Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Natalie, Feb 12, 2012.
Onderzeeboot (under sea boat)
Duikboot (dive boat)
A vessel that can move itself underwater.
This might go back to @Natalie's argument, that scientists shouldn't be put on a pedestal:
Been reading about how Ghanaian rhythms got transcribed totally wrong by European musicologists, before a guy called A. M. Jones for the first time got it right in about 1960. Apparently his predecessors were not only completely clueless but at the same time extremely arrogant, with the attitude that they were the academic experts, and of course Germany-Austria had generously given the high culture to the world, whereas everything else was below.
Perhaps these were very complicated rhythms, at least to Europeans?
Yep. The so-called primitives were way ahead of the completely clueless academics.
I don't know much about Ghanaian rhythms but as I've understood music history broadly, European music developed chords whereas music from the Middle East was more about melodies, and music from sub-Saharan Africa had intricate rhythm sections. Understandable then that academics from Europe would have a hard time transcribing Ghanaian rhythms correctly...and it highlights the problem with knowledge passing through the lens of a limited (privileged) few.
Now you two are just making excuses for unacceptable attitude. As a scientist, first you need to objectively assess your limits. I won't deal with quantum algorithms because it's out of my territory. Simple as that.
These are simple assholes and academia is full of them. If a society has 10% of people with higher education, that doesn't mean standard distribution is out - you're going to have pathological liars, egomaniacs, narcissists, etc. in that group also.
That's why Jazz says don't put'em on a pedestal, before you actually verify the authenticity of an author. Author's academic degree should give you a green light to read the work in the first place, but you shouldn't turn off your critical thinking brain centre yet.
I don't know anything about these academics and yeah, they probably were racist assholes just based on timeframe. But (a) that's not hugely constructive and (b) we actually don't know that they were asshats...although the question of whether they should get the benefit of the doubt is another.
What is not hugely constuctive, my post? Are you aware that the point of my post is 'destructiveness' that these scientists really do while using wrong approach against the subject matter and the scientific process itself?
Separate names with a comma.