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

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

How music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.

These two statements in the opening thread, are pre-concieved, and sound like the answers are formed already.
And they should read, to get audio techs to answer and give the other side.   

"Is science just a starting point and not an end point?"
"How music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard does science fails miserably"
Cheers George

I just don't understand why everyone is type cast as if it is absolutely impossible to block emotions when assessing sound quality.

Personally I find it insulting.

Perhaps is comes from those who are influenced by appearance and price.

Science is a starting point because it is a method or process not an end result. Science is a method of understanding the world from a certain perspective or point of view. Science can tell us for example that the Shroud of Turin is so many years old, made from what kind of fabric, by what process, what pigments were or were not used, and so on. Science cannot tell us whether or not Jesus Christ was wrapped in it. That is a conclusion human beings and human beings alone can reach, on the basis of science, or not. To use but one example.

People mess up all the time misunderstanding science. Science can tell us how to build a nuclear warhead. Science cannot tell us whether we should build the damn thing.

Thus it is nutty to invoke science in sound. Science is great for helping people figure out how to build better components. It is great because science does so much to eliminate the effects of value judgments. But then when the component is built how do we decide if it is any good or not? On the basis of value judgments.

That is why science will always be a beginning and never the end.

       "Reality is merely an illusion," Einstein once admitted, "albeit a very persistent one."

                                  re: that falling tree...

                https://blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum/