QUOTE (ElenaM @ Sep 12 2009, 08:08 PM)

Music and drama were the main therapeutic ways of dealing with these ailments.
Charles Manson was quite familiar with the Beatles' work, and of course John Wilkes Booth was quite the theater buff, so I think there might have been some holes in that world view.

My point being that while you can say that
intuitively music has some theraputic benefits, it's only by making quantitative studies that you can
know what those benefits are, and come to understand how and when they appear, and how to apply them. Nonscientists often laugh about this sort of thing, but understanding things about the world in a quantifiable way is not a laughing matter.
Native Americans did know that willow tea could relieve pain. But willow tea also gives you terrible heartburn and literally eats holes in your stomach. By learning that salicylic acid was the active ingredient in willow, scientists were able to try sodium salicylate (which tastes terrible, but works too) and eventually acetylsalicylic acid (which Bayer eventually trademarked as Aspirin) and finally buffered aspirin tablets (which don't bother the stomach at all.) Many controlled studies were necessary to understand the effectiveness of each of these drugs. Was that funny, or worthless?
Not to detract from the knowledge of the ancients, but having a vague, intuitive sense that willow bark helps relieve pain is not the same as understanding why, quantifying it, and working to improve it. I'm sorry if I am sounding all hostile about this, but it touches a nerve: we are still in the middle of perhaps the most anti-intellectual period of world history since before the Enlightenment, and the image of scientists as blundering, out of touch objects of derision is especially irksome to me.