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

"science isn't letting you down it's your expectation of science"

Surely science should be able to show where sound is being corrupted or deviating from a source? Science cannot predict how humans perceive sound, but it should be able to measure the performance of equipment!

Scientific methods can be used to measure all sorts of performance criteria- volts, amps, volume, etc. Human beings however listen and rate performance based on their own personal evaluations of all of these combined. Scientific methods can be used to try and determine things like the weighting a particular listener gives each measurement, but it would be an inference based on their actual choices. This is all a long-winded explanation because you said, "science cannot predict how humans perceive sound" which is correct. But you then finish the sentence with, "but should be able to measure the performance of equipment!"

But science can. The discipline you seek is called logic or deductive reasoning. In it you will learn to avoid combining unrelated clauses as if they lead to a conclusion. They don't. They are unrelated. They lead to naught.

Science and its application in Engineering provides people many good quality choices for their hifis. Even a way to sort through the complexity and figure out what is most likely to work best. But its always up to you which fruits of science and engineering you will choose to own. Good sound is not that hard, expensive to obtain, or rare anymore. That’s progress! But one also must consider what other features matter most to them. Especially with digital streaming where so many new opportunities and ways to enjoy good sounding music come into play. Many choices, many features, more complexity, but nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

OR you can remain in the stone age and discount all that new and confusing technology. Nothing wrong with that either. To each their own. YMM always V.

... but [science] should be able to measure the performance of equipment!

That would be very useful ... sadly it's biggest contribution currently is to make the hard-of-hearing believe that the rest of us are as ill equipped to judge sound based on hearing as they are. 

" Science is a methodology that allows you to detect patterns in data."

"Science" is organized knowledge, not a methodology. "Scientific method" is the underlying methodology which results in the creation of scientific knowledge

Detecting patterns in data is a component of "data analysis", and of recent the term "data scientist" has been coined to described individuals who study data analytics.

" Once the patterns are validated and determined useful, then the science gets applied."

Rather, once a hypothesis which is developed to explain an observation is tested to be correct, it becomes part of what we consider accepted science.


I have yet to see a single self appointed "person of science" on this forum follow scientific method. Rather, most believe that an observation is false when they lack the knowledge to develop a hypothesis. That is antithecal to science and accepted scientific practice.