What is talent? How do you know you're musically talented?

[dima_76557]

Well, how do you know someone's potential has been blocked?

Real educators have their eyes open for that kind of thing.

I don't believe in all that, I believe in guts and hard work.

You don't have to believe me, but let's have a look at what an experienced educator, Leadership and Management Development Expert, DJ Sobanjo says on the topic: Why "How To" Books Don't Work: The tricks don't work unless you have the right foundation already - the right mindset, the right philosophies.

Dattebayo.

I believe that you believe what you believe.

[chopin2015]

@Dima,

You mentioned "natural abilities". I think this would be an interesting topic to write about, and how it relates to piano studies or academia. Then, you could tie back the birth challenge concept and how many people it affects today....

[dima_76557]

@Dima,

You mentioned "natural abilities". I think this would be an interesting topic to write about, and how it relates to piano studies or academia. Then, you could tie back the birth challenge concept and how many people it affects today....

We would first have to determine some data and assumptions about what "natural abilities" are in humans, and in how far they can be trained from a certain standard level to a certain standard level.

What is supposed to be the standard? For example, if we deny that talent exists, then people who can do the following things without particular special training are "normal": 9 Extraordinary Human Abilities. If they are "normal", then how do we call the army of people who can't do any of these, however hard they train in the right direction? "Lazy"?

Is playing thundering octave passages with good tone quality (the precious metal we hear in Emil Gilels, for example) at metrome 135, four to the beat, "normal", "achievable" for ANY human being? Or is it close to what is humanly impossible? Maybe you still need an exceptionally fast nervous system and special coordination abilities to do it? Etc. etc.

[lostinidlewonder]

I know the idea itself is not about a lie, but the idea itself is only good enough if you already have the right mindset and are already in the position where you want to be.

I'm sorry but you are totally incorrect. If you live in the western world then you have all the opportunity you need. If you are a starving third world child, then your situation is of course different and playing the piano is utterly pointless.

It doesn't help much to get where you want to be if other conditions are not right. That is the part they prefer not to talk about.

Maybe because of your communist upbringing you believe this so.

Most of us don't have to perform at the maximum levels of human accomplishment either. If they had to, they would meet themselves in the process so to speak.

I'm sorry you are side stepping your previous point that you believed people's childhoods command their potential and "many many" people suffer this. Lol.

 Come on turn back on your p2u account it was more fun than this one.

[dima_76557]

I'm sorry you are side stepping your previous point that you believed people's childhoods command their potential and "many many" people suffer this.

Double-check, please, whether that was what I actually said.

Lol.

Nice to see you are having a nice time.

[lostinidlewonder]

I said: Unfortunately we do not stay at the age of a child forever. We grow up and make our own choices. So the pressures in childhood can become zero if the teen/adult makes that choice.
So it's not that significant then is it as you grow older.

A good psycho-analyst/therapist will tell you that this is only partly true. Many, many people simply cannot make that choice and stay that same child within.

Let's check.... Hmmmm. Yep p2u is saying "many many" stay that same child within.

[dima_76557]

So the pressures in childhood can become zero if the teen/adult makes that choice.

I find the IF part in your sentence very convincing; crucial even. Does it happen often enough, however? In my posts, I indicated some reasons why this may not be the case in too many people. They prefer to sit back at an already comfortable position to avoid the hassle of trying to get up.

"many many" stay that same child within.

I have no reason to doubt that, since p2u_ has many experts in many fields as his friends; he must know what he is talking about. Besides, he is from the West, and must be quite able to judge whether those "equal opportunities" you brag about in your part of the world are a reality.

Please, watch DJ Sobanjo's clip I posted. There is this woman with constant career trouble, wherever she works, and no matter how hard she works. His expert "How-to" advice doesn't seem to work. He then advises her to "work on the personal relationship with her manager". What does that imply? How far should she go if she doesn't want to get fired? Show how good she's in bed maybe? The very fact that "equality" and "equal opportunities" are even defined in laws all over the world is already proof that they don't exist.

[lostinidlewonder]

I find the IF part in your sentence very convincing; crucial even. Does it happen often enough, however? In my posts, I indicated some reasons why this may not be the case in too many people.

My use of "if" is merely logical and nothing profound. It happens much more often than not. You said it was "many many" which is too many .

