No, I do not misunderstand your point, nor am I willing to accept your rejection of psychoacosutics as a "social science". Please avoid this kind of dismissive language from now on, your comment is an attempt at dismissal in my view, no more.
Now that is stuff and nonsense. You had better believe, fully and completely, that for the cochlea (we'll stick to what's called the auditory periphery here) and the rest of the auditory mechanism there is a very deep, fundamental understanding the acoustics around the head, the ear canal, the middle ear, and how the cochlea does a time/frequency analysis of its input, and how it converts that input to partial loudnesses.
You are simply dismissing things that are quite well known. Obviously, there are arguments about this and that, but the basics of cochlear filtering, for instance, are not in doubt in the minds of current researchers.
In short, you claim that well-established knowledge does not exist. Please inform yourself. You may start here:
https://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/pnwrecaps/2019/apr2019/
That being a one-hour introduction, no, not everything is discussed. It does, however, completely controvert your really insulting comments about the state of psychophysics and psychoacoustics.
That is unnecessarily dismissive as well, but in fact there is no such thing, ever, as a 'scientific fact'. All accepted theories are statistical inferences, based on the best known understanding. In this, psychoacoustics is no different.
As can we apply psychoacoustic results to the sound of speakers, the audibility of noise, the audibility of sounds, the loudness of sounds (remember, loudness is a technical term that is ***not*** the same as SPL or intensity).
There is no difference. The only missing thing is your knowledge of the state of research and science in the field.
