Jon Johanning writes:

>what is under discussion here is art, not science, and artistic judgments
>do depend on individual tastes.

Agreed:  judgement on what is good in music is an aesthetical problem, not
one of the natural sciences.  But there are similarities in the methodology
by which the sciences arrive at their assumptions and the methodology by
which the liberal arts, notably including music, reach theirs.  In science
you start out with a theorem, or an axiom, or a postulate and then reason
on from there until you've reached a solid enough conclusion for it to be
accepted, in turn, as a theorem, or an axiom, or a postulate.  In music
a consensus is reached within a group of congnoscenti of what is to be
regarded as good.  Such a group would ideally contain not only experienced
musicians having a high degree of musical knowledge, but also,say,
impressarios and record comopany executives who are widely seen to have a
feel for what'll sell.  Such a consensus may then be considered a paradigm
(with which the isolated individual is free, of course, to disagree).
Thomas Kuhn, who I think considered himself a historian of science, but
is considered by others as an accomplished philosopher, in his famous A
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, wrote that scientific reasoning also
depended on such paradigms because "absolute truths" in science do tend
to undergo change as they are updated, or outdated.  Of course, the point
that Bernard Chasson made needs to be credited that certain scientific
bemnchmarks never change.  (Nonetheless, the last time I looked they still
had powerful computers out there trying for an even finer value for pi.)

Denis Fodor                     Internet:[log in to unmask]