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

@jrareform 

The physics of today acknowledges that our scientific explanations for Mechanics and Electromagnetism are complete. No longer will there be an observation that caused us to re-think these two fields of study. Look it up. Innovations abound and will continue to change our lives.

The physics of today acknowledges that general relativity and quantum mechanics are fields of study that need further work since some measurements disagree with predictions (but most do). GR and QE provide incredibly accurate descriptions for the natural world. The physics of tomorrow will continue to build on this incredible knowledge base, keeping models that predict our observations and ditching the ones that don’t.

But.....science will never be able to uncover "the thing-in-itself" since we do not have quantifiable observations of it.

I guess you could say the same thing about dark matter. We are actively searching for and modeling dark matter. As yet, there is no consensus. Since we can measure its effects (expansion of the universe, explanations for the rotation of galaxies, etc...), we’re certain that we’ll eventually find clues for its nature. Then modeling can put the observations in context with known physics. May need new physics. This is the nature and the extent of scientific endeavor.

What bothers physicists the most can be put into a phrase that Donald Rumsfeld (US secretary of Defense, 2000ish)  created.

I paraphrase:

"I am not concerned with the known unknowns, I am most concerned with the unknown unknowns".

I am not fond of this man's accomplishments, but he was right on with this one. Physicists sweat in their sleep over this one.

Juggling with lofty philosophical terms may be taking things a bit too far in audio reproduction - that’s a bit like a course in the history of philosophy (interesting it may be in itself) that somehow got intermingled with a listening session in front of a stereo (or mono, or multi-channel) setup. You might apply a philosophical training in a critical and investigative approach to audiophilia at large, but philosophy here wouldn’t be visible as such; only its methods, if you would. Wouldn’t that a relief in general; less showiness and more doingness. 

Just as well with listening: I don’t see that as faith-based but rather it has an element of training and/or a particular ability to discern listening impressions and articulate them. Measurements are a tool to assist listening impressions, not to replace them. Having said that audiophilia is kind of a Wild West with a myriad of ways to get more or less lost in our idiosyncratic endeavors. Have a sprinkle of vanity, self-entitlement, snobbery, close-mindedness, etc. on top to finish off the audiophile cake.  

No scientific explanation can dispense with human subjectivity except as a methodological precaution and temporarily. The rainbow cannot be explained solely in terms of physical laws. We need also language to understand it. Why?

Because sound and the rainbow are irreducible qualities, like life and consciousness.

Your mistake is ignoring that the eye and the ear, the senses in general, are not merely tools less powerful than technological means; they are what allow a human world to exist and carry meaning.

No one can reduce the rainbow to optics and neurophysiology; to do so and be satisfied with that is to lose the human dimension of the phenomenon and loose what stay unexplained too .

No one can reduce music to acoustics. And if we do so, like AI, which currently now offers "music" indistinguishable from human music, we lose our humanity.

So the essential point that seems to elude you, and which you call a  useless semantic quarrel, is the very status of science itself.

Is the primary and ultimate goal of science to deliver Nature to us bound hand and foot like an object, or is its primary and ultimate goal a necessary transformation of consciousness and thought?

Guess Goethe’s answer and compare it to that of our current techno-cultists.

@mahgister 

So we’re now discussing semantics. 

The physical phenomenon called "rainbow" can be measured and rigorously characterized and modeled. It is the result of multiple reflections and refractions in raindrops. Period.

The English word "rainbow" is a description of an observation done by the human eye, not instruments. This occurs because the mind interprets the physical phenomenon "rainbow" from the information it gets from the eyes. 

These are two separate and different explanations, each valid in its own context.

@mahgister 

Again, I've read your comment. 

I don't agree.

You dont agree about what ? 

What i said is just common sense ...

 I can reduce all i said to this sentence which is a question about "our value" a question about mankind ultimate choice :

Is the primary and ultimate goal of science the power  to deliver Nature to us bound hand and foot like an object, or is its primary and ultimate goal a means for a necessary transformation of our consciousness and thought?

You dont agree ? 

 Perhaps for you all this is rhetorical wind, but we live through the most important era since the beginning of our history and this choice is about our freedom and is related to the question about the nature of "science" ...

@mahgister 

Again, I’ve read your comment. 

I don’t agree.