Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Severian
Because you're saying it's not subjective, but self-report measures (like open ended questions and testimonies) are *always* biased. In the realm of rational empiricism, someone saying something is never a smoking gun. Why knows why they really said it? There's no way to tell. Have to be able to establish some validity in these scenarios and there's no test for how much so-and-so's statement about what influenced him truly reflects what actually influenced him.
How are yo not getting this?
And no, I'm not contradicting my argument, I'm saying none of this is-- not my argument, not yours, not that terrible paper's author-- is 100% scientifically measurable, because all of it is just basically opinion, or someone else's opinion, or someone's own statement about the past. My argument is that kind argument that the Beatles are influencial is not something that can be measured scientifically.
So I'm pretty much just saying the same shit over and over and over at this point. Can we be done?
|
But again this is where you are over intellectualizing it. Stop. Think. Think about guitar. IF an artist says point blank they were directly influenced by another artist it is not necessarily pure emotions or opinion. It is simply pointing out who taught you something you previously didn't know. For example who taught me the upstroke technique? Literally it was my friend Samau when were in a blue jam band together. What was the very first song i ever used the upstroke to play and learn this technique? Chuck Berry Around and Around. So if i say my use of upstroke is influenced by Chuck Berry i am not merely being nostalgic or sympathetic, i am telling you exactly where i learned it.