Almarg said, "Scientific investigation and scientific progress draw upon a combination of observation, experimentation, analysis, technical understanding, and (dare I say it) reasoned judgment and common sense, among other factors. I see no reason for audio to be any different."
I have taught course on the scientific method for many years in psychology and political science and taken courses in physics. I have heard that hypothesis testing with observation data using measures that are accepted as valid and isomorphic to the concepts in the hypotheses and at the ultimate stage, the use of experiments that allow the assessment of causality are all the essence of the scientific method. But I have never heard that common sense is part of this. Of course, technical competency is needed, but I haven't a clue what technical understanding means. Reasoning is, of course, needed to formulate hypotheses and to move to the level of theory formulation. Much of these last elements are clearly anti-science and any scientist that utter this as the basis for his judgment would be ignored by his colleagues. They are needed for you to justify ignoring observations and failure to conceptualize why fuses differ sonically, to assess what is going on, and to dismiss as nonsense that there could be such differences.
