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

Good science is a very high bar.  A theory must be proven universally true.  That is why science is always a long way behind conjecture.

But that is no reason to ignore good science and live by conjecture, as apparently do many people here.

       I've mentioned elsewhere, on the 'GoN: If the world's best inventors, throughout human history, hadn't ignored, "scientists", naysayers and scoffers (such as some of those, above): we'd still be living in a relative Stone Age, with respect to technology.

       ie: When the steam locomotive was invented: the day's best, "scientists" claimed man couldn't survive speeds in excess of 20 MPH!

        Interesting, that most of the electrical theories their ilk espouses, came from the same century (the 1800's).

Good science is a very high bar. A theory must be proven universally true. That is why science is always a long way behind conjecture.

Name a single scientist fact that will not be proven at least partially untrue in the future. Not possible.

For example. You know that there is no such thing as gravity right? There is no force whereby one object attracts another. What we thought was gravity is a distortion of the fabric of space-time caused by mass.

Science is a very low bar. It describes the world in our current, and somewhat limited, understanding thereof. 

Look at Prof's post above then read the book mentioned. Nobody's hearing is reliable enough.

My audio system is there solely to please me; more exact, to please my hearing. If it pleases me, it is performing as it should. There is no higher judge than my ear as to what pleases my ear. 

You need test tones and a scope to know if your system pleases you? If that is the case, you are missing the point. 

Pedro, science has not failed at all.

Science never really fails, although sometimes is takes can take indirect path. The question is why isn't it being utilized to test equipment? My point is this; if research into space can continuously reveal the most amazing facts, why is it impossible to analyze audio equipment and show how it performs at listening levels; excluding the sub-audible noise path?