I have no reason to doubt that, since p2u_ has many experts in many fields as his friends; he must know what he is talking about. Besides, he is from the West, and must be quite able to judge whether those "equal opportunities" you brag about in your part of the world are a reality.

Yeah listen to the so called experts instead of succeeding in life yourself. I like how you avoid speaking in the 1st person when addressing p2u.

Please, watch DJ Sobanjo's clip I posted. There is this woman with constant career trouble, wherever she works, and no matter how hard she works. His expert "How-to" advice doesn't seem to work. He then advises her to "work on the personal relationship with her manager". What does that imply? How far should she go if she doesn't want to get fired? Show how good she's in bed maybe? The very fact that "equality" and "equal opportunities" are even defined in laws all over the world is already proof that they don't exist.

I learn much more than just a single online video clips thanks.

[dima_76557]

I learn much more than just a single online video clips thanks.

Good luck to you, then, if you have it all figured out.

[lostinidlewonder]

Good luck to you, then, if you have it all figured out.

I find the IF part in your sentence very convincing; crucial even.

[dima_76557]

I find the IF part in your sentence very convincing; crucial even.

Very funny. I hope you do realize that the failure rate at schools is going through the roof everywhere in the world, and the default modus operandi is to blame the victims - they don't work hard enough, are not motivated, etc.

As far as the key factor for success in piano playing is concerned, I'd like to give a clip of an interview with Dimitri Bashkirov, who raised many internationally renowned artists. It is in Russian, but there are subtitles available in English. For those who simply prefer to read it, I'll also give a link to text only. Please note his advice to the teachers:

III THE EDUCATION: What advice would you give to Piano students?

Instead of giving advice to students, I would give it to the teachers, to those who teach young children. My advice is that instead of tormenting them with exercises, they should instil in them the love for Music in order for them to transform music into the most important something for their lives.
Only by instilling in them the love for music can something be achieved: the innate qualities are important, of course, but instilling in them the feeling of not being able to live without it is fundamental.

text of the interview

[j_menz]

This is not my analysis. It is very much based on scientific evidence and clinical experience.
A Google search for "Birth trauma - a baby's view" will help you on your way to a better understanding.

All I get of any specifics is a study by Graham Kennedy, accredited (apparently his only qualification) by the Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy Association. You say alternative therapy medicine, I say quackery.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that to convince me.

[senanserat]

As a side note on my latest years of high school I did horrible even though I was always on the top 10 because I learned how stupid and useless the edu- no indoctrination was in the school systems.

[outin]

If you live in the western world then you have all the opportunity you need.

This may be the most uneducated statement in this thread so far

Of course it is possible that 100+ years of serious research in social sciences, biology, psychology and many other fields is all just worth nothing...because we are all born equally equippped and we all have equal opportunities if we just live in the same country...

[lostinidlewonder]

This may be the most uneducated statement in this thread so far

Of course it is possible that 100+ years of serious research in social sciences, biology, psychology and many other fields is all just worth nothing...because we are all born equally equippped and we all have equal opportunities if we just live in the same country...

You are interpreting what I meant by "opportunity" in a strange way and argue with yourself.

Generally everyone living in the Western World has the freedom to pursue whatever dreams and goals they want. The majority of us do not live simply to nourish themselves and stay alive like in many third world countries. This gives us the time and resource to pursue our aspirations rather than simply survive.

[faulty_damper]

A Good researcher/scientists seeks out knowledge by finding evidence of a phenomenon.  The Bad researcher/scientist already has an opinion and seeks "evidence" to support that opinion.  If this were a public speaking debate, what is going on in this thread would be fine.  But as a scientist, I would never argue opinion without evidence to support it.  There's a reason why more than a dozen books have been written about the talent myth that is so pervasive in Western culture.  Talent is just that: a myth.

Why some people succeed and others don't isn't because of "talent".  It's primarily opportunity.  Even in the field of economics, you'll read the same thing, that successful business people often succeed not by "hard work" but by opportunity.  Privilege also plays a large role.

Now if you are content with supporting your opinions without reliable evidence, that's your prerogative to remain ignorant.  But if you want to further your knowledge and understanding, a trip to the library or an academic database search would remedy any ignorance on your part.  Remember the Dunning-Kreuger effect: the stupid are too stupid to know that they're stupid.

[outin]

You are interpreting what I meant by "opportunity" in a strange way and argue with yourself.

