@soundfield
Hmmm, so the Great Amir can't measure it, but can hear it. My my, that sure sounds audiophile myth familiar doesn't it? Coming from the Great one??
There would be nothing wrong or inconsistent with that, and it would be consistent with a scientific mindset.
Often enough observation of a phenomenon comes first, then we try to explain it more rigorously with other empirical evidence, hypothesis testing, measurements etc. Anyone could reliably observe that certain reptiles, e.g. chameleons, could change their color well before we understood and quantified the phenomenon.
What counts as an observation that requires such inquiry will necessarily interact with our current body of (tentative, but reliable) knowledge. If it contradicts well known and reliable fields of knowledge then you don't have to pay much attention to claims that would undermine that theory, unless they had very strong levels of reliable observation behind them - e.g. someone claims to have seen a Perpetual Motion Machine in his friend's garage isn't going to count as an observation that requires rigorous inquiry.
But, for instance, if it turned out people were reliably able to detect sonic differences between A and B, in well controlled tests, where this is unexpected on current theory, then yes that becomes a reliable observation you'd want to explain.
And then seek perhaps evidence to support a hypothesis as to what is objectively happening, e.g. try to find relevant measurements.
In other words: there is nothing in principle wrong with reporting hearing a sonic difference that one has not measured (or been able to measure as of yet).
This is why Amir has been pretty consistent in often emphasizing the relevance of listening. (But...under conditions controlling for variables, when seeking higher confidence levels).
