" wrote

Whatwas that about proving a negative? As long as your assertion is
unproven, it's just an assertion.

Incorrect. It is what it is - whether it's asserted or not - whether
it's proven or not.

As you said, it's possible that musical reproduction systems have some
kind of effect on humans that isn't detectable in a listening test.

Just because they haven't been able
to PROVE it yet, doesn't mean it's wrong.

It is until it's proven. Sorta like the courts, if you can't prove it, it
didn't happen.

Incorrect. It is what it is - whether it's proven or not.

I never discount that possibility. I do discount anecdotes as proof.

Anecdotes aren't proof. No one presents an anecdote as proof.
There may be strongly held beliefs associated with anecdotes.
And no one can discount those beliefs as untrue or whimsical
because you can't prove a negative. They may be true - just
as yet unproven.

....he produces evidence to make his case,

What evidence? He can't prove a negative.

. Mostly it seems people are ****ed at Arny for being supremely confident,
and not being ashamed about it.

He has no reason to be confident. He can't prove a negative.
Too bad he's so stuck on his position. He could be the one to
identify the different effects differently designed systems have
on people.