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


Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.

Why is it so?
pedroeb
       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?
You know that there is no such thing as gravity right?
Pauly, take a 10 pound weight and raise it to your eye level.  Position the object directly above your right big toe.  Release the object.  Now tell me there's no such thing as gravity?  The explanation of gravity has changed and probably will continue to be refined, but the phenomena exist independent of human understanding.