Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

"Well, I asked for a clear example from rodman99999 about some tweak he "hears" making a difference at home, and we get yet more scattershot rambling and links...as if someone else needs to do the job to piece it all together."

       Well, POOF clearly can't even remember what they asked for!

             From their rambling deflections, of 07-04-2021 4:09pm:

"What is it that has been scientifically established, that you think anyone is scoffing at?

What’s your actual point. Can you be clear, maybe with some actually relevant example, rather than vague waving to Quantum Mechanics, which just happens to be the de rigueur move for countless crackpot theories? (I’d be a millionaire if I had 10 cents for every new age purveyor appealing to the mystery of quantum mechanics)."

           Then: from their further deflections, of 07-05-2021 12:25pm:

"Yet when rodman is asked for any example actually relevant to anything he "hears" in his system...he punts back to "just saying it’s POSSIBLE."   Whooooooo! And down the rabbit hole we go."

"It’s precisely this cloud of irrelevance and mush that you see in defense of every goofy claim under the sun. "I believe I have this power or experience, and it’s not validated by known science...but it’s POSSIBLE...because scientists have been wrong, science doesn’t know everything, and...Quantum Mechanics!!!!"

"Look...the claim that it’s POSSIBLE is something that can be justified to show it is actually PLAUSIBLE and a REASONABLE explanation based on science.   As in "this audio tweak changing the sound is POSSIBLE based on this theory and this robust evidence."     In which case: show some bloody examples for why we should think so."

           ANYONE, with even the SLIGHTEST intellectual capacity and HONESTY, or- an IOTA of scientific/electrical understanding, would have comprehended my responses and (QUALIFIED) references.

                      NOT The POOF (and his congregants), however!

          As I mentioned, "...anything the Naysayer Church's popes can't fathom, they'll VACUOUSLY dismiss."

                                              "Prof are you really a scientist?"

                                            Their Dissertation's title page read:

       'Blind Tests To Determine: Do Either Red Or White Boxed Wines Go Best With Chef Boyardee Pizza?'

      Make that, "Of course: anything the Naysayer Church's popes can't fathom, they'll VACUOUSLY dismiss."

                                It's their modus operandi.

                     btw: Someone mentioned lifting cables off carpeting.

        Whether that's audible or not: I can't say, as none of mine have ever been on the carpet, in the past 40 years..

         I can say: whatever your cables are contacting, along their lengths, will become a part of their dielectrics, which can (potentially) affect signal propagation.

         Some carpeting/flooring is manufactured of really bad materials (re: permittivity).

                                                       Just sayin'.

         Should anyone need a rationale for trying new cables or fuses in their system and is dissuaded by the Naysayer Church's antiquated electrical doctrines: take heart!

        Many new electrical facts have been established in the past 100 years, that support audible differences, between various cables, etc.

         I couldn't find anything like, "Updated Electrical Theory For Idiots", but- did manage to find something resembling a cartoon, that even a child (perhaps: even, the POOF) could follow.  It neither mentions AC in wires, nor does it go into the photon propagation of electromagnetic waves.   It does, however, emphasize/demonstrate how Electrical Theory has progressed, since the 1800s:

              (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJqykotjog)

        These next few presuppose a certain amount of knowledge, in the field of modern Electrical Theory.    Click, "more" in the first link's first answer, to get it's entirety.    Note how it mentions the OLD, "... commonly held misconception that the flow of electricity through a wire resembles a tube filled with ping pong balls...", to which the Naysayers fervently adhere.  

https://www.quora.com/Are-photons-involved-in-all-forms-of-electricity-for-example-when-it-flows-through-wires?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

                                            and:

        https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348

        It's an established (measured) fact that an electromagnetic wave's propagation and speed, are dependent on the materials, of which the transmission line (cable) are made (ie: Dielectric Constant/permittivity).     The better (lower) the Dielectric Constant the better the flow and the longer it takes for that material, to become polarized.     One reason that anything that comprises an LC circuit (ie: capacitors, cables, PC boards), takes time to, "form", or, "break/burn-in".*      

          *Something that makes the Naysayers apoplectic.

   https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2019-dielectric-constant-of-pcb-substrate-materials-and-signa....

   https://unlcms.unl.edu/cas/physics/tsymbal/teaching/EM-914/section4-Electromagnetic_Waves_2.pdf

          Even the most inane (regarding the sciences) must admit; braiding and twisting wires eliminates/reduces EMI interference.              
          That must lend credence to various cable geometries.

          That better dielectrics enhance the propagation of electromagnetic waves (ie: your music signal), lends the same credence to choosing cables with better materials (ie: Polypropylene, Teflon, air, etc).

           Of course: anything the Naysayer Church's popes can't fathom, they'll summarily dismiss.