Generally everyone living in the Western World has the freedom to pursue whatever dreams and goals they want. The majority of us do not live simply to nourish themselves and stay alive like in many third world countries. This gives us the time and resource to pursue our aspirations rather than simply survive.

I don't know where you live, but almost seems like there's much that you don't know about the Western world...or maybe we just have to accept that we cannot agree because this is also a major ideological issue...To accept that your statement is not true would lead to the conclusion that our social and political systems are not as great as many like to think.

[outin]

Why some people succeed and others don't isn't because of "talent".  It's primarily opportunity.  Even in the field of economics, you'll read the same thing, that successful business people often succeed not by "hard work" but by opportunity.  Privilege also plays a large role.

Although you still haven't presented any convincing evidence that talents would not exist (or explain what exactly you mean by talent), I have to say that we agree on the rest. Opprtunity is the key, talent is no guarantee of anything and quite irrelevant for the majority of people.

[dima_76557]

All I get of any specifics is a study by Graham Kennedy, accredited (apparently his only qualification) by the Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy Association. You say alternative therapy medicine, I say quackery.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that to convince me.

Here is to help your search, not to convince.

P.S.: Before you start searches, you may want to clear the cache in your browser. It is also possible that Google gives different search results for different parts of the world. Hope this helps a bit (links go to real resources, not to Google searches):

Babies Feel Pain Before Birth

Babies Remember Pain

https://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/birth-injuries-to-the-baby
Further reading & references down the page; 16 links.

Fetal Exposure to Excessive Stress Hormones in the Womb Linked to Adult Mood Disorders

Mode of birth and women’s psychological and physical wellbeing in the postnatal period

Women abused as children likelier to bear autistic child

BPA is associated with slower growth before birth

Mom's Placenta Reflects Her Exposure to Stress and Impacts Offsprings' Brains

Life’s Unequal Beginnings

[dima_76557]

Now if you are content with supporting your opinions without reliable evidence, that's your prerogative to remain ignorant.  But if you want to further your knowledge and understanding, a trip to the library or an academic database search would remedy any ignorance on your part.  Remember the Dunning-Kreuger effect: the stupid are too stupid to know that they're stupid.

Could you please show us one piece of RELIABLE evidence then? I haven't seen any so far, only premature conclusions and weak assumptions.
EDIT: by success I mean success in the process of piano playing, not career. In his interview, Dimitri Bashkirov makes a distinction between his best students and those who have a career. From what he says, we can infer that his best students actually do something else in life.

[j_menz]

Here is to help your search, not to convince.

Thanks for the links. Please note, I haven't disputed that babies feel pain, or that in-utero factors (including maternal stress or hormone levels) affect development.

My quibbles with your argument are on two matters only:

1) That modern birth methods are more painful/stressful to the baby than historical/natural methods.

2) That the pain felt is "remembered" in some way.

Only the "Babies Remember Pain" article addresses these, and is hardly convincing - the sole "evidence" being memories recovered under hypnotism.  Recovered memories have a certain credence in some psychological circles, but are also widely regarded as discredited. The tone of the article also is more advocacy than science, and appears to be supported by two loosely described case studies of such repressed memory recovery and a couple of unattributed anecdotes.

[dima_76557]

My quibbles with your argument are on two matters only:

1) That modern birth methods are more painful/stressful to the baby than historical/natural methods.

2) That the pain felt is "remembered" in some way.

Here is a 1-hour radio program of the Swedish Red Ice Radio about the horrors of contemporary birth protocols and procedures in hospitals. I would advise against eating and drinking just before and just after this listening experience. You may also want to skip the first 6 minutes, which have an ideological anti-government air to them (it is supposedly done to ultimately achieve mind control, but it is NOT my point to endorse that view or any other ideologies she spreads). The evidence of what goes on in hospitals is mainly from 6:00 to 24:30. After 24:30, some may experience what she says as unbearable and simply turn it off. It's in English, so you don't have to do a crash course in Swedish, relax.

Even if we assume that no real scientific evidence is available yet (researchers always assume a lot about their findings and the use of medical terms doesn't make understanding any easier), and even if we know that some birth educators have something of an advocating tone, our problem is that we can't really interrogate babies about it. And even if we could, the other problem is that there is not yet picture memory available in babies, so they have nothing to relate their memories to. Should we therefore take the easy road and simply deny that it exists, the same way that "talent" does not exist? If it is true, then it is one of the best explanations I have seen of why contemporary children are who they are, act the way they do, fail when you would expect them to succeed.

