How Science Got Sound Wrong

We all know the fate of any thread when people actually argue about what is "science".  As they always say, ... yeah good luck with that.  I think I'll go watch my paint drying.  

andy2

I think you are not wrong...I apologize and wish you a good paint drying...My best to you....

Yeah me history, that thing that Foucault somewhere in The Order of Things called the mother of science...it also could have been referred to as the queen mother of science....but its been a while.

That being said he was an outlier....though his ideas are pretty good at dealing with cultural history, which is kinda complisticated, on several levels.

In the field of philosophy this is not so, despite philosophy being the primary discipline in which he was educated, and with which he ultimately identified. This relative neglect is because Foucault’s conception of philosophy, in which the study of truth is inseparable from the study of history, is thoroughly at odds with the prevailing conception of what philosophy is.

And....

Science is concerned with superficial visibles, not looking for anything deeper

.
The above from        https://www.iep.utm.edu/foucault/

You are conflating processing with capture. The study showed that processing occurs differently from what was expected. That does not change the fact there are a given number of rods and cones.

Similar for audio, no matter how neurons may process, it does not change the shape of our ears or the construction, or the hair cells and how that will place physical limitations on what can be heard.

I am not sure what dogma you are referring to with previous posters. I have read cogent discussions of digital reproduction and hand waving in response. In Science, theories are very close to facts, they are just called theories due to the rigour to prove anything a "law" in a vast universe.

teo_audio1,289 posts12-16-2019 1:42pm Visual neurons don’t work the way scientists thought, study finds

I know, lets find some flatearthers who think that mathematical analogies mistaken as facts.... somehow represent how people hear.

As they read something about human hearing and decided to force factualize that into the math they learned in some engineering application.

As god knows, since science says there are no facts and all is theory, as thing change constantly..well..

it then makes perfect sense to create a whole wall of facts around the engineering math of sound reproduction and somehow conflate this into some dogma about how humans hear....and all must be that reality....and the rest is just human fallacy, right?

As we know all the math and we know everything about human hearing, right?

Just like we knew everything about human eyesight just yesterday, right?

When the first atom bomb exploded in the desert a lot of theories suddenly became facts. Duh!