Justin, you wrote,
> Sounds like the quanititative vrs qualitative problem. Seems that
> animals experience the qualities of the sounds as significant
> whereas the scientists are still holding the idea that quantity is
> more real than quality. Perhaps the answer lies in creating a system
> of research/recording data, from a perspective which is meaningful
> to the subjects. If the scientists are so far not understanding the
> reality of the situation, due to reducing the reality to db
> readings, perhaps rather than find how to express the reality in
> their quantitative paradigm, there might be a way to redesign the
> whole approach/paradigm to better suit the reality being researched.
Exactly, but still quantitative! Good science is measuring what's
significant, not what's convenient.
> I had some exposure to the scientific method of Johann Wolfgang von
> Goethe. I found this to be a way to come closer to the reality of
> phenomena than through the common analytical approach. It can give
> much more experiential understanding, more "understanding phenomena
> from their own side". I feel it would greatly help in understanding
> this issue, and indeed birdsong in general.
That way lies madness. I've studied "Goethean Science" in my critique
of Waldorf schools.
> Here's a link which mentions this topic of qualitative science:
> http://www.natureinstitute.org/qual/index.htm
Dressed up, but what they're about is Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual
science."
-Dan Dugan
|