[pbryld]

This may be the most uneducated statement in this thread so far

Perhaps he should have said Europe instead.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't know where you live, but almost seems like there's much that you don't know about the Western world...or maybe we just have to accept that we cannot agree because this is also a major ideological issue...To accept that your statement is not true would lead to the conclusion that our social and political systems are not as great as many like to think.

Meh I don't really care enough to ask you to elaborate. It is logical that we have much more opportunity in the Western world than the third world in terms of goal setting, aspirations etc.

[outin]

Perhaps he should have said Europe instead.

I am in Europe, and not all Europeans are created equal either 

[outin]

Meh I don't really care enough to ask you to elaborate. It is logical that we have much more opportunity in the Western world than the third world in terms of goal setting, aspirations etc.

Yes, much more is logical. I only reacted to your original statement "...all the opportunity you need".

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes, much more is logical. I only reacted to your original statement "...all the opportunity you need".

We do have all the opportunity we need to succeed.

[dima_76557]

We do have all the opportunity we need to succeed.

Sure, but often not in a market that is already oversaturated. In the Third World, the opportunities may be even better than at home:
Go West - UK Graduates head to Africa
Ambitious graduates are increasingly moving to Africa in a bid to avoid menial jobs in Britain.

There are more emigrants than one would expect who leave their western countries deliberately to live somewhere else for other than economical reasons. When you talk to them as a Russian about why they left their countries to come and work here, you have trouble believing your ears sometimes. They very often say that "at home", there were "not enough opportunities" or it was "too over-organized", "boring", etc. (especially people from relatively smaller Western countries).

While this is not the third world, in Moscow alone, for example, not exactly the most foreigner-friendly city to live in (e.g. virtually everything around you is written in Russian characters), there are:

Americans (850), Argentinians (32), Australians (146), Austrians (92), Brazilians (44), British (849), Canadians (154), Chinese (30), Dutch (148), French (525), Germans (612), Indians (279), Irish (84), Italians (275), Polish (75), Portuguese (47), Swedish (128), Spanish (82), Swiss (76), Turkish (256) + a bunch I have no data about.

Some are here with their families and are not planning on leaving any time soon. I think the picture for St. Petersburg is much the same.

[outin]

We do have all the opportunity we need to succeed.

Then I will just refer back to my prevous posts...

[dima_76557]

A Good researcher/scientists seeks out knowledge by finding evidence of a phenomenon.  The Bad researcher/scientist already has an opinion and seeks "evidence" to support that opinion.

I had to think a bit before reacting to that part of your post. I beg to disagree.
Besides science, there is also a body of accumulated and generally accepted human experience that needs no scientific evidence at all to exist or to be recognized. Why is that? Because everybody who is not a scientist knows that certain stuff is processed by the brain, but not created by it, so it simply can't be analyzed/measured. You can only label it, and that's it.

Say you are walking down the street and you are suddenly hit by something, you pass out and you wake up in hospital. It makes no difference for how you feel whether it was an unexpected meeting with Mike Tyson or whether a truck hit you. Only j_menz may be interested in what really happened for the legal consequences. For the victim, it's enough to realize that their head hurts and that they cannot even remember what the last piano piece was they played. No sensitive human being will even question the complaints. No proof needed because we all know what it is to be hit by "something". No matter how far science has advanced in labeling the severity of the trauma, nobody will be able to guess how long it will take to recover or whether you will recover at all. Everybody knows that too. No evidence required.

When doctors shove a needle up your spine, it takes 4 adult males to keep you in position, because you will experience something that is called "pain", which needs no scientific evidence. I don't think that after being told what kind of experience it is, anybody will risk going through this, even if they are paid to do it for scientific research to see how capable a person is of screaming, measured on a decibel scale.

Now, people see accomplishments in certain individuals that are out of the ordinary; not everybody can do it. Such an experience witnessed in others is labeled as "talent", and even if it is not proven to exist scientifically, that is the way people talk about such experience, because they have no other words for it. It's clear from everybody's experience that this can't be the result of merely hard work and skills, because it borders in quality on something that is not human. It's that simple. It will exist until you prove CONCLUSIVELY that it doesn't. I'll tell you in advance: don't bother, because you can't. If you even try, you yourself will be the bad researcher you condemn, because it is your opinion that it doesn't exist, and you seek to prove that.

