I'm going to give some people in this thread the benefit of the doubt ... at least at this point.
Every day, we go through our life using biases and emotions. I don't mean that we pick one to use here and choose another one to use there, I mean that our mind is
continuously processing information though the use of biases and making judgements based on emotion. They are shortcuts that aid in efficiency, and we depend on them.
But that
doesn't mean that biases and emotions are accurate ... it only means that they are efficient, in that the mind uses them to process information.
Inaccuracy is tolerable in many of our day-to-day affairs. Not all of them, but many of them. That is obvious upon examination. But for
some things, inaccuracy is intolerable.
The Scientific Method
(here) was developed to
increase accuracy. Because biases are not accurate, it rejects (or rigorously controls) biases. Because emotion can be misleading, it rejects (or rigorously controls) emotion. Because opinion is unique to the individual, the scientific method includes peer review and retesting, to ensure
reproducibility (here).
The success of the Scientific Method can be seen all around us. MRI and surgeons instead of witch doctors, precision measuring instruments instead of guesses and machines instead of back-breaking human labor. Its utility was the key for the rejection of
cold fusion.
Beyond that, there are such breakthroughs as cell phones and television, airplanes, radar, pictures sent from other planets and nuclear power.
These things demand precision, understanding, engineering tolerances greater than the eye can discern, and repeatability. Biases and emotions cannot - I repeat cannot - produce them.
Cell phones don't operate on, "Yeah ... that seems good enough to me." Neither do DACs, streamers or amplifiers, nor the equipment manufactured to test them.
Emotion and opinion have their place ... making the music and enjoying the music. But for recording the music and reproducing it, it's science all the way. Increasingly accurate, unemotional, finely-engineered and reproducible methodology of science.
Two different worlds. It's best
not to get them mixed up.
Jim