"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I'd guess that the problem is that some people
develop their own ideas and 'project' them on to a chosen 'religion'. In
effect they hijack 'God' to bolster their own ideas. This isn't a failure
of the 'mainstream' beliefs under such names. More a problem of some
indivuals and sects passing off their own ideas using them as a 'brand
name' to try and ensure they can demand they are right and no-one can dare
challenge them because they would be challenging 'God'.

I'm sure that's true, but they usually have some quote or other from their
"Holy Book" to back them up. In the case of Muslim objection to music I
first heard about this from a radio programme a few weeks ago and was so
intrigued that I spent a while trawling the internet for more background.
There was plenty of it, and some trenchant views on both sides of the
argument. I gather there is a line from the Koran which can be read as
condemning the playing of musical instruments, if you want to read it that
way.

Instead they *exploit* 'music' in various
forms with the aim of inducing states of 'consciousness' sic that cause
people to have 'revelations', etc. i.e the approach of shamans
voodoo-doctors down the centuries.

Which reflects some of the arguments made by the "anti-music" Muslims.
Clearly music *can* be used in ways which many religious people would regard
as "dangerous". But to condemn all music because of that seems to me to be a
considerable over reaction. But that does seem to be the Islamic way, if in
doubt forbid it rather than trust the followers to negotiate their way
through the benefits and dangers, a way that Islam shares with Puritan
Christianity. My problem with that attitude is that it infantilises people.

Moving more OT: Did any others seen last week's program by Dawkins on
'Faith Schools' in the UK.

I missed it, but have just found it on 4oD.

I found that weird as well. Not because of what
he said. But the comments by some of those in 'education'. Again it did
give me the impression that 'education' was being used as a brand name or
cover story to deflect any criticism of what they actually were doing.

The science teacher in the Islamic school who taught evolution, but then
said none of here pupils believed it, was somewhat worrying. But the most
interesting bit of that programme, IMO, was at the end, where children were
being asked which explanation for natural phenomena they preferred. It
reminded me of a recent conversation I had with my daughter (who is no more
a "believer" than I am) about what a cat's tail is for. I kept trying to say
that it didn't have to be "for" anything, it just happens to be there. It
seems humans always want to find a purpose in nature which simply isn't
there.

With apologies for the OT post :-)

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Probably because playing with a multi-mic setup on music is fun for
any audio engineer, even although it may not be his choice of music to
listen to for pleasure.


Well as I said before, it depends what you mean by "audio engineer". You
clearly think it means "recording engineer" with access to multi-mike
set-ups and a source of live music. I suggest that there are many, many
audio engineers who never get anywhere near a recording studio, indeed
never do any recording at all.

I must admit to thinking the term usually refers to someone who deals with
the operational side of audio, rather than say the design etc of equipment.
To me now the latter would be an engineer who specialises in audio.
As an aside I dislike the use of 'engineer' for someone who, like me, does
an operational job. But I'm p***ing into the wind, because it's the
excepted term these days.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
It reminded me of a recent conversation I had with my daughter (who is
no more a "believer" than I am) about what a cat's tail is for. I kept
trying to say that it didn't have to be "for" anything, it just happens
to be there. It seems humans always want to find a purpose in nature
which simply isn't there.

I thought it helped them balance?

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
My comment was addressed to Dave P who seems to think that the term
"audio engineer" means "recording engineer".

These days pretty well anyone involved with sound production can be called
an engineer. Ie, working in broadcast, live or corporate rather than
recording.
Rather the same as people refer to film when the thing in question has
never been near celluloid.

--
*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Not all audio is music, a lot of it is human speech and those who
work in those areas need not have any appreciation of music at all.

And in general these days, the standard of speech recording and therefore
reproduction is appalling on TV. I'm glad to be retired. ;-)

--
*A boiled egg is hard to beat*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

I must admit to thinking the term usually refers to someone who deals with
the operational side of audio, rather than say the design etc of
equipment.
To me now the latter would be an engineer who specialises in audio.
As an aside I dislike the use of 'engineer' for someone who, like me, does
an operational job. But I'm p***ing into the wind, because it's the
excepted term these days.


To me an "audio engineer" is someone who designs and builds audio equipment.
Those who operate such equipment are "operators". And a knowledge of music
isn't necessary to design equipment (except, possibly, electronic musical
instruments). Though I acknowledge that most engineers involved in creating
HiFi equipment probably do enjoy listening to music, often being quite
passionate about it. That's why they work in that field rather than some
other branch of electronics.

David.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
It reminded me of a recent conversation I had with my daughter (who is
no more a "believer" than I am) about what a cat's tail is for. I kept
trying to say that it didn't have to be "for" anything, it just happens
to be there. It seems humans always want to find a purpose in nature
which simply isn't there.

I thought it helped them balance?


I don't think so. The Manx cat has no tail and doesn't seem to suffer as a
consequence. And a cat's tail is too light proportionately to it's weight to
be of much use as a balancing aid. Many other 4 legged mammals, including
some big cats (such as the cheeter) clearly *do* use their tails to balance.
But not, I think, the domestic cat.