[faulty_damper]

It will exist until you prove CONCLUSIVELY that it doesn't. I'll tell you in advance: don't bother, because you can't. If you even try, you yourself will be the bad researcher you condemn, because it is your opinion that it doesn't exist, and you seek to prove that.

And I will say to you:  ...it is your opinion that it does exist, and you seek to prove that.

Again, you still insist on making correlation-causation fallacies and use straw-man tactics which is only valid in arguments, not science.  I've already presented my evidence, that of more than a  dozen books written on the talent myth.  I've also read the research long before I read some of these books.  I could have written a book myself based on the available evidence.  Finding evidence for talent in the literature is much harder to come by and most of those that support it  already assumed talent existed, (i.e. confirmation bias.)

People who believe in "talent" think of it as an abstract concept.  Researches, OTH, break it down and identify parts that make up a whole.  Once you see the parts, you'll realize that the forest is actually just a bunch of trees that are in proximity to one another.  This is why so many "talented" people have highly related traits that have nothing directly to do with the personal achievement such as economics, class, race, gender, etc.

By your definition of talent, men are clearly more talented than women since men achieve far more than women do.  I doubt you would accept this.  A better interpretation is that it is simply a reflection of the culture that praises men who accomplish things while downplaying women's accomplishments.  This has been confirmed by psychological experiments on such matters.

[j_menz]

Even if we assume that no real scientific evidence is available yet (researchers always assume a lot about their findings and the use of medical terms doesn't make understanding any easier), and even if we know that some birth educators have something of an advocating tone, our problem is that we can't really interrogate babies about it. And even if we could, the other problem is that there is not yet picture memory available in babies, so they have nothing to relate their memories to. Should we therefore take the easy road and simply deny that it exists, the same way that "talent" does not exist? If it is true, then it is one of the best explanations I have seen of why contemporary children are who they are, act the way they do, fail when you would expect them to succeed.

Thanks for the link. Will watch over the weekend. Don't worry about my delicate sensibilities - I've been known to watch anatomical dissections over dinner.

On the above argument, surely your not saying that because we can't prove it to be true, we shouldn't assume it's false and since we can't assume it's false we should take it to be true? It's a common fallacious logic, but I had thought better of you than that.

I also note that (some) children have been failing to live up to their supposed potential for a very long time, regardless of birthing practices.

[dima_76557]

By your definition of talent, men are clearly more talented than women since men achieve far more than women do.  I doubt you would accept this.  

Talking about strawman tactics...

I said nothing of the kind and neither did I imply it. Although you say it doesn't exist, I am perfectably capable of recognizing "talent" both in women and in men; in women more than in men actually. I am also able to recognize "beautiful touch" although we are told that doesn't exist either. You know why certain things that are not proven (yet) to exist still exist? Because people need food not only for the body, but also for the "soul", which science says doesn't exist either. That's what real artists/talents do: they subconsciously create the fata morgana this hungry and thirsty world is longing for; the divine. To find something of value for your research, you had better analyze not the artists/talents themselves, but what happens in the audience that reacts to what they do (release of whatever chemicals).

P.S.: In case you missed it: we already determined that success in terms of career depends on opportunities more than on talent. Opportunities are fewer for women, than they are for men. A qualified woman has to be ten times better than a qualified man to be recognized for one and the same position. This has nothing to do with her (lack of) talent. It's how society works. Please do not hold me responsible because I happen to be male.

[dima_76557]

On the above argument, surely your not saying that because we can't prove it to be true, we shouldn't assume it's false and since we can't assume it's false we should take it to be true? It's a common fallacious logic, but I had thought better of you than that.

Since we have no reliable feedback available from the victims (the babies), I am appealing to logic to prove a case. If you and I are able to experience "pain" and remember it, even subconsciously, give me one good reason why babies should not be capable of it. Is my logic fallacious?

[j_menz]

Since we have no reliable feedback available from the victims (the babies), I am appealing to logic to prove a case. If you and I are able to experience "pain" and remember it, even subconsciously, give me one good reason why babies should not be capable of it. Is my logic fallacious?

As I said, I don't quibble with the "experience" side of things, just the memory.

