"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.

You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.

Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


Gareth.