                           PATHETIC twits, that they are!  🙄

"The capacity of Humans for self-deception is apparently unlimited" - Mr.Spock the Vulcan."

     Is the unfathomable irony, of one that IMAGINES themselves a fictional intelligence operative, posting a quote from ANOTHER fictional character, lost on anyone?

                                       Then: there's, "prof" (snort of derision)!

       What, "prof" (snort of derision) posted and my first response, to this thread:

     "So we wee that tired old refrain from some audiophiles "Science has been wrong before you know!" and "science doesn't know everything!"
     "It's the same refrain used by every crackpot theory in the world.
Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?"
     "You don't get to say "I'm justified in believing something that contradicts or isn't validated by current science...because MAYBE science is wrong and we'll discover I'm right."   Literally any nonsense idea would fly under such conditions."

     Referring back to my first response to this thread, in which I challenged their knowledge of the sciences (07-04-2021 3:20am), in light of the many changes, this past century, I stated:

     "It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas."

                              Their first deflection:

 'rodman99999,

"For one NOT to be current, on what's been going on; as regards the inventions and scientific proofs, based on such a, "crackpot theory" as either QM or QED and yet refer to themselves as a, "prof", seems to me: the height of hubris."

Where in the world did you pull that from?
I'd respond more, but all I see is a jumble of non-sequiturs. '

       Referring to my post (07-04-2021 1:43pm), in which I mention the study of QM broadening the horizons of many branches of Science,  
                                they provide further deflection:

"Even understanding in the Biological Sciences has been expanded/deepened, through the studies of QM, regarding how the senses and brain function, in many areas.

Like...what?"
                                            AND:

"What’s your actual point. Can you be clear, maybe with some actually relevant example, rather than vague waving to Quantum Mechanics, which just happens to be the de rigueur move for countless crackpot theories? (I’d be a millionaire if I had 10 cents for every new age purveyor appealing to the mystery of quantum mechanics)."

      To which I replied with four precise examples, that would have satisfied any enquiring mind (the expiring mind: not so much, obviously).

                             Which they deflected with:

"rodman,

You are all over the place."

     YES and: exactly my point (QM appears, "all over the place", and has affected virtually every branch of Science)

                                Their continuing theme:

"Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?
That’s right, by more science. It’s a self-correcting method."

"Do you agree or not?"

"If so, the old "science has been wrong" bit is a red herring. Yes, science has been wrong, but you don’t get to promote a dubious claim that isn’t scientifically verified "because science has been wrong before."
                           
               Followed by more deflection, in that particular post.

      What they can't seem to grasp, is what I stated in my first post:

  "It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas."

       Then: their very clear lack of comprehension, of the point I've made* (VERY CLEARLY), twice, on this same page:

"If you tried to leap from some Discovery article citing a paper of researchers "controlling a cell’s interaction with light" to validating some audiophile’s tweak...that sounds like a profoundly incautious, unscientific leap...the type no actual responsible scientist would make. But...be my guest...show us the leap to relevance."

"So, again, try to be clear. If you are going to invoke SCIENCE, can you maintain an actual SCIENTIFIC mindset? Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE."

                    * I've never tried to, "validate" anything.  

                                 For the third time now:

       "My position has always been: with what we've learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons."

         Perhaps that, "possibilities" is greater than two syllables, is an issue?

         Were they ever even a, "prof" in such a liberal art as Home Economics; it would have required much better comprehension skills.

          I'm convinced: their field (if any) must have been Geology, based on their marked, petro-cephalic disposition.    

                       Don't waste your keystrokes on such.

                      Happy listening and enjoy the journey!

@djones-   
"Quantum mechanics doesn't explain what you hear applying various goopy substances to cables..."

    Neither QM, nor, "Psychology", need explain that.

     As I said: that's simply a matter of improving the CONTINUITY (ie: increase contact and lower the resistance) of the connection.

    

   That you're unaware (poof) and need to be led by the hand (or nose, as the case may be), proves my point (you're a poser).

    I'd discuss QED, Electrical Theory and the proofs that there's much more going on, than shoving electrons through wires, but: it would clearly be a waste of keystrokes.

     Regarding the senses: not that I actually expect you to read anything, lest you awaken from your educational coma, but:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-quantum-mechanics-lets-us-see-smell-and-touch

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/quantum-biology-may-help-solve-some-of-lifes-greatest-mysteri...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/

   This one may not apply, as you (et al) obviously have trouble with your synapses:

https://www.livescience.com/quantum-like-model-of-decision-making-proposed.html

    Once again: "My position has always been: with what we've learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons."

     What is it about POSSIBILITIES, that triggers the Naysayer Church's popes, so?
                     
