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

Speakers aren't amplifiers we were discussing amplifiers. I agree trained listeners would have a better chance identifying speakers.

Pass purposely creates a sound with his amps,  take an amp that measures the same, I doubt in blind testing it would be identifiable.

Science is the starting point of spiritual evolution, and a railing against extremism, science is not an endpoint of the road... Only scientism claim to be this endpoint....But science is not scientism... The departure point and the railing is NOT the road...

Here a video analysing a stupid scientist experiment working now :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFm2lRRJNi0

Which is why I added Nelson Pass. You don't think he listens to his amps for the final tuning?

From  Stereophile in 2017:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science

Pass: Measurements and listening go hand in hand. There is a correlation between objective and subjective, but they're not strictly causal relationships. Clearly, there are some amplifiers that measure great with "standard" measurements but don't sound so good, and there are examples of good-sounding/bad-measuring as well. The discrepancies are interesting because they point to either things that have not been measured—more likely, misinterpreted—or aspects of perception and taste that don't correlate to measured flaws. Or both.

In the end, the subjective experience is what our customer is looking for. Our taste in sound may not appeal to everyone, but it's what we have to work with, and we only need a small segment of the market to be successful. I don't neglect the measurements; I put them to work.

The map of reality is not reality. Even the best maps are imperfect.