Once one wraps their head around the perfectly acceptable concept of our hearing being better than a measurement (more exacting, differentiating, etc.)
Why accept something untrue?
Or, at least, we have to separate the untrue implications from the true implications in such a statement.
We have tools that measure the presence of frequencies you can not hear, and levels of distortion you can not hear. Why do you think we develop a huge number of measuring tools in the first place if our senses, including our hearing, were sufficient????
How is that x-ray vision of yours going?
Measurements only take you so far.
Agreed. Ultimately the point of any audio product lies in what we humans actually hear from that product. A good understanding of measurements and of human hearing can to a degree predict the sound
one might hear from, say, a pair of speakers. But given all the complexities involved, and some of the unknowns, perfect prediction escapes us. So we can always be surprised. That’s why anyone should listen to whatever audio gear they produce, to make sure they didn’t go wrong somewhere in the design.
I’ve used Devore 0 speakers as an example a number of times for this: they’ve been attacked by some audiophiles/DIYers and speaker designers as "doing things wrong that are likely to produce bad sound" and yet when I and many others actually listen to them, I find the claims overblown in terms of actual results and I love the sound of the Devores.
But "it’s hard to sometimes predict results purely on measurements" is an entirely different thing than claims like "our ears are better/more sensitive than instruments." It really depends on what you are claiming to be able to hear. And on what grounds.
To simply pooh-pooh such statements as "tested by ear" betrays a dogmatically and hermetically sealed mindset.
No, it’s an eyes-open LACK of dogmatism, where we admit to the fallibility of our senses. It is rather dogmatism to cling to the idea that your perception is infallible, or a golden standard unsullied by the (well known) problems of bias and error.
Imagine you went to your doctor with a sore throat. The doctor says "Well, obviously you have cancer of the throat!"
You ask "why?"
The doctor says: "Because throat cancer can cause sore throats."
And you say" But...can’t many other things cause sore throats, like maybe I have a cold or a flu? Shouldn’t you show me how you have ruled out those other causes"
Doctor: How DARE you be so dogmatic as to question my diagnosis!
Now...who is actually being dogmatic there? It’s not the person who is acknowledging the variables involved, and that the doctor’s claim doesn’t seem to have taken those variables seriously enough, when deciding he can’t be in error.
It is just as strange and mixed up to try to portray someone who is pointing to the simple fact that your method is ignoring existing variables, and why you seem to have unwarranted confidence, as if the person raising these cautions is the "dogmatist." It’s literally got things the wrong way around.