Abstract
The scientific investigation of music requires contributions from a diverse
array of disciplines (e.g. anthropology, musicology, neuroscience, psychology,
music theory, music therapy, sociology, computer science, evolutionary biology,
archaeology, acoustics and philosophy). Given the diverse methodologies, interests
and research targets of the disciplines involved, we argue that there is a
plurality of legitimate research questions about music, necessitating a focus on
integration. In light of this we recommend a pluralistic conception of music—
that there is no unitary definition divorced from some discipline, research
question or context. This has important implications for how the scientific
study of music ought to proceed: we show that some definitions are complementary,
that is, they reflect different research interests and ought to be retained
and, where possible, integrated, while others are antagonistic, they represent
real empirical disagreement about music’s nature and how to account for it. We
illustrate this in discussion of two related issues: questions about the evolutionary
function (if any) of music, and questions of the innateness (or otherwise) of
music. These debates have been, in light of pluralism, misconceived. We
suggest that, in both cases, scientists ought to proceed by constructing integrated
models which take into account the dynamic interaction between different
aspects of music.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 9-30 |
Journal | European Journal for Philosophy of Science |
Volume | 6 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2016 |