@nyev
I appreciate the philosophical spirit in which you made your original post and have presented your view in the thread.
However, the reasoning in your OP is very problematic. It is a version of the "They called Galileo crazy" argument.
"They" (in the modern reference, now it’s science) thought something wasn’t possible but "it turned out they were proven wrong!"
Yes, that is true sometimes. But you should see the issue immediately: HOW was anyone proven correct? By....The Science! Right?
In other words, by strong, rigorous methods of empirical inquiry! That is how we weed out the justified claims from all the competing ones!
There are countless ideas that people believe, but the only rational way to sift through which ones are likely or true is to wait for the strong evidence any claim demands!
Remember that for literally EVERY crazy idea anyone has ever proposed, every bit of pseudoscience, every spiritual claim, every wild "cure," claim you can find at your run of the mill New Age Festival, you will always find people saying "You shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this, science hasn’t explained EVERYTHING you know, and people like Galileo were thought crazy at first too!!!!"
It is THE go-to hand-wave in defense of bunkum. And that should be a huge red flag for you.
So the problem isn't that you are necessarily wrong in what you may happen to believe; it's that your reasoning can be used "in defense" of literally anything, and hence it’s not much of a reason to help justifying believing anything in particular.
Since people can make up any claim they like, and also people can imagine all sorts of things, when faced with a dubious claim, for instance a technically controversial claim in audio, the rational stance isn’t to say "so it’s ok to believe this because who knows if it will be found true via science in the future." It’s to WAIT for science (or engineering) to sift THAT claim out of the countless other competing claims, as actually being true or justified.
And also, if CURRENT electrical and psycho acoustic theory and practice points to a claim being highly unlikely, then it makes sense to want some rigorous evidence in favor of that claim. Anecdotes are not that evidence.
BTW, you say you’ve distinguished all sorts of things in blind tests, including USB and AC cables? Can you describe your test protocol?