Consider - you remember quite a bit of your childhood, but as you go back to the very early stages, that simply fades out. It is not a matter of fading over time, you had no better memory of it ten years ago. It is that the brain is not equipped with the structures to record experience at that stage. That conceptual (and physical)  framework develops as a result of experience - language, categories etc. At birth, that is, at the very best, quite rudimentary, meaning that "memory" is not yet possible in any meaningful sense.

[dima_76557]

As I said, I don't quibble with the "experience" side of things, just the memory.

Consider - you remember quite a bit of your childhood, but as you go back to the very early stages, that simply fades out. It is not a matter of fading over time, you had no better memory of it ten years ago. It is that the brain is not equipped with the structures to record experience at that stage. That conceptual (and physical)  framework develops as a result of experience - language, categories etc. At birth, that is, at the very best, quite rudimentary, meaning that "memory" is not yet possible in any meaningful sense.

I tried to prove with my "cerebral contusion" post that the results of trauma may exist, even if the adult victim misses the association of where it came from. Not knowing about what happened (no picture memory available) does not make the case less severe, and the results in this case will be both physical and psychological pain if you can't remember who you were married to. Can you say to such a person: "Don't be a pussy; get up"? Does that mean that if we don't know what happened, effectively nothing happened.?

Also, the result of pain may not only be psycholocial; it can be damage done to the cortex and to the nervous system. A baby is under heavy compression when it goes through the channel into this world. If a certain nerve is under pressure for more than a certain amount of time, I find it very conceivable that that person will never be able to fulfil the motoric requirements in music by Beethoven, Liszt, etc. The person will not have the "talent" to do it.

[j_menz]

I tried to prove with my "cerebral contusion" post that the results of trauma may exist, even if the adult victim misses the association of where it came from. Not knowing about what happened does not make the case less severe, and the results in this case will be both physical and psychological pain if you can't remember who you were married to. Can you say to such a person: "Don't be a pussy; get up"? Does that mean that if we don't know what happened, effectively nothing happened."?

Also, the result of pain may not only be psycholocial; it can be damage done to the cortex and to the nervous system. A baby is under heavy compression when it goes through the channel into this world. If a certain nerve is under pressure for more than a certain amount of time, I find it very conceivable that that person will never be able to fulfil the motoric requirements in music by Beethoven, Liszt, etc. The person will not have the "talent" to do it.

Physical damage during birth is rare, but is a possibility. More common historically (for the smaller number who actually survived the experience) would be the deleterious effects of oxygen deprivation.  I see no evidence that modern birthing methods are any worse (and much reason to believe they are much better) than historical methods at avoiding such physical trauma.

Psychological trauma requires memory. It may be a suppressed memory, but it is a memory nonetheless. It is not that babies do not remember the details or cause of some distress, they do not remember the distress at all. It is simply not recorded, and has, therefore, no lasting consequence.

[dima_76557]

Psychological trauma requires memory. It may be a suppressed memory, but it is a memory nonetheless. It is not that babies do not remember the details or cause of some distress, they do not remember the distress at all. It is simply not recorded, and has, therefore, no lasting consequence.

I think that here, science is mistaken. My intuition tells me that the cortex and the nervous system do remember without the need for association. I don't see how that can NOT affect people's psychological well-being.

EDIT:

Physical damage during birth is rare, but is a possibility.

Physical damage during birth goes unnoticed too often.

[j_menz]

I think that here, science is mistaken. My intuition tells me that the cortex and the nervous system do remember without the need for association.

Your intuition on this point is, then, different to mine. And science agrees with mine.

You are entitled to your view, of course, but our discussion must end at this point. There is little to be gained if we cannot agree the basis for determining the facts upon which it is to be based.

[dima_76557]

Your intuition on this point is, then, different to mine. And science agrees with mine.

You are entitled to your view, of course, but our discussion must end at this point. There is little to be gained if we cannot agree the basis for determining the facts upon which it is to be based.

Science is orthodox, rigid. Lucky for us, there were great people who had both great intuition + the qualifications to back up their intuition and fight the orthodox points of view of scientists in their times. I don't have those qualifications (I love philosophy, but I hate the "anything that is not proven to exist does not exist" approach of modern science), but that does not make the theory itself invalid.

[j_menz]

Science is orthodox, rigid.

Sir Karl Popper might agree a little, but you should read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" on the subject. It may change your view on that.

[dima_76557]

Sir Karl Popper might agree a little, but you should read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" on the subject. It may change your view on that.

