Aren't Science vs. Creation Debates......rather pointless?

[drfuzzy]

---

Now, I wonder why you didn't want this thread to stray off topic into perfect pitch? Is is possibly because you did no research into the subject and didn't know what the fuck you were pontificating about? I have a doctorate in music. Perfect/absolute pitch studies have been quite popular for the last thirty years or so.  In a nutshell, it has been found that the vast majority of humans have the ability to identify pitches, but if they don't have cognitive labels to hang that knowledge on early - while they are forming language - the ability is almost never gained in adulthood.  There have been studies on the curricula that attempt to teach it, but no results that rule out a pre-existing ability gained in an early life environment.  
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/dec/featbiology    Diana Deutsch is the current leader for cognitive tonality studies.
"Certain genes may help some people acquire perfect pitch more easily than others, but Deutsch's findings suggest that almost anyone can learn to label notes—provided they start young. Children who don't learn to do it by the time they learn the rudiments of language may never gain the ability."
It's also clearly understood - - dozens of studies - - that tonal language speakers develop perfect pitch at a much higher rate than speakers of non-tonal languages.  http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/us/stu...guage.html
'What it means to me is that people have a very accurate memory for musical pitch,'' said Dr. Daniel Levitin, a cognitive psychologist at McGill University in Montreal who has studied perfect pitch. Louis Svard gives a 2013 overview of absolute pitch studies here: http://www.themusiciansbrain.com/?p=190

My younger brother has absolute pitch at a very high level. A door can squeak and he can tell you what pitch it was. He clearly had the predisposition, but gained that skill by listening to me press piano keys and name the notes. I have it at a much lower level than he does, because I was 4 years old before I started assigning names to pitches.  

Since you apparently like to brag about how you are "better" than people who are "born-with-it", you will obviously trot out your superiority to someone else for the sake of stroking your own ego.  Perhaps if you read up on your subject, instead of pulling "facts" out of your ass, you might actually sound intelligent.

---

I hit a nerve somewhere.  I really don't appreciate your tone.

---

 Plus you're all talk, I can find numerous of tests testifying to the same stuff you mention everywhere, and I was even part of a California study which 'of course' testified to the same thing.  My point is, there are exceptions and statistical outliers. - I was I think only one out of two that actually passed their exam with flying colors that also had no early training in perfect pitch and music in general.  I actually stayed quite in close touch with the professor doing those studies too since you accused me of "not doing any research".

I've actually walked the walk learning perfect pitch and been part of a couple studies. So if you want me to respect your 'doctorate in music', then you should respect what I accomplished as well and also sound professional in your responses. It's hard to take you seriously when you have lines like, " Perhaps if you read up on your subject, instead of pulling "facts" out of your ass, you might actually sound intelligent," and "Is is possibly because you did no research into the subject and didn't know what the fuck you were pontificating about?"  Those are lines an arrogant, whiney teenager would say - not an educated professional.

And I hate to say it, but I have a master's in music too, and those degrees are a lot easier to come by than in most scientific fields. I have a second masters but in computer science and it was a lot harder.  Anyway to show my "walk", feel free to check out http://www.prolobe.com and it has oodles of concrete statistics there under two usernames I had: maestroanth and curiousgeorge.  You should maybe try that program yourself sometime too instead of finding more studies by psychologists with questionable musical skills to quote, but I think your mind is already set.

If you are still angry and want to argue about this, then there is a forum there too on that site where you can post so it's not off-topic.

---

Well, you did hit a nerve.  Your tone was the bragging posturing was the same as I run into all the time - guys talking your ear off about how they're geniuses and better than everybody else, but when you put them through a tryout, they can't even sight-read the easiest example.  Then they try to yell at you because "I don't need any of that stuff, just let me play, you're an elitist snob".  He was followed by a "brilliant" singer who brought a high soprano accompaniment, when she's a contralto, and tells me to "just play what's there, I'll make it work".  I did, she couldn't, and she was cussing me out for being incompetent.  So yeah, your post sounded like #3.  I apologize for my tone, I should have just posted the research.

Computer science is a challenging field.  My Masters in Music wasn't a cakewalk though.  I had to present two recitals, go through 8 hours of comps, and write a Thesis, in addition to the coursework.  I will look at your site.  I'm always up for a provable new twist in music psychology.  

Your assertion that music notation is a man-made construct is irrelevant to perfect pitch, as you are well aware, if you have been doing the research you describe.  Pitch identification can be accomplished by many different methods.