@prof I think we may have very different view on how science works,
That’s quite clear.
If something cant be ’scientifically’ proven and yet, ’existst’ (at least by testimonials of so many) than perhaps ’the scinece’ (or better the people who claim that they are ’scientists’) should try to find new methods or tools to examine those ’events’.
"Testimonials" are often not reliable. That’s why the scientific enterprise arose, why it overcame thousands of years of "he-said-she-said" testimonials to actually hugely improve our understanding (and predictions) of the world.
You can find many "testimonials" for literally every pseudoscience, cult, religious, new age, extreme belief that anyone has ever dreamed up. The whole point of science is to lift reliable evidence out of the morass of competing "testimonies."
You are approaching things backwards in this sense - assuming first that people are "hearing things" and then presuming that true, so science has to "catch up" to what you can hear. Whereas science would say first we need to control for variables like sighted bias to FIRST establish you actually CAN hear these things...when you don’t know what is playing.
And, yet, ’your camp’ (as A.would say) chooses the easy road by calling those claims as non existent.
No it’s not an "easy road." It’s often a very hard won road. You seem to imagine that being skeptical of a claim just comes out of nowhere, like it’s a whim. The reason many are skeptical about, for instance, high end cable claims is based on hundreds of years of electrical theory and practice, and similar lengths of times in which cables have been produced along accepted lines of theory.
There are videophiles for instance who claim to see obvious differences in color saturation, contrast, sharpness etc with "high end" HDMI cables over capable cheap HDMI cables. It’s not just a whim to be skeptical about this. HDMI cables literally do not work like that - they would not have worked as they have worked, if the theory behind them was THAT wrong. And of course, we have no measurable evidence, just the claims of people who are "sure" they see these things. Science doesn’t have to "catch up" to what some videophiles see. First they need to demonstrate in controlled tests, or show measurements, indicating their claim is actually TRUE. THEN you go looking for the explanation.
Same for claims about various types of audio cables.
You want to talk about "taking the easy route?"
How about "I’m just going on what I think I hear, and that’s that. And even if I’m not an expert, what I think I hear trumps any expert argument to the contrary. I don’t have to explain how I hear this. The expert needs to do all the work ’catching up’ to what I claim to hear."
That’s about as "easy" and lazy a route as can be imagined.
