Take it on faith: A cease-and-desist letter to those who only believe in measurements

Agreed measurements currently do not predict perceived sound quality, but as a scientist, consider what I have posted before:  

• Consider this as a scientist.  Is it possible that the reason current measurements do not reliably predict sound quality is that the state of scientific knowledge of the complex psychoacoustic, environmental factors, and psychological mechanisms of subjective musical perception/enjoyment are not fully understood, and an algorithm to measure and predict this not developed.   I believe this the case, and ‘‘tis a lofty goal that may never be achieved due to the complexity of human perception of sound quality.  

For now, as the OP stated, let’s use our ears.  
 

Regarding the discussion on whether scientific principles and faith are non sequiturs, consider Albert Einstein:

• For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.'
• However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of  “physical”laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith; … everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

Let's see how long before this post gets derailed and deleted by Admin.

3, 2, 1......

@ghdprentice 

While I suppose this is intended as to be a helpful point of view, it is the kind of rhetoric that gives credence to those with unexamined beliefs to have more faith in there beliefs and that that truth is just a point of view. I’m not going to spend the morning refuting every part of it. But here are some of the issues. 

Why This Is Bad Rhetoric:

Good Reasoning Requires            But the argument uses

It’s compelling storytelling, but weak epistemology. Please explain this as well.

It uses emotionally resonant examples to downplay the rigor of scientific reasoning—while claiming to defend it.

My focus is to understand what we know an how we can know it and to converge on truth... not show the foundation of everything is faith. What has impressed me endlessly about science (I was trained and worked as a scientist for over a decade) was the rigor and reproducibility, the ability to reproduce endlessly the results of experiments with increasing accuracy. There is another thread somewhere where the four kinds of investigation of science are discussed... yes, you must use the correct approach to the right problems.  

This is the kind of rhetoric which folks that do not understand it point to and say, see even among the intellectuals truth is just faith. 

Along these lines, I do not like to use the word “know “because it assumes there is a truth, but indeed there are only beliefs. When everybody believes the same thing, then it is regarded as a truth. But is it? We know nothing. We believe much. There is no spoon.

I feel comfortable commenting as a four decade scientist.

The scientific method is a rational approach to solving problems. Measurements are only useful for solving problems if they are relevant.

This is what is problematic with the ASR approach- the measurements they make are not all relevant, as they are static and not done under dynamic conditions and do not typically examine aspects such as phase. 
 

The same mistakes were made by Julian Hirsch, who apparently never fully understood that whole circuit feedback was affected by time delay, and thus great amounts of such feedback, while reducing static distortion for an unvarying signal of a given frequency, actually greatly increased distortion for dynamic music reproduction through transient intermodulation distortion.

Great post! thanks...

 When i proposed the same points to Amir of ASR using  physicist Hans Van Maanen articles , he mocked him as a mere hobbyist ...

I feel comfortable commenting as a four decade scientist.

The scientific method is a rational approach to solving problems. Measurements are only useful for solving problems if they are relevant.

 

This is what is problematic with the ASR approach- the measurements they make are not all relevant, as they are static and not done under dynamic conditions and do not typically examine aspects such as phase. 
 

The same mistakes were made by Julian Hirsch, who apparently never fully understood that whole circuit feedback was affected by time delay, and thus great amounts of such feedback, while reducing static distortion for an unvarying signal of a given frequency, actually greatly increased distortion for dynamic music reproduction through transient intermodulation distortion.