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

You know that there is no such thing as gravity right?

Pauly, take a 10 pound weight and raise it to your eye level.  Position the object directly above your right big toe.  Release the object.  Now tell me there's no such thing as gravity?  The explanation of gravity has changed and probably will continue to be refined, but the phenomena exist independent of human understanding.

Science cannot replace hearing...But hearing cannot replace science and technical tools....

This is the reason the measures controls of "psycho-acoustic science" which science is not physical acoustic, are not about the measuring results apparatus "per se" but about the CORRELATION between measures of all kind in acoustic physics, neurological and measures and reaction time and psychological human hearing...

I used for examble the reflective acoustic measures and numbers and their relation and their timing with the reverberation time in MY room with MY ears to create a no cost diffusive surfaces and reflecting one to modify and completely recreate the sound imaging in my room not only between speakers....

Without the experiments made in psycho acoustic laboratory in Japan, i would have never been able to think that it was possible...

Science ? YES but which one?

Heraring ? YES but with listening experiments yes, guessing only NO....


Then those who when they speak science speak about electriucal measures ONLY are ignorant...

Those who negate the measures used in psycho-acoustic laboratory are also guilty of ignorance...

Like in politics and like in school-yards, warring is acting like binary minded  apes, sorry....

I refuse to be labeled by idiotic names.... Either political one or audio one like "subjectivist" or "objectivist"....

There’s no right or wrong but this idiotic idea science is useless in analyzing electronics and transducers in the human audible range is nonsense

Your notion of science is TOO limited...

Psycho-acoustic science is not electronical analysis ....

Hearing is the basis of psycho-acoustic phenomenon analysis....

You cannot predict what an audiophile will like, replacing his ears by ONLY electronical analysis...This is technological idolatry...

You are like those who negate science, save you confuse the complex scientific analysis with technological simplistic views of your own...

Audio is not REDUCIBLE to electronical tools....Audio experiuence and experiments is for Brain/ears not mainly for microphones...

I based my own experiments with my ears ON science facts, but i do not replace and never replace the testimony of my hearing by tools or numbers...

I used them not BELIEVE them....

Science can help us to walk, but cannot do the walking for us...

Maps are not reality.....

microphone are not ears....

Etc....

You are like someone who need a scapegoat: an objectivist need a subjectivist like 2 neighbours who like to kill one another.... Enjoy your game...

I prefer psycho-acoustic science....With psycho-acoustic science minimalistic facts and experiments, any investment in electronical costly upgrade was useless for me now.... Science spare me much money.....Objectivist or subjectivist faiths are costly audio marketing  religions in audio forums....

Sorry.....

Everyone with a pet belief he can't justify empirically tries the same mode of defense.

So we wee that tired old refrain from some audiophiles "Science has been wrong before you know!"  and "science doesn't know everything!"

It's the same refrain used by every crackpot theory in the world.
Ask yourself:  When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?
That's right, by more science.  It's a self-correcting method.
You don't get to say "I'm justified in believing something that contradicts or isn't validated by current science...because MAYBE science is wrong and we'll discover I'm right."    Literally any nonsense idea would fly under such conditions.  The rational approach is to realize how science is a way of sifting the wheat from the chaff, the hypotheses that hold up to empirical scrutiny, and those that don't.