At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of
*subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were
to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the
mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference!
difference!
I could be wrong, though."

I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here.

They'd almost certainly get *no*
flak from skeptics.

Wouldn't that be nice.

Subjectivists seem simply unwilling to
acknowledge the existence of perceptual error.

Some, certainly. All, certainly not. One could say the same of some
objectivists who seem to feel any comment on the sound of almost any component
besides a speaker isn't just subject to lack of certainty but is certain to be
meaningless. Both sides of this debate seem to have their militant radicals.


"Objectivists" are unwilling to acknowledge that (sighted)
'hearing is believing' in many cases. But in this case, they
have good scientific backing for it: the mounds of data
confirming the existence of perceptual error.

Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does support
the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not
support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all sighted
sonic impressions meaningless.