music is difficult or complex has no bearing on the question of whether the average person has a better grasp of what music is than what science is. And if the average person doesn't even know what it is, then he must have glaring misconceptions about what it means to study it.

You don't have to know how to design and build a car to know what a car is, and you don't have to know how to compose or play music in order to know what music is. Irrespective of the work involved behind the scenes, the definition of music and the definition of a car are fairly simple and intuitive, unlike science which is a philosophical construct.

[haas mark]

Oh come on, Joe Six-Pack might say something about instruments and singing instead of a "collection of sounds", but he won't be too far off.

True. But it won't be correct. Further, I seem to be missing exactly what the definition of music or science has to do with the study of music or science, respectively.

I guarantee you that the average person's definition of science will be VASTLY more inaccurate than his definition of music.

I denied this?

True, and it is also misconceived in the case of science. However, since people don't even know what science IS, never mind how it's actually done, it's pretty clear that science is more badly misunderstood.

Right. I never said that science is less misunderstood - in fact, I said I wasn't going to claim anything was more so than anything else - but I don't necessarily agree that because people don't understand science itself, people don't understand the mechanics of it (meaning, the study of it).

What I mean by that is this: People misunderstand both arts and sciences, correct? Well, they know the basics of both, right?

The average person won't really know much more than that. So even though there could be any number of things beyond that point in either arts or sciences, it really doesn't matter because either way it's all Greek to them. But they know it's studied, and very vigorously. Is it necessary to know science or music to know that it's studied? No.

However, one thing that music has on sicence is that music is not universally taught like science. So in one way, they might be more in the dark about music. On the other hand, they are more so for science because of the sheer variety of sciences.

So in my opinion, I don't see any real difference between the misconceptions of science vs. music vs. English vs. mathematics vs. anything else in the eyes of the average Joe because s/he is limited by what s/he already knows. As far as they're concerned, what's studied is an infinite reach beyond their knowledge.

[Darth Wong]

What I mean by that is this: People misunderstand both arts and sciences, correct? Well, they know the basics of both, right?

Actually, no. They do not know the basics of both. Nothing is more basic than knowing what something is. People know what music is; they don't know what science is.

[haas mark]

You don't have to know how to design and build a car to know what a car is, and you don't have to know how to compose or play music in order to know what music is.

True and untrue. You don't have to know the constructs of what a car is to know what a car is, but in the same respect, you do. I mean, you know what a car is, as a being, but you don't necessarily know anything about it. In regards to music, some people regard music as the sheet music - some people don't even know what that looks like. -shrugs- Just a side thought.

Irrespective of the work involved behind the scenes, the definition of music and the definition of a car are fairly simple and intuitive, unlike science which is a philosophical construct.

True, but what people actually regard as a car or music *can* be broad (though usually the more technically correct will be in the minority).

[haas mark]

What I mean by that is this: People misunderstand both arts and sciences, correct? Well, they know the basics of both, right?

Actually, no. They do not know the basics of both. Nothing is more basic than knowing what something is. People know what music is; they don't know what science is.

I meant as in people know that musicians play instruments, painters make paintings, actors act, a doctor practices medicine, a vet treats animals, a chemist deals with chemical, etc., etc. *That* kind of basics. And generally, any person that's been through a year or two of high school will know the utter basics of science. That doesn't necessarily mean they know anything about it - but they have a general idea of what it *might* involve.

[Darth Wong]

True and untrue. You don't have to know the constructs of what a car is to know what a car is, but in the same respect, you do. I mean, you know what a car is, as a being, but you don't necessarily know anything about it. In regards to music, some people regard music as the sheet music - some people don't even know what that looks like. -shrugs- Just a side thought.

For the umpteenth time, if you DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SOMETHING IS, that places it well below the level of comprehension I just described.

[Darth Wong]

And generally, any person that's been through a year or two of high school will know the utter basics of science. That doesn't necessarily mean they know anything about it - but they have a general idea of what it *might* involve.

Bullshit. They will only have a collection of factoids they've been told to memorize. That's why idiotic statements like "it's just a theory" are convincing to Joe Sixpack. You would never be able to convince Joe Sixpack that something is not music because it's "just a collection of chords".

[haas mark]

True and untrue. You don't have to know the constructs of what a car is to know what a car is, but in the same respect, you do. I mean, you know what a car is, as a being, but you don't necessarily know anything about it. In regards to music, some people regard music as the sheet music - some people don't even know what that looks like. -shrugs- Just a side thought.

For the umpteenth time, if you DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SOMETHING IS, that places it well below the level of comprehension I just described.

Wow. My second statement seems to have been missed completely. I said some people will regard it as something other than the obvious, but they would usually be in the minority (i.e., a mechanic might see a car as a construct of parts, a musician might think of music as noted written on paper, an electrician might see a lightswitch as a mesh of wirings used to turn on lights).

Bullshit. They will only have a collection of factoids they've been told to memorize.

And this negates their knowledge of it how...?

It's not stated in any book that people need to know anything about it to know what it is - you said so yourself that people don't. A person doesn't need to know what a chemist does to know that he works with chemicals. A person doesn't need to know what a biologist does to know that they work with -gasp!- biology. That is the most basic of basic information you can get on science. Most people would know that much.

You would never be able to convince Joe Sixpack that something is not music because it's "just a collection of chords".

Mainly because in that respect, it is subjective rather than objective. I'm not denying that science is a mostly objective entity. I AM denying, though, that it matters beyond knowing the sheer basics (i.e., knowing what a particular occupation will do on the most general of levels) of any given field of study.

[Trytostaydead]

I'm not denying that science is a purely objective entity.

HA! Don't be too quick to say purely my friend.. don't be so quick.

[haas mark]

I'm not denying that science is a purely objective entity.

