Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

" Test tones can show distortion and noise better than music. :

It doesn't.

Many amplifiers with very low THD numbers sound terrible. Many amps with bad THD numbers sound very good. 

Test tones are well chosen to stress the device under test.

That would have been very important if I wanted an amplifier to draw nice sinus curves on my oscilloscope. I don't. 

How much value you get from it is up to you.

Indeed. I can convince myself a bad sounding amp sounds good because it has a low THD. Or I can trust my ears and choose great sounding equipment on the basis of what it sounds to me.

The article on scientism is nonsense. I’ve read it, it’s so full of holes to be useless.

Of course you’d claim it’s nonsense. It exposes people like you.

The irony is that you don’t seem to have the presence of mind to realize that your posts are proof positive to everyone else on the forum that scientism is real.

I didn't simply claim it was nonsense I showed the flaw in the author's thinking. My posts are nothing more than proof some aren't lost in a subjectivist maze. I don't meet the requirements for "scientism" if anything I would be considered a reductionist. 

I don’t meet the requirements for "scientism" if anything I would be considered a reductionist.

When it is a methodological stance reductionism is "genuine" experimental hypothesis that simplify and make possible many experiments ...

When it is an ontological belief like you claim it is, this is basic scientism at work... Especially in an audio thread among hobbyists, where reductionism, being only scientism in disguise, is used to reject any claim which are without "scientific proofs", which is a ridiculous demand not prorportionate with the activity of hobbyist partaking their simple experiments...Especially when the experiment to be perform are simple and at no cost....Rejecting the experiment is "faith" in some alleged idolatry of " science" and then not science....

Further more human perception is a "WHOLE" not reducible to parts, which psychoacoustic science for example study and  correlate to measurements but never reduce to them....It is a methodological reductionism here....


Stubborness is not intelligence...Defiance is not rationality....Distrust being compatible with idolatry of technology and rejection of any trust in human perception in the name of some alleged measurements presented to be the ONLY "science" is borderline ridiculous.

I have no idols, computers or calves.