But the real point is not about cats, or tails. It's about whether
everything in nature *has* to have a purpose. The children interviewed
clearly thought so, as they chose the explanations for why, for example,
there are no large waves on a small lake as being that it allowed animals to
go in and cool off, rather than it being anything to do with the small
surface area of the water. In other words we, as humans, tend to prefer the
"religious" idea that the natural world has purpose to the "godless" notion
that it simply exists because it exists.

David.

On 25/08/2010 07:29, David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In ,
David wrote:
It reminded me of a recent conversation I had with my daughter (who is
no more a "believer" than I am) about what a cat's tail is for. I kept
trying to say that it didn't have to be "for" anything, it just happens
to be there. It seems humans always want to find a purpose in nature
which simply isn't there.

I thought it helped them balance?


I don't think so. The Manx cat has no tail and doesn't seem to suffer as a
consequence. And a cat's tail is too light proportionately to it's weight to
be of much use as a balancing aid. Many other 4 legged mammals, including
some big cats (such as the cheeter) clearly *do* use their tails to balance.
But not, I think, the domestic cat.

But the real point is not about cats, or tails. It's about whether
everything in nature *has* to have a purpose. The children interviewed
clearly thought so, as they chose the explanations for why, for example,
there are no large waves on a small lake as being that it allowed animals to
go in and cool off, rather than it being anything to do with the small
surface area of the water. In other words we, as humans, tend to prefer the
"religious" idea that the natural world has purpose to the "godless" notion
that it simply exists because it exists.


Isn't it the point that everything in nature *had* a purpose, or more
accurately reason for being? And that the process of evolution will,
given enough time, design out items surplus to requirements?

Of course pointless stuff *could* keep happening if it doesn't impact
upon anything else. But as everything does overlap, time is all it takes.

Right, that's my day's brain used up :-)

Rob

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I'd guess that the problem is that some people develop their own ideas
and 'project' them on to a chosen 'religion'. In effect they hijack
'God' to bolster their own ideas.

I'm sure that's true, but they usually have some quote or other from
their "Holy Book" to back them up.

I gather there is a line from the Koran which can be read as condemning
the playing of musical instruments, if you want to read it that way.

The key is the last few words of what you say above. In effect people
sometimes 'cherry pick' a tiny portion that suits what they want to think.
Books like the bible and koran are handy for this as they contain many
statements, often in a 'poetic' language. So easy to pick out a useful
'quote' and then 'interpret' to taste. But that does not mean that all
'believers' actually think the same thing. It can mean the rest of us have
that narrow view shoved in our faces, though. To the detriment of other
'believers. as well as the rest of us!



Moving more OT: Did any others seen last week's program by Dawkins on
'Faith Schools' in the UK.

I missed it, but have just found it on 4oD.

I found that weird as well. Not because of what he said. But the
comments by some of those in 'education'. Again it did give me the
impression that 'education' was being used as a brand name or cover
story to deflect any criticism of what they actually were doing.

The science teacher in the Islamic school who taught evolution, but then
said none of here pupils believed it, was somewhat worrying.

I guess the programme wasn't about specifically challenging such teachers
and students but to simply show what is happening in such 'faith' schools.
But the obvious questions in terms of science would be to ask what they had
been shown of the *evidence* collected as the basis of the science. What of
DNA - including mitocondrial? What of geology, astronomy, etc?

The problem seems to be very badly taught 'science' and perhaps also badly
taught 'religeon' as well!


But the most interesting bit of that programme, IMO, was at the end,
where children were being asked which explanation for natural phenomena
they preferred. It reminded me of a recent conversation I had with my
daughter (who is no more a "believer" than I am) about what a cat's tail
is for. I kept trying to say that it didn't have to be "for" anything,
it just happens to be there. It seems humans always want to find a
purpose in nature which simply isn't there.

Yes, I also found that quite revealing. There was also something akin to
this in the recent 'Material World' (Radio 4). This showed experiments
where people tended to reject 'science' if it didn't support their beliefs.
Still on the iPlayer from last Thursday.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

I must admit to thinking the term usually refers to someone who deals
with the operational side of audio, rather than say the design etc of
equipment. To me now the latter would be an engineer who specialises
in audio. As an aside I dislike the use of 'engineer' for someone who,
like me, does an operational job. But I'm p***ing into the wind,
because it's the excepted term these days.


To me an "audio engineer" is someone who designs and builds audio
equipment. Those who operate such equipment are "operators".

This is perhaps one of the areas where 'snobbery' rules. So people don't
want to be called an 'operator' or 'technician'. Thus leading to 'engineer'
meaning anyone holding an oily rag or soldering iron or adjusting a
control.

The other end of that are british 'engineering' bodies who ask prospective
members questions like "how many people work for you?" as an entrance
qualification.


And a knowledge of music isn't necessary to design equipment (except,
possibly, electronic musical instruments). Though I acknowledge that
most engineers involved in creating HiFi equipment probably do enjoy
listening to music, often being quite passionate about it. That's why
they work in that field rather than some other branch of electronics.

I'd agree with that in general. Although the nature of the music can vary
wildly. I recall that Ted Rule (Armstrong for many years) liked 'big band'
music. You could tell when he was happy with a prototype as the sounds of
Glen Miller would emerge from his room. :-) And his primary engineering
interest was probably 'radio' rather than 'audio' per se. Enthusiastic
radio ham. Like many engineers I think he simply enjoyed making things that
worked nicely.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html