When someone posts a comment in an audio forum, I assume that, unless otherwise stated or implied, that they are speaking about audio and psychoacoustics, and not about science generally. Your use of the term "professional circles" in the context of this thread is so general that it appears to be a genuine strawman - intentional or not.
So then, why are you speaking in such general terms? Are you not aware that this is an audio forum? Although you chose to speak in generalities, it seems appropriate to ask you to please elucidate how those poorly defined generalities about scientific testing relate to ABX testing for sonic differences in psychoacoustics?
Also, you seem to be telling us that you don't understand that at least in psychoacoustics, scientists in the field like Dr.Floyd Toole are the experts and do not have to hire others to do ABX testing - because they are the experts? (Of course, I would assume that Floyd consults with his peers and other experts in related fields - all of the many scientists I have worked with or studied under do that. They read, evaluate, and criticize each others work and consult with each other.)
Only on forums??? Give me a break! Another strawman - you seem to be an expert at constructing them.
Yes, at this forum - with a good number of references to publications elsewhere that support the efficacy of ABX testing for audio. And it is not a "generic" standard - it is a specific one. Sheesh!
We are discussing the testing methods used by professionals in the field of psychoacoustics - and the methods they develop and use can also be utilized by curious non-experts to help eliminate sighted bias in auditory testing. Testing and reporting results by scientists is "the gold standard" and testing by audiophiles is fascinating and fun - and appears to be an eye-opening experience as reported by many here and elsewhere who have tried it.