Response to Michelle's question

Michelle's question: "Can we truly listen to philosophical musical claims and believe them or are these claims like the theories made in science, which is always changing as more research is done?"


First I must ask because of the 'or' --"believe them or are these claims like the theories made in science," is this to say scientific theories are not for believing? (by which I mean--) Is belief implied here as non-changing, or the things believed in are non-changing? I'm just looking for a little elaboration.

Philosophical musical claims vary in all different ways. And they evolve, just as scientific claims evolve. There is a process to both. Then there are differences of course.

If we are specifically talking about the philosopher who made the claim -there was no music until the 1800s-

This specific claim is a theory. I think that one can believe this claim, it itself does not explain specifically what music is intended to mean. So the deviation between perceptions may be lengthy.
But either way i think, especially after discussing different analysis of it by different perceptions, the constructive thought about it is kind of like added research, philosophically, it is a process, growing.

I think belief/ a belief can evolve and is a process through experience. There's no necessary dichotomy between that and a traditional, non-changing belief.

MY QUESTION: Do you think belief can evolve, not evolve? Can you think of a belief in something that does change, and a belief in something that does not change?