                                        OH: I get it:  

                                       It's HERESY!

     ps: I don't post such things, expecting to enlighten the willfully ignorant.    I just believe someone else may be interested in what's been going on, all around us, in the realm of the sciences, for the past (100 or so) years..

     My position has always been: with what we've learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of possibilities; as to why we may hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons.

      Even understanding in the Biological Sciences has been expanded/deepened, through the studies of QM, regarding how the senses and brain function, in many areas.

       BUT: it's been the history of science and invention; scoffers and naysayers WILL ALWAYS abound!

      What you stated in the post to which I referred, and:
  "Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research."        seem (somehow) contradictory.

               Especially, since you seemed to be objecting to my comments, specifically concerning QM and QED.

                                                   But: I'm glad we agree!

     That science has not yet provided us the means (tests or measurements) to explain why many of us hear the things we do, with the choices we make, in fuses, cables, etc: doesn't mean we don't.

      MEANWHILE: those of us that do experiment with our equipment and rooms, or, "smear goop" on our cables, to improve such a basic scientific fact as conductivity, will go on enjoying the enhanced musical reproduction we've sought.

"Science is what gave us the medium and tools to enjoy music from the wax cylinder to digital storage and on to processes unknown. It won't be brain dead audiophiles arguing over $200 fuses and $10,000 cables and the shilers that promote them but the theoretician and engineer that fails and succeeds that moves us forward. Scientists who "argue" over the esoteric boundaries of QM have no interest in the mundane workings of basic sound reproduction."

                                      Thanks again.

      That exemplifies the kind of ignorance, to which I referred!

      ie: Were it not for the study of QM and QED: there would be no, "digital storage" to enjoy.    Nor: LASERs, transistors/semiconductors, home computers/laptops, smart phones, atomic clocks, GPS, MRIs, etc.

      That's NOT any kind of debate.     It's what's known as, "HISTORY"!
 
                                    Talk about, "brain-dead"!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/

       Even the wiki-physicists have more understanding, than some in this forum (how pathetic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics

   Correction, for clarity:  "That's been the argument between some of the greatest minds, especially in the areas of Physics AND Electrical Theory, since the early 1920s."

     "So we wee that tired old refrain from some audiophiles "Science has been wrong before you know!" and "science doesn't know everything!"
     "It's the same refrain used by every crackpot theory in the world.
Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?"
     "You don't get to say "I'm justified in believing something that contradicts or isn't validated by current science...because MAYBE science is wrong and we'll discover I'm right."   Literally any nonsense idea would fly under such conditions."

     It's the complete (or: perhaps, willful) ignorance of so many, as to what's either been proven and/or obviated, since the dawn of the Scientific Method, that still astounds me.

     It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas.

      What those that adamantly want their antiquated, "Science" to make sense (ie: their Math to eloquently balance, or: their universe to yet be based on Newtonian, or strictly Relativity principles) have missed, is that, SO OFTEN: what's been observed and tested/proven makes no sense.

       That's been the argument between some of the greatest minds, especially in the area of Physics an Electrical Theory, since the early 1920s.

        Anyone that's been paying any attention, AT ALL, to what's been happening subsequent to that time period; would be up on all of that!

         For one NOT to be current, on what's been going on; as regards the inventions and scientific proofs, based on such a, "crackpot theory" as either QM or QED and yet refer to themselves as a, "prof", seems to me: the height of hubris.

         UNLESS of course: they were a Professor in a field such as Geology or one of the Liberal Arts (ie: Home Economics).    
                                                  In which case: my apologies!

       I've mentioned elsewhere, on the 'GoN: If the world's best inventors, throughout human history, hadn't ignored, "scientists", naysayers and scoffers (such as some of those, above): we'd still be living in a relative Stone Age, with respect to technology.

       ie: When the steam locomotive was invented: the day's best, "scientists" claimed man couldn't survive speeds in excess of 20 MPH!

        Interesting, that most of the electrical theories their ilk espouses, came from the same century (the 1800's).

            'Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?'    

                              Is a scientific, "end point" possible?

       For inquiring minds, as opposed to the (so common) expiring ones:

https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html

       "Reality is merely an illusion," Einstein once admitted, "albeit a very persistent one."

                                  re: that falling tree...

                https://blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum/

@pedroeb-
 
                                           "You mean there can never be any consensus?"

      I've been hanging around this site, for 11 years now, as well as watching the debates, between those of the most esteemed theorists of various scientific fields of endeavor, for several decades, regardless of the facts that have been established, through experimentation and testing, over those decades.

                                                   SADLY, I can confidently assert: NO!
       
        Someone, somewhere, as I recall, with much more insight than me: said, "If any man be ignorant, let him remain ignorant."       I'm guessing that means; unfortunately, it's their choice and you can't do anything about it.