This sure sounds like hard science. Lots and lots of "I believe" in there. He couldn't even be bothered to listen to it. It is no more authoritative than Vandersteen's anecdotal evidence. Is there any evidence that Richard Vandersteen does not use science in his designs? I would say that quite the opposite is true. In fact, he would say that designers that choose to not pay attention to phase in their speakers are absolutely wrong. He does back that with measurements. I am not saying either is right or wrong. I am just pointing out that many people here love to pick out the expert that they want to believe. You know, appeal to authority.
How ironic that you would accuse me of cherry-picking, then pluck just one of a number of quotes from Shaw that I provided, while ignoring those that include scientific reasons supporting his skepticism.
The onus of proof is on those, including Vandersteen, who claim that biwiring DOES make a meaningful difference, to support those claims with science. Has he done so? I am still awaiting proof that he has.
This:
Is there any evidence that Richard Vandersteen does not use science in his designs?
is a silly straw man. No one has suggested anything of the sort. And of course the fact that Vandersteen does, broadly speaking, use science in his designs, is irrelevant to the specific question being debated.
Shaw and the many other skeptics have provided technical reasons why biwiring does not make a meaningful, audible difference. If you are able to provide evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to listen to it.