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

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.

     "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?"
     "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."

     It's the complete (or: perhaps, willful) ignorance of so many, as to what's either been proven and/or obviated, since the dawn of the Scientific Method, that still astounds me.

     It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas.

      What those that adamantly want their antiquated, "Science" to make sense (ie: their Math to eloquently balance, or: their universe to yet be based on Newtonian, or strictly Relativity principles) have missed, is that, SO OFTEN: what's been observed and tested/proven makes no sense.

       That's been the argument between some of the greatest minds, especially in the area of Physics an Electrical Theory, since the early 1920s.

        Anyone that's been paying any attention, AT ALL, to what's been happening subsequent to that time period; would be up on all of that!

         For one NOT to be current, on what's been going on; as regards the inventions and scientific proofs, based on such a, "crackpot theory" as either QM or QED and yet refer to themselves as a, "prof", seems to me: the height of hubris.

         UNLESS of course: they were a Professor in a field such as Geology or one of the Liberal Arts (ie: Home Economics).    
                                                  In which case: my apologies!

   Correction, for clarity:  "That's been the argument between some of the greatest minds, especially in the areas of Physics AND Electrical Theory, since the early 1920s."