Hardly. Science by its very nature CANNOT prove that something does not exist because it works on induction. That's its curse. It can only comment on what IS, on what it finds through observation until its theories, generalized conclusions and assumptions about what was supposedly found are disproven by some other scientist(s). Science should never prove what ISN'T, or comment on what cannot be found. Neither can it make comments on what should or shouldn't be. In the case of talent, it has to admit that it just doesn't know whether it exists or not because it's outside the dimensions it can work with.
P.S.: This means that anyone who claims that "science has proven X NOT to exist" is lying to you, manipulating the discussion, working with false logic, which should be of more than average interest to a laywer.

[outin]

Having studied scientific philosophy and methodology with some respected professors I find that this thread has gone totally bonkers...Wouldn't even know where to start to comment 

Could we not just agree that it's not an enjoyable experience to be born and be happy we only need to do it once?

[dima_76557]

Could we not just agree that it's not an enjoyable experience to be born and be happy we only need to do it once?

Sure! By the way, you can say the same about going through the education process. It all starts at school, where pediatricians tend to diagnose you based on your GRADE at school, not on your actual biological age. It's fun when you are biologically almost one year younger than the rest in your class, but are looked down upon as "retarded" compared to the oldest in class who is labeled as a "prodigy". "Equal opportunities", that's what they call that.

[j_menz]

Hardly. Science by its very nature CANNOT prove that something does not exist because it works on induction. That's its curse. It can only comment on what IS, on what it finds through observation until its theories, generalized conclusions and assumptions about what was supposedly found are disproven by some other scientist(s). Science should never prove what ISN'T, or comment on what cannot be found. Neither can it make comments on what should or shouldn't be. In the case of talent, it has to admit that it just doesn't know whether it exists or not because it's outside the dimensions it can work with.
P.S.: This means that anyone who claims that "science has proven X NOT to exist" is lying to you, manipulating the discussion, working with false logic, which should be of more than average interest to a laywer.

One word response: Phlogiston.

[dima_76557]

One word response: Phlogiston.

Could you give me a hint as to what you mean with this response in this context?

I already acknowledged that scientists can attack each other on theories, generalized conclusions and assumptions about what they *think* they have found. Phlogiston has never been part of either the physical world or of general human experience. It was ASSUMED to exist (by a couple of scientists only!) in order to make an obsolete scientific theory work. Assumptions themselves CAN be proven not to be true, but you don't have to be a scientist to do so. That's why we need to be on the outlook constantly for false assumptions in theories that say they are based on scientific "evidence".

[j_menz]

Could you give me a hint as to what you mean with this response in this context?

I already acknowledged that scientists can attack each other on theories, generalized conclusions and assumptions about what they *think* they have found. Phlogiston has never been part of either the physical world or of general human experience. It was ASSUMED to exist (by a couple of scientists only!) in order to make an obsolete scientific theory work. Assumptions themselves CAN be proven not to be true, but you don't have to be a scientist to do so. That's why we need to be on the outlook constantly for false assumptions in theories that say they are based on scientific "evidence".

If we are talking about whether science can prove the non-existence of anything, that thing must start out as having a hypothetical existence. If it is assumed to have an actual existence, then clearly science cannot prove it doesn't exist because it by definition does.

I agree that we must be on the lookout for assumptions, particularly unstated ones. But that is as true in philosophy as it is in science.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Dang, this has gone even more overboard than my Valentina Lisitsa thread.   

[dima_76557]

Dang, this has gone even more overboard than my Valentina Lisitsa thread.  

What had you expected when false logic is used to prove that something that is part of general human experience does purportedly NOT exist?

1) Talent doesn't exist because science hasn't proven it yet to exist.
Comment: science has very limited knowledge about how our brain works. This was to be expected.
2) Talent does not exist BECAUSE opportunity, environment, hard work and formal skills exist.
Comment: No comment.

[j_menz]

What had you expected when false logic is used to prove that something that is part of general human experience does purportedly NOT exist?

1) Talent doesn't exist because science hasn't proven it yet to exist.
Comment: science has very limited knowledge about how our brain works. This was to be expected.
2) Talent does not exist BECAUSE opportunity, environment, hard work and formal skills exist.
Comment: No comment.

Actually, since there has been no agreement as to what talent is (or what it would be, were it to exist), any attempt to identify it's existence seems rather fraught. How do I know if shrdlu exits if I don't know what shrdlu even is?