[Dixielandjazz] Mozart Effect - Redux

[Hal Vickery]

As one who teaches science, I feel the need to butt in here.  The way
science works is that it is up to those advancing the claim to prove that is
DOES work.  It is not up to those promoting the claim to say, "Prove that it
doesn't."  There is an old adage, "You can't prove a negative."

We now return this list to its regular function.

Hal Vickery

-----Original Message-----
From: dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com
[mailto:dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com] On Behalf Of Charles Suhor
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 12:42 PM
To: Steve barbone
Cc: DJML
Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Mozart Effect - Redux

On Jun 4, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Steve barbone wrote:

> The "Mozart Effect" was originally narrowly defined as:
>
> "The Mozart effect...For a while, very popular viewpoint, but now 
> pretty much debunked as patent
> nonsense.
>
> For a "skeptic's" viewpoint of the issue see:
>
> http://skepdic.com/mozart.html

I read the skeptic's view and can agree that the Mozart effect isn't 
strongly supported, but further studies could show that it does--or 
doesn't--have merit. At this point the effect suspect, but certainly 
not disproven.

I'm leery of those who flaunt the idea that they're skeptics, as in the 
website cited, magazines for skeptics, and showboaters like the Amazing 
Randy. Sure, healthy questioning is a necessary part of being an 
intelligent human being but the positioning of oneself as a skeptic 
becomes an ego-trip and revelation of bias.  H.L. Mencken did debunking 
with great originality, audacity and humor, but he wasn't always right, 
and the attitude comes as transparently affected, as a tempratmental 
posture rather than a reasoned philosophical stance, in self-styled 
skeptics.

Charlie Suhor 


_______________________________________________
Dixielandjazz mailing list
Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz