Interesting point; in the sense that all of the above had either employers, were commissioned to produce specific works or had to take account of political or other pressures upon them I think it can be argued that they most definitely produced their work for a specific audience. This is not to deny their genius and to recognise the reality of their situation does not deny the fact that their art transcends its origins.

So if Prince Galitzin commissioned Beethoven to write him some string quartets, he wrote them for the "specific audience" of Prince Galitzin, huh? Gosh, you do write some waffle.



If you believe that Darwin published with a view that his work would enjoy general consumption I suggest you check out the publishing history of his work. Of course he was writing for a specific audience...

Then he failed abysmally.

With regard to your apparent lack of knowledge of scientific method I need do no more than refer you to your various interchanges with Snail in which you appeared to be ignorant of the principal of falsifiability or to understand the difference between observed phenomena and a theory constructed to explain such phenomena.,/i>

This is just more empty gibberish. Snail is a petty irritant, and referring me back to our "exchanges" in such an unspecific manner is just lazy. Either dig up some hard evidence from said exchanges or give up the potty for the next baby.

I could also point to your inability to read documents accurately (Ruse and other science witnesses) but that might be seen as a cheap shot.

Feel free. What's a "science witness", by the way?

And it's "principle."