What are we objectivists missing?

@asctim

Why the straw man argument when I never made an argument against machines & science? Apparently my point went straight over your head. Sometimes airplane crashes mare due to faulty equipment, NOT human error, excerpt in trusting the faulty machine. The weathermen use all kinds of equipment. Yet, how often are they wrong? let me reverse your last sentence

"It’s not about not trusting our science It’s about knowing the limits of our science and finding ways to augment them."

Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best. This is scientism...and its very popular at the moment

@painter24 Thanks. Atttaboys are always helpful when we are generally outnumbered

@artemus_5  

It's true, the equipment can go wrong sometimes. When it comes to keeping the plane upright without visual access to the horizon the human will go wrong every time. We just can't do it at all. Even birds can't do it. I'm with you though on knowing the limits to our equipment and science. When the science can't explain something we need to acknowledge that and explore it further. First we need to make sure there's actually something there that needs explaining. If someone could deftly maneuver an airplane without visual horizon cues and no attitude instruments, then that would be something to investigate. If they just said they could, not so much. But we could easily put a hood on them and have them demonstrate this ability. If they argued that the hood distracted them, we'd have to wait for actual inclement weather. If they said the presence of an observer or the settings of the test distracted them, or the poor handling characteristics of a perfectly good plane didn't give them enough feedback, I'd just disregard the claim. With audio claims, if someone won't expose themselves to a good blind testing regimen then I'll just accept that they do perceive a difference in non blind testing situations but I've got no reason to infer it's anything beyond just a perception. I'm personally interested in these sighted perceptual effects but see no reason to assume they're actually caused by a meaningful change in the sound that's reaching their ears. 

Those who think that science has all the answers are deluded at best.

+1 @artemus_5

truly intelligent, educated people have an keen appreciation for what they (or we as mankind) do not yet know...

+2 @artemus_5 !!

These folks keep talking about "making claims" for some reason. Whereas people are simply sharing what they experience. Nobody is here to claim anything, or impose something on others, especially to THOSE others. If they like to "expose themselves to a good blind testing regimen", have at it! If that's what you want to do, do it. 

No one need a blind test....

it is a tool useless for casual listener like you and me...

Interesting when organized...

But i never needed blind test to set and tune my room ...

Those who claim the opposite dont know acoustic, where blind test is only a necessary  protocol in some psycho-acoustic experiment...

Nobody ask his acoustician to pass a blind test before giving him money....