Having gone through all of this in one go as some may have noticed, it has struck me that the title is "Reliability of Human Senses' - all of them! Thereafter several quotes have revealed the inter-action between at least some senses. The active word is also Reliability, not presence, accuracy or consistency of. Many (most?) posts then seem to suggest that many people will hear differently (meaning the perception of what is heard).
The latter was never challenged - meaning in fact that it is not possible to 'coin' an accurate rule here! But then, as I have sometimes asked as a designer: For who's hearing must I design? Unless catering for a particular personal taste/whim/'colour'/perception I can only follow what has been established by literally thousands of controlled tests as revealed in reams of reports, what the probable perception will be regarding the various audio qualities. In particular, what will likely be inaudible to human hearing. And this has turned out to be a rather well-defined set of facts with regard to frequency response, distortion, group delay et al. It seems to be generally predictable from practical tests what will likely be inaudible - not the other way round. Designers do not want to 'convert' the audio world to their 'eccentric' (as some label it) ideas of what should be audible; they themselves have been 'converted' by the real audio world to what will be audible and what not. Thus certainly not try press (or is it im-press?) listeners into a sardine can; the variety of audio experiences became only too evident from former said tests. But again: For whose ears must a designer design? Unless one somehow includes several 'niceness/taste controls' (a la Douglas Self) somewhere in the signal line ....
Going back to 'human senses', perhaps we have forgotten the simple high school hot-water/cold-water test? (Three bowls of water, one hot, one cold, one room temperature, one hand in hot water, the other in cold water, then both in room temprature water, one hand says it is hot, the other cold ..... Reliability of senses?? And following, do we have any proof that hearing is that much more reliable/repeatable than the other four senses?
If so, some real reading should be done on hearing psychology or acousto-physical sensing - it is all there. Why are we arguing for this or that aspect of the field?
As to the statement of hearing being the most reliable and sensitive measuring tool for audio - correction: it might be the most sensitive, not measuring tool. Hearing is in effect an even poorer measuring tool than the above temperature test, with relatively poor memory compared to the other senses.
(And as a design engineer that does not make me an objectivist but a realist.)
