No you can't do that. You cannot verify their experience. Nobody can.
How can your observing a person allow you to assess what they hear?
Again: you cannot witness the other person's sense perception!
Your sitting there is no different than reading the abx log.
It's impossible to know their mind. They might be hearing angels singing while they tell you they hear nothing at all. Or they might hear nothing at all and tell you they can distinctly hear a deep bass tone. How can you "witness" that? At what point and by what means are you able to verify another person's description of something that may or may not fleetingly exist in their mind? There is no proof!
What your "witnessing" proves is that you don't understand that sense perception is subjective. That is not a minor detail.
At any rate this is ridiculous. I know you're going to take some phrase that I said here and repeat it 20 or 30 times trying to put it in the worst possible light, but I'm not going to be listening any more. I prefer civilized discussions over hostile debate, so I'm done talking with you here.
That's no more than a very weak evasion.
Disagreeing with someone in a debate does not constitute hostility. Nor is it uncivilized. If you put your arguments up for examination in a debate it's completely unreasonable to object to deficiences being described, even in robust terms. The very strongest things I've said to you are that you have failed to understand the differences between subjective and objective tests, and that several of your arguments are founded on misunderstandings and hence amount only to expressions of bias. In each case I supported those descriptions with examples. It's supposed to be a Science forum. That means opinions have no value and should be refuted, not accepted as facts. Fallacies offered as facts also invite and deserve dismissal.
In a debate people will debate you on what you actually wrote? If they disagree they might say so? And say why? If you keep presenting the same fallacy or opinion as fact then it might get remarked upon more than once? No! Really? Yes! OMG!
Edited by julian67 - 5/4/13 at 3:48pm