HA! Don't be too quick to say purely my friend.. don't be so quick.

Right. Damn, I must be more tired than I thought. MOSTLY objective. -edits-

Then again, in context.. Meh.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I would say that science is the most poorly understood topic at large. Though what's more annoying is when creationists think that you can apply logical positivism to religion. It comes from theists not liking the way that enlightenment thinkers could go in circles around them, so they took logical principles and applied them poorly to religion. When logical positivism came along they applied it to religion. Now they all say "I know for a FACT that jesus died on the cross" and they'll attempt to make some stupid logical proof about it. What annoys me about this aside from the obvious is that it means that they think there can be no mystery to religion, which completely misses the point in modern times for having it.
Really I'm just parroting Wittgenstein, but this is basically the starting point of the woe that is creationist 'science,' their constant and inane attempts to say that they can make a rational claim to the existence of whatever deity.

[Peregrin Toker]

*ahem* music is an arrangement of sounds chosen for aesthetic appeal. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. The techniques used to make music sound good may be quite complex, but that does not change the fact that the definition of music is simple and widely recognized.

That only applies to most folk music and insipid pop music. I have the impression that a lot of music actually is the ideology and worldview of the artist expressed in audio form.

This "true nature of music" argument is an attempt to confuse the methods of music with the base concept, which is simply an aesthetically pleasing collection of sounds. This is not a secret.

I think you could find a lot of musicians who would disagree strongly with you.]

[General Zod]

except of course the discussion isn't about what someone in the field of study in question thinks about their field of study. It's what your average joe thinks what the field of study in question is about and what's the most misunderstood.

[Darth Wong]

Wow. My second statement seems to have been missed completely ...

See below before mouthing off, asshole.

I said some people will regard it as something other than the obvious, but they would usually be in the minority (i.e., a mechanic might see a car as a construct of parts, a musician might think of music as noted written on paper, an electrician might see a lightswitch as a mesh of wirings used to turn on lights).

Irrelevant to the fact that a regular person can identify a car when they see it, music when they hear it, or a lightswitch when they use it. People do NOT know how to differentiate science from pseudoscience.

Bullshit. They will only have a collection of factoids they've been told to memorize.

And this negates their knowledge of it how...?

I just showed you, moron. People CAN'T EVEN TELL WHETHER SOMETHING WHICH IS PRESENTED TO THEM IS A SCIENCE OR NOT. How many fucking times do I have to explain to you that people don't even know what science is, and how many fucking times do you have to PRETEND that you've understood this point when you clearly have not?

It's not stated in any book that people need to know anything about it to know what it is - you said so yourself that people don't. A person doesn't need to know what a chemist does to know that he works with chemicals. A person doesn't need to know what a biologist does to know that they work with -gasp!- biology. That is the most basic of basic information you can get on science. Most people would know that much.

See second paragraph, moron. People do not know how to distinguish science from pseudoscience. People do know how to distinguish music from static.

You would never be able to convince Joe Sixpack that something is not music because it's "just a collection of chords".

Mainly because in that respect, it is subjective rather than objective. I'm not denying that science is a mostly objective entity. I AM denying, though, that it matters beyond knowing the sheer basics (i.e., knowing what a particular occupation will do on the most general of levels) of any given field of study.

Your imbecilic attempt to pretend that knowledge of trivia somehow equates to comprehension, even at the basic level, merely betrays that YOU fall into the category of people who don't know jack shit about science.

[Baron Scarpia]

Speaking as a classical musician, I don't think music can remotely qualify as the most misunderstood subject. Sure, people may not understand how music is created, but they do understand music in the sense that it is an art form that they enjoy and relate to. Everybody, with few exceptions, listens to and enjoys music in some form. It's one of the most fundamental forms of human expression around these days. Just try and exist in civilization without being exposed to music.

Science is quite different. Having some science courses in school just doesn't compare to the constant exposure people have to music.

Regardless, music isn't "misunderstood." Everyone understands the fundamental purpose of music, which is entertainment and expression. People aren't confused that music is or what the purpose of it is. Sure, they may not understand the meaning of a particular piece, but overall, nobody thinks that the point of music is, say, to help build roads. And most people, so far as I have seen, have a modicum of musical education/instrument instruction to know that music is based on some fundamental theory. They may not now how the theory works, but they know it's there. And they don't seem to have the wrong idea of how the theory works, they just don't know. That's not "misunderstood," that's "not understood." There is a difference.

Within science, I'd have to say that as far as my experience goes, evolutionary biology is the most misunderstood. It's not just that people are ignorant of it, but that they have totally wrong ideas of how evolution works. Even people who believe in evolution, by and large, are mistaken as to how it occurs and what it entails. I can't tell you how many times I've seen intelligent people talk about evolution as if it were some mystical, Gaia-like force that had consciousness. To me this really fits "misunderstood," as opposed to "not understood."

[Master of Ossus]

Everyone on the streets seems to have some economic ideas, almost all of which can be shown wrong by a first year econ student. I think, however, that Anthropology is more commonly misunderstood.

[Trytostaydead]

Everyone on the streets seems to have some economic ideas, almost all of which can be shown wrong by a first year econ student. I think, however, that Anthropology is more commonly misunderstood.

..anthropology was the most worthless class I ever took. And misleading as well, when you talk about the sexual practices of savages you expect a certain level of.. well, anyways.. misleading.

[General Zod]

Everyone on the streets seems to have some economic ideas, almost all of which can be shown wrong by a first year econ student. I think, however, that Anthropology is more commonly misunderstood.

..anthropology was the most worthless class I ever took. And misleading as well, when you talk about the sexual practices of savages you expect a certain level of.. well, anyways.. misleading.

don't tell me you were actually expecting them to show caveman pr0n with group participation?