you do not prove something true with an experiment
...blah blah blah...
Theories, no matter how well seeming, can be disproven.
Well duh, that's by definition. That's why religion is ********, because it's unfalsifiable. But, that does not mean that we do not accept our theories when trying to apply them practically.
We are not sure about the theory of the mind, since evidence is contradictory.
In my studies in cognitive psychology and neuroscience I have encountered various theories attempting to explain different aspects of the mind, but most certainly no claim for an overall theory of mind, so your statment is pointless. How can there be contradictory evidence to something that doesn't exist?
An absolute tennant of subatomic physics for a long time was the concept of parity
...blah blah blah...
Of course mistakes happen. But it is impractical to assume the major theory of the day is incorrect. Example: I could assume quantum theory overall is wrong, and decide not to rely on anything derived from it, specifically any and all semiconductor electronics. That would be indeed preposterous. Despite all talk of major paradigm shifts and turning points in science, there are no such in the physical (that is, fundamental, because all others reduce to them) sciences. Overall, what we have are further and further refinements of our models of the world, almost asymptotic to whatever level of 'truth' may be reachable by our cognition. We still use Newton's laws, after all. How many physicists (Penrose notwithstanding) doubt that any future accepted base theory will not be quantum in nature?
I think that with audio, empiricsts are too sure of themselves that everything that is relivant to human hearing has been discovered. From what I've read on it, results are inconclusive.
I would love for you to show me peer reviewed references where valid results of blind tests have shown a difference is audible when accepted theory says it wouldn't have been.
I think it is premature to claim that we are capable of accurately reducing sound quality to a set of numbers.
The laws of physics are computational (again, Penrose's ramblings notwithstanding *). The brain is a part of the physical universe. Therefore, the brain and it's actions (mind) are computational, and thus not only reducible to numbers, but to finite precision rational numbers at that. Like it or not, all your thought sequences can be mathematically mapped to a finite automaton **.
If I decide to go to grad school, I may try and do research on this topic, but I think for now it's incorrect to state that we can objectively measure everything important to sound quality.
Your "for now" clause is subject to the "If I decide to go to grad school". I hope that is accidental, else you are saying that we should all assume "it's incorrect to state that....", at least until you go to grad school. What arrogance!
(I can provide PDF files for any of the following if you can't find copies; sorry for the lack of proper citation format, but this is just a forum after all)
* A number of rebuttals have been published, but the most precise is
A Refutation of Penrose's Godelian Case Against Articial Intelligence
** Especially
Why I am not a Super Turing Machine
Also see
Cognition and the Computational Power of Connectionist Networks
Turing vs Super-Turing
Universal Limits on Computation
Fundamental Physical Limits on Computation
Undecidability Everywhere
On the Computational Capabilities of Physical Systems