My Waxing Philosophical, Your Waning Interest

I’m going to jump through some existential hoops here. Feel free to join me in my mental masturbation. I want to talk about the difference between fact and opinion in reference to music. Nicole has touched on this in her always-wonderful series, “The Unappreciated Scholar,” particularly in the January 11th edition. She’s addressed some ideas of value and belief that I think about more often than any normal person probably should.



First, let’s establish what an opinion is not. A scientific theory is a type of belief with universally useful and predictive applications. The theory of gravity is a belief that is equally useful for any person to hold. It makes predictions about how objects in the material world will act. Apples fall, moons orbit, and I break my ass on the pavement after ice storms.

A scientific theory is reached through the scientific method. A hypothesis is proposed, experiments are devised, and results are collected as evidence for or against the hypothesis. Other scientists in other labs perform similar experiments, and once sufficient evidence mounts, the hypothesis graduates to a theory. This theory represents a modicum of how things probably are.

We can only use past evidence to project a probability of future states. There’s always the possibility that gravity will suddenly stop working normally tomorrow, and we’ll all be hurled into space. Scientists fuck up, just like the rest of us, but with enough collaboration (and competition), mistakes will hopefully be caught. So far, the scientific method has worked out pretty well for us.

There are a number of aspects of human existence that simply are not commented on by the scientific process. Most systems of morality arise from nonscientific assumptions. (“Unscientific” has taken on a bad connotation lately, so I’ll continue to use “nonscientific”.) That’s a topic for another discussion, though. Let’s get to music.

Art exists in a realm of thought entirely different from Science, though the two do like to flirt. You can do experiments to test the acoustic/musical properties of songs. You will collect data, but you won’t know anything more about how that music will make you (or anyone else) feel. There are trends of relationship, to be sure, but musical taste is unaccountable to musical theory.

Exactly repeating an experiment results in more evidence. Exactly repeating a work of art results only in a copy. The belief that gravity will work tomorrow is fundamentally different from the belief that Radiohead is the greatest band of all time. Why do some opinions feel like undeniable truth? Is there any harm in feeling that way?

Nonscientific belief can be used as a personal tool. A belief that leads to no negative consequences of action or behavior and which is not opposed by material evidence is a personal matter. If that belief yields positive actions or behaviors, it can be logically argued that the belief should be maintained, regardless of its lack of scientific grounding.

If you accept the above as true, then the only real gauge for the personal value of an opinion is its effect on the person with the opinion. Furthermore, that valuation is only true for the opinion holder. This may seem like a long way to go to point out the obvious… our opinions aren’t facts, and we form them as we like. Maybe it is, but I think doing the exercise makes it clearer that both fact and opinion are infinitely if not universally valuable.

Possessing a belief in gravity says very little about a person. It greatly affects behavior, but it does so in a nearly identical way for each person. You try to avoid falling or causing things to fall… usually. Possessing a belief in Radiohead’s superiority says a great deal more about a person, because it’s not a materially required belief. Not everyone holds it, and those that do are affected by it differently.

Opinions are valuable, but how can you tell if a cherished belief is personally helpful or harmful? The answer is simple, but the implementation is not. Observe yourself. People have a notoriously large blind spot when it comes to objective introspection. We’re all spectacularly good at self-deception and cognitive dissonance.

Does hating 311 make me treat a 311 fan poorly, even when there’s no other reason to do so? (It does.) Does that amount to musical bigotry? (I don’t know… I really hate 311.) What benefits does cultivating this hatred of 311 bestow on me? It keeps me from listening to their music, but that could be handled by a simple dislike rather than active spite. How do I weed out this unnecessary vitriol?

One good way to get perspective on our opinions is to keep a regular diary (or blog). In fact, keeping a daily diary of events, dreams, thoughts, and feelings is generally recommended for everyone. You can then go back and read previous entries looking for patterns of behavior or thought that you’d like to cultivate or weed out. I wish I could say I did it, but I’m too lazy to keep that daily habit going. Maybe you have more perseverance!

I didn’t mean for this to turn into a treatise for the virtues of the blogosphere (Gah, I hate that word), but I suppose it’s as good a conclusion to reach as any. If you followed me this far without dozing off, you deserve a better reward than that. Maybe John Popper’s realization of the great farce? I like it, but that's just my opinion.