Technically it was the inconsistent unbelievable story-telling that was shown to be inconsistent and unbelievable. I am on record over and over again always believing anyone who says they can’t hear. Never argue with someone telling you they can’t hear. They know what they’re talking about.
Would that the reverse were true.
People having psychotic episodes, cease to hear voices when anti-psychotic medication is administered.
We should not automatically default to believing what they tell us, unless there is a way to verify it is extant in the physical world.
So it is perplexing to assume that one should default the Fox Moulder state of, “Wanting to believe” when there is a lack of evidence that we should believe it.
At best, without a way to measure and show that something is really there, then we might just have to agree to disagree?
I am not saying that you do not hear something. Just that there is no reason (as of yet) that has been shown that i too should be able to also hear it. Or maybe we have some hypothesis but less in the way of measurements shown that it exists.