Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
How is an artist saying directly that they were influenced by another artist NOT smoking gun? And ironically i think you are over intellectualize it because you are now contradicting your pwn original argument about the Beatles being influential
|
Because you're saying it's not subjective, but self-report measures (like open ended questions and testimonies) are *always* biased. In the realm of rational empiricism, someone saying something is never a smoking gun. Why knows why they really said it? There's no way to tell. Have to be able to establish some validity in these scenarios and there's no test for how much so-and-so's statement about what influenced him truly reflects what actually influenced him.
How are yo not getting this?
And no, I'm not contradicting my argument, I'm saying none of this is-- not my argument, not yours, not that terrible paper's author-- is 100% scientifically measurable, because all of it is just basically opinion, or someone else's opinion, or someone's own statement about the past. My argument is that kind argument that the Beatles are influencial is not something that can be measured scientifically.
So I'm pretty much just saying the same shit over and over and over at this point. Can we be done?