A properly designed test IS scientific. But no need to call it "scientific" if you don't want to. The term adds nothing to a well designed test.
And it isn't a matter of tests turning anyone on. Its a matter of a hobby and the industry that surrounds it often making incredible claims about very expensive products. If the claims, bling factor, price tag and some magazine reviewer using all the pat terms is all you need to plunk down big money so be it. If you like what you bought then that's even better. Its all good.
But there comes a point at which the glaring absence of anything approaching credible and reproducible evidence creates a certain level of warranted skepticism and dismissal.
And I suspect those who moan and groan the most about testing are those who stand to lose the most. That includes vendors, magazines and purveyors of dubious tweaks.
And it isn't a matter of tests turning anyone on. Its a matter of a hobby and the industry that surrounds it often making incredible claims about very expensive products. If the claims, bling factor, price tag and some magazine reviewer using all the pat terms is all you need to plunk down big money so be it. If you like what you bought then that's even better. Its all good.
But there comes a point at which the glaring absence of anything approaching credible and reproducible evidence creates a certain level of warranted skepticism and dismissal.
And I suspect those who moan and groan the most about testing are those who stand to lose the most. That includes vendors, magazines and purveyors of dubious tweaks.