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

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. 

I don't reject all claims without scientific proof, only ridiculous claims where not even a bare minimum of effort was extended to see if it made sense.  Measurements and testing are vital to building good audio gear but so is listening they go hand in hand.