"I prefer the process of imagining how things might have been or could be than attempting to determine how they are, especially as I am of the conviction that there is indeed essentially no such thing other than that which we imagine ... " 'Crow Sister'

And it's all so much easier just to make it all up, isn't it, CS? I suspect that it's also much more satisfying to the ego to dismiss the idea of others who are (inevitably!) more intelligent, insightful and observant than you and me.

While I'm here there's one other thing that's bugging me. That's the idea that if the evidence doesn't fit 'your' (and I'm not referring specifically to you, CS) preconceptions you are entitled to dismiss it, or any theory derived from it, out of hand. I had enough of that attitude whilst I was working. I worked on (consumer) product claims and was responsible for supporting those claims with scientific tests. On several occasions, when the evidence didn't support the claim, some idiot in marketing would accuse me of "doing the wrong test". It turns out that this attitude is very widespread and not just confined to the company I worked for - read Ben Goldacre's book, 'Bad Science' for example.

I glimpse this same attitude in this debate about the nature of folk music. Cecil Sharp and others had studied folk music in the field and had begun to discern some common patterns and themes. Eventually the much (and completely unjustly, in my opinion)derided 1954 definition achieved a synthesis of these ideas which much explanatory power. Nevertheless, it doesn't fit with certain people's preconceptions (or 'made-up-in-the-bath' theories) and must be ridiculed and dismissed out of hand - C. Sharp and successors 'must have done the wrong test'.

There are "such thing(s) other than that which we imagine", 'Crow Sister', whether you like it or not. And I'm also convinced that, as result of the way in which our brains are wired, the way that reality is doesn't fit with the way that we imagine it ought to be.