A Music Historian's Dilemma

Today I had an interesting chat with someone about popular music history research. One of the things we discussed was the problem of inaccurate information spreading when the first people to publish books on particular topics are careless in their research and everyone else copies them. Another problem we talked about is the danger of having other people use you by having you provide them with information and then publishing it without giving you credit. Both of these problems are things I've given a fair amount of thought to, though there is no simple solution to either.

If you are forced to rely on available information and that information is limited, you always run the danger of copying someone else's error. Ideally, of course, you would find some way to double check the information you obtain, but this is not always possible. For instance, while I try to check the release dates of songs and records against the original records and/or contemporary newspaper or magazine articles, sometimes this is not possible, so I'm forced to rely on something someone else has written. If you have reason to question the reliability of your source, all you can do is make clear that you are repeating what someone else has written, i.e., that any inaccuracies can be traced to them.

Conversely, when you yourself are the first to publish a definitive account of something, you have a particular responsibility to get your facts straight, as others are likely to rely on you for information. This is one reason I always feel I need to do more work before I can feel reasonably certain that what I'm writing is accurate.

As for the danger of being used, the obvious solution is to avoid giving your information to anyone else. But since sooner or later you may want information from others, you have to be willing to provide some in return. Also, ultimately the point of collecting all this information is to share it with others, so it's not like you can horde it like a miser forever. So I am usually willing to share a little information with others (but not all of my information at once), and ideally I will eventually make all of it available, though in a way that will ensure that I get credit for gathering it in the first place (and at least a little profit, if there is any to be made). But to do the latter, the first problem still has to be solved -- i.e., I want to make sure my information is as accurate as possible. This then creates a danger that others may use bits of information that I have given them or made public before I have a chance to formally publish them myself. So it seems that what I really need to do is finish my research and publish something as soon as possible.... We'll see if I can manage that.

Some articles on logic and beliefs

I should probably take time to write a new essay discussing at least some of the events of recent days, such as the Nobel committee's interesting selection of Barack Obama as recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. (In brief, I think it was a bit premature, and there were other candidates at least as worthy, but on the other hand it's true that he has had a major impact on the global climate just by changing many people's perception of America. What remains to be seen is whether he can really live up to such high expectations.) However, I'm feeling a bit lazy, so instead I'm just providing a few links to some old articles on a topic I find fascinating, namely people's ability (or inability) to think logically, and the resaons people believe what they believe. Many years back I started an essay of my own along similar lines, but I never finished it. One day I'll get back to it, but in the meantime here are the articles:

Health Care Debate Based on Lack of Logic
By Jeanna Bryner Senior Writer
LiveScience.com
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090826-healthcare-debate.html

People Unsure of Beliefs Are More Close-Minded
By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
01 July 2009 11:38 am ET
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090701-close-minded-people.html

Monsters, Ghosts and Gods: Why We Believe
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor
18 August 2008 11:00 am ET
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080818-monsters-ghosts-gods.html

A Dialogue

Since it's been a few weeks since I posted anything and I don't have anything new written, here's an odd little dialogue that I wrote a couple of years back. It was unfinished so I added a few more lines. I was tempted to leave it open-ended or to extended it even further, but in the end I decided to give it a real closing, for better or for worse.

"If you really want to do it, then, fine, we'll do it."
"Look, if you aren't really willing...."
"I just said I was."
"You don't sound very willing."
"What do you mean? I said, okay, let's do it."
"But the way you put it...."
"'Okay' means 'okay.'"
"You said that if I really want to, then you'd go along. That sounds kind of reluctant to me."
"You said you really wanted to."
"I do, but I want you to want to, too."
"'To to too?' You lost me."
"I just mean that if you're only doing it because I want to, then it's not like you really want to."
"It was your idea."
"But the point is you don't seem very enthusiastic about it."
"What do you want me to do, jump up and down?"
"Of course not. It's just that...."
"Anyway, just because you really want to do it doesn't mean you have the right to expect me to want to do it as much as you do."
"It'd be nice if you wanted it at least a little."
"I said I'd do it."
"But that doesn't mean you want to do it; it sounds like you're only doing it to make me happy."
"Trust me, if I really didn't want to do it, I wouldn't."
"Not not wanting to do it isn't the same as wanting to do it."
"'Not not wanting?'"
"You know what I mean."
"Not really."
"Don't be obtuse."
"I'm not being obtuse, I really don't know what you're talking about."
"Look, you said you were willing...."
"Right, so what more do you want?"
"But you don't really want to."
"Like you just said yourself, I said I was willing."
"But willing doesn't mean you want to."
"What else could it mean?"
"It only means that you don't absolutely refuse. It's reluctant acquiescence."
"Did I say I was reluctant?"
"You sounded reluctant."
"In what way?"
"You just did."
"So you think you know what I'm thinking just from the way I say things?"
"Sure, I can tell."
"Well, if you can read my mind, then why bother ask me what I think in the first place?"
"I didn't say I could read your mind, I said I could guess."
"You said you could tell. That doesn't mean you guess, that means you know."
"Now you're nitpicking. Fine, I can't read your mind. So tell me, do you really want to do it or not?"
"I told you a hundred times, if you really want to do it, then fine by me."
"Arrgh, here we go again. Look, I don't want to feel like I'm forcing you to do it."
"You aren't forcing me. I wouldn't let you force me."
"But you wouldn't even do it if I didn't want to do it."
"Of course not. Why should we do it if you don't want to?"
"That's my point too. Maybe we shouldn't do it if you don't want to."
"I never said I didn't want to."
"But you never said you wanted to, either."
"Look, maybe I don't want to do it as badly as you do. Is that what you want me to say?"
"Then maybe we shouldn't do it at all."
"I know you really want to do it. So if we don't, you're going to act all moody."
"No, I won't."
"Yes, you will. You're acting that way already."
"I am not. If you don't want to do it, I can live with that."
"Ha! So you say now, but you'll mope about it forever. Anyway, I didn't say I didn't want to."
"You're sure acting like you don't."
"Oh for crying out loud, just set up the chess board and let's play."