It seems that in this forum, as in so many others, engineering is confused with science. It's not: from Wikipedia
"The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET)[1] has defined "engineering" as:
The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."
Science is based on the scientific method: again from Wikipedia
"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect,[4] i. e., falsifiability. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."
So audio engineering, like any engineering, works from both scientific "facts" and scientific "theory" (where facts are not available). Unfortunately, audio perception has few "facts" available to define it. There is lots of empirical data, and some attempts to study various aspects of it with variable success. Very little of the data, and almost none of the proven (by the scientific method) facts, apply to our version of high-end audio, and that doesn't seem likely to change in the forseeable future (few or no resources for investigation and testing).
It's only partly true that we all perceive things differently. In fact, all people without specific disabilities/handicaps perceive things in about the same way. Without that, there would be little basis for communication and understanding. It's the little differences which make our lives more interesting.
Audio "objectivists" should realize that they deal in large part with theory, not fact. Like Newtonian mechanics, it works within its limitations, but it's not clear that we know exactly what those limitations are. Audio "subjecitivists" should realize that many aspects of our hobby (computer science, for example) are based on solid science, even though many other aspects (e.g., transducer behavior) are not.
"The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET)[1] has defined "engineering" as:
The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."
Science is based on the scientific method: again from Wikipedia
"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect,[4] i. e., falsifiability. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."
So audio engineering, like any engineering, works from both scientific "facts" and scientific "theory" (where facts are not available). Unfortunately, audio perception has few "facts" available to define it. There is lots of empirical data, and some attempts to study various aspects of it with variable success. Very little of the data, and almost none of the proven (by the scientific method) facts, apply to our version of high-end audio, and that doesn't seem likely to change in the forseeable future (few or no resources for investigation and testing).
It's only partly true that we all perceive things differently. In fact, all people without specific disabilities/handicaps perceive things in about the same way. Without that, there would be little basis for communication and understanding. It's the little differences which make our lives more interesting.
Audio "objectivists" should realize that they deal in large part with theory, not fact. Like Newtonian mechanics, it works within its limitations, but it's not clear that we know exactly what those limitations are. Audio "subjecitivists" should realize that many aspects of our hobby (computer science, for example) are based on solid science, even though many other aspects (e.g., transducer behavior) are not.
