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

   That you're unaware (poof) and need to be led by the hand (or nose, as the case may be), proves my point (you're a poser).

    I'd discuss QED, Electrical Theory and the proofs that there's much more going on, than shoving electrons through wires, but: it would clearly be a waste of keystrokes.

     Regarding the senses: not that I actually expect you to read anything, lest you awaken from your educational coma, but:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-quantum-mechanics-lets-us-see-smell-and-touch

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/quantum-biology-may-help-solve-some-of-lifes-greatest-mysteri...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/

   This one may not apply, as you (et al) obviously have trouble with your synapses:

https://www.livescience.com/quantum-like-model-of-decision-making-proposed.html

    Once again: "My position has always been: with what we've learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons."

     What is it about POSSIBILITIES, that triggers the Naysayer Church's popes, so?
                     
                                        OH: I get it:  

                                       It's HERESY!

     ps: I don't post such things, expecting to enlighten the willfully ignorant.    I just believe someone else may be interested in what's been going on, all around us, in the realm of the sciences, for the past (100 or so) years..

@djones-   
"Quantum mechanics doesn't explain what you hear applying various goopy substances to cables..."

    Neither QM, nor, "Psychology", need explain that.

     As I said: that's simply a matter of improving the CONTINUITY (ie: increase contact and lower the resistance) of the connection.

    

@rodman99999 +1

I myself experiment ONLY and have bought no costly "tweaks" and upgrades, using , listening experiments, with homemade controls in the mechanical, electrical,and very importantly, in the acoustical embedding dimension of my audio system....

All my results are inspired by simple science facts (Helmholtz resonators and diffusers in my acoustic settings for example and damped springs for vibrations), or complex psycho-acoustic research to create my imaging effect, and also by simple experiments with cheap unexplained working artefacts (schuman generator, ionizers, shungite+copper plates and other controversial means).

Is it not science spirit to experiment like i did?

My goal was not publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal, then i never need organized blind-test like claim some crusaders here...Selling no cost creativity is not selling costly products and boasting about them...

My goal was to prove that with a relatively modest system we could achieve great results at PEANUTS cost....Against all the marketing conditioning, i used simple science and experiments...

Then some "pseudo-scientist" could come here and had come, mocking me, and asking for a blind test.... 😁

Objectivist/subjectivist debate for me are ridiculous and child like.... But i prefer those who use also their ears to those who read only dials to create their audio room...Acoustic is a science where ears are not replaceable soon...




For the science debate i will not add anything.....Save this Goethe quote below, written 150 years before Thomas Kuhn...

If you wait for science or religions to understand your life you will wait very long.....😁

Use you senses and couple them with your brain....

Meditate.....Experiment....Or experience....





By the way, listening music,we dont need to prove anything, only to hear the changing sounds....Those who need proofs here are the marketers of new products or the zealots pseudo-scientist crusaders that want to save humanity from buying a product that they believe is useless...I myself dont need one or the other kind of people, because i dont plan to buy anything soon, i prove for myself that audiophile experience is possible at low cost.... Call that a delusion if you own a 500,000 audio system.... My 500 bucks system is not on the same level for sure but not so far from it in quality that most would believe.... The truth is that it is better to read simple acoustic science than buying costly products...





« History of science is science itself»- Goethe

rodman,

You are all over the place.


First, I’d written:



Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?
That’s right, by more science. It’s a self-correcting method.


Do you agree or not?



If so, the old "science has been wrong" bit is a red herring. Yes, science has been wrong, but you don’t get to promote a dubious claim that isn’t scientifically verified "because science has been wrong before."


And yet a lot of audiophiles (and psychics, and astrologers, and New Age charmers, and people with patents on perpetual motion machines etc) hang their hat on that as a response when their views are challenged for better evidence than anecdote.


Next, what in the world do those links have to do with any particular claim you may have in mind - something you imagine a "naysayer" critiques?


I mean, if you think for instance that an audiophile claiming a green marker on a CD, or a mpingo disc under his DAC, or any number of wacky claims is somehow off the hook because of those links, that would be silly, right?

If you tried to leap from some Discovery article citing a paper of researchers "controlling a cell’s interaction with light" to validating some audiophile’s tweak...that sounds like a profoundly incautious, unscientific leap...the type no actual responsible scientist would make. But...be my guest...show us the leap to relevance.



So, again, try to be clear. If you are going to invoke SCIENCE, can you maintain an actual SCIENTIFIC mindset? Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE.