Remember that the Scientific Approach can have absolutely no application in areas not entirely governed by matters of simple quantity. Science is helpless when it comes to making distinctions concerning quality, values and aesthetics. In this regards there is a quasi-logic that is sometimes applied, which transcends simple quantification to the extent that names and definition are assigned to things and discrete concepts, the pretention there being that to define a Thing is somehow to have gotten to its very essense; however, when you think about for a second -- a thing without a name is still the very same thing with a name, and the name never really matters, does it. So what Science can't quantify, it deals with by assigning it a name, but the name signifies nothing.

The Scientific Revolution began so many centuries ago with the observations of such as Galileo and Bacon, that empirical observation should be respected above the purely mental speculations of such as the Scholastic disciples of Aristotle who would suppose anything to be True as long as it was logically consistent within the realms of pure thought. But Empirical Observation often showed Pure Thought to be in error. So after a good rocky start the Intelligencia soon celebrated an Age of Empiricism, where observation of real phenomena mattered for something. But it so happened that with material things, observation could be reduced to quantification. and this is where Science jumped track and descended back toward the Dogmaticism of Aristotle. Spiritual Things are observable, even if only subjectively, and in being observable are indeed Empirical, but because they are impