A lot of interesting comments. Some extremely good.
Many dead wrong. Mostly people who weaaay overweight the numbers and call themselves "objectivists" or other terms like that.
This is usually true of people who have never done true reseach before, or just listened to the one eyed ignorance machine (used to be just TV and media, but now the net has plenty sources to allow you to reinforce your beliefs.)
This is the main reason why it really isn't their fault. Since science has been turned into a religion over that last 200 years or so, it is easy to latch on to the concept that science is sacrosanct.
Numbers can be wrong--very wrong. At one time, a lot of physicists thought that what we call classical physics was nearly complete. All that was necessary was to fine tune the numbers.
Even though observation begged to differ--blackbody radiation, why atoms are stable, even the orbit of Mercury.
Numbers are only as good as the equations that generate them.
When I was a scientist, my biggest breakthroughs were putting observations above dogmatic numbers. The only way advancment occurs is when you something is limited or wrong.
Deming stated, "In God we trust, all others bring data."
Very wise thing I learned early on in my former career. You need data first, then you develop your model (usually equations) based on observations. Not use your equations and try to force the data to work.
It is experimentation, then modeling. Not the other way around.
More correctly: run experiments, get unexpected results, form a hypothiesis, generate lots and lots of data (five years worth for my most substantial breakthrough), form conclusions and base your new model on those conclusions.
Many, if not most, in the scientific community have blind faith that what they read in textbooks (or what they did in their doctoral thesis) is sacrosanct. This faith tends to spill into popular culture.
Forcing data to fit equations is very common in science, especially engineering. I can't count the number of times I was told the data was wrong because it dosen't fit the equations. There tends to be blind faith that the equations are always right.
It seems to be common in most endeavors. An example I've given before was the guy who used to repair equipment at Audio Classics. He was a former IBM electrical engineer. Very competent at what he did. Rebuilt my dad's vintage McIntosh systen to better than new. I was talking to him about how much better this sounded than solid state.
He stated no! then he proceded to give me a bunch of equations on why that was.
Never stated a recording, a record, any example.
He showed blind faith in the equations. No observations.
There is so much observational data that tubes sound better than solid state, that it is funny that people argue the opposite on this site.
The obvious answer is that the basic equations used to explain sound don't model the complexity correctly. It is really that simple.
I've even shared some artilces on this site from experts who can explain part of the reason why tube equipment sounds better. Yet the dogma and blind faith continues with some.
Imagine what could happen if more work was done explianing why tube equipment sounds better than solid state.
Maybe solid state could finally sound better. I can't think of an inherent reason why.
