It seems to me that we are all scientists in our different approaches. We observe, and we theorise, we test our theories, in order to achieve something. But I sometimes wonder if we are trying to achieve the same thing. It seems that some wish to just prove they are erudite, or that their beliefs are irrefutable. What I see happening is this: I report that I hear differences between something eg. cables, or that I find this valve amplifier sounds more like the real thing than that SS amplifier. This is my observation, I use this forum to share it and to benefit from the observations that others report. I am interested in those reports that are different from my own experience, because it causes me to listen again. I have my own theories, but keep the theorising alive because I believe there is still much to be learnt (is that not the essence of a scientist?). I am comfortable with this. But then I see posters that do not report their observations, they report their beliefs, and then claim the scientific high ground - eg. "I know lots of audio engineers and they tell me that cables are BS - so you are a poor sad fool that is being repeatedly fleeced by the marketers." So how am I meant to interpret this? Let's consider three plausible possibilities. The first is to assume that this is the sort of scientist that wishes to ridicule others' reported observations, rather than report their own. The second is that these scientists have found a theory that fits all the facts - just by adding one more theory to the existing scientific knowledge ie. that anything not explained by existing theory and measurement is delusion. How convenient - we can wrap up the whole audio science into a neat little parcel and then condescendingly dump it on the audio forums on the net. So this is the sort of scientist that is very uncomfortable with anything that cannot be explained by existing theory, and cannot bear the thought that this might mean that existing theory is flawed or inadequate. Therefore reported experiences that do not fit their belief have to be ridiculed, lest the unthinkable becomes plausible. The third possibility is that these posters are so sure of their beliefs that they altruistically wish to save me from the horrendous costs of my delusions. Being quite so sure about a subject like audio does not fit terribly well with my concept of science, but if I were to be charitable and assume the last of the three is true, then my answer is simply "thanks, but no thanks - your theories do not explain my reality, and so they are inadequate for me - and I do not share your need for an argument over existing scientific theory". But, in any case, my money is on number 2, with number 1 a close second and number 3 a distant last.
