A while back discovered an interview with the gentleman that developed the REW software. Math and science the foundation of that software that took years of effort. Quite surprising and illuminating that the developer discovered it incredibly difficult to find clearly documented "standards" produced by the audio organizations claimed to be the authorities. Essentially, the industry standards regularly referenced by measurement purists were actually vague and open to interpretation by the user.
In the disciplined scientific measurement world, correlation is paramount. That means the measurement process and environment is defined in every possible detail. When an independent second, third, or fourth organization or person follows the process and gets the same result, there is correlation. The results are validated and repeatable because equipment, environment, and human variables are eliminated or controlled.
Audio measurements are not necessarily bogus. They simply do not meet the high standard of correlation. Amateur reviewers, regardless of equipment used, do not come close to correlation. There is attention to details required the amateur in a garage, home office, or barn does not and cannot deal with. Are their results good enough for the audio consumer? Probably, with a caveat or two.
Quote-unquote good measurements are a reasonable indicator that significant flaws do not exist. Those same measurements do not necessarily indicate a sound quality everyone will find acceptable. We all have different brains, ears, and preferences. That is a wonderful thing that is not defined by measurements.