| 1 |
| |
| Since we are supposed to be studying a great deal of data gathered from many sources in
order to reach the goals discussed, the application of the computer with all its advantages
and difficulties appears to be a possible, indeed imperative requirement. The usual argument
in favour of a device of this kind, meant to allay both prejudice and overconfidence at
the same time, is that the computer is but only an instrument, and it is the scholar who
must be capable of formulating reasonable questions and evaluating the answers received.
I think everybody would agree with these theses. What is not clear in this statement is
the 'instrumental' quality of the computer. The scholar can, of course, formulate questions
related to his science and can translate the answers gained by means of the usual technology
(adequate computer programs, accurate input, etc.) into the language of his own special
subject. In most cases this leads, however, nowhere, or what is worse, into a wrong direction.
The computer deceives us with its long lists of data, the statistical results, breakdowns
and tables which are undoubtedly true but without any real sense. The achievements are no
more than facts, and it may happen that we have not come nearer to the solution of the
essence of our scientific problems. In other words: these data do not provide a satisfactory
answer to the questions raised by generations of scholars time and again during the long
history of their special subject. |
| We have applied various devices in our work for quite a long time and the way we have used
them may serve as a model for integrating the new 'instruments'. How can the instruments,
the technical devices, be used adequately in human sciences? The usual sequence is not to
'set the question - use the means - formulate the final thesis' which would be an interaction
'brain - machine - brain' in our case. In fact the scholar performs an intellectual work in
each phase of research and while doing so, he has recourse to various objects and instruments
(book, lists, notes) in the appropriate moment. After some time he returns to his
intellectual working habits again, to methods developed by and characteristic of each
special subject. Notes on slips of paper may be the best analogy of how instruments can
be used in human sciences. They help us in preparing, remembering and sorting the material.
On the other hand, the scientific analysis and syllogistic thinking do not precede or
follow the use of notes on slips. The two kind of activities function by turns, in small
steps during the whole process. |
| The computer has proved to be a helpful device for performing research into the repertory
and structure of liturgy and plainchant only in the sense described above. A mere
statistical approach would be in contrast with the essence of our subject, which has to
do with the qualities (and not with the quantities of a homogeneous material). We have
to intervene at every step of the computing process by interpreting, evaluating and
distinguishing important facts from negligible ones. Real scientific work includes
considering the data from the computer and at the same time an immediate reaction,
making changes in its program. As we have stated before, the requirement of having
no predetermined points for analysis makes us free to recognize the characteristics
contained in the different materials themselves. Similarly, we must avoid creating a
predetermined program for the use of the computer and we have to initiate dialogues with
it over and over. In terms of scholastic philosophy we may say that our subject requires
intellect and not reason. This fact determines the manner and extent of computer
application. |
| In practice the computer can in our case be applied in three partial fields: |
| (i) | for systematic data recording, |
| (ii) | for a fast comparison of data (whereas it must be decided in each case what is
worth being compared and with what), and |
| (iii) | for displaying the results in a manner easy to survey. |
|
| 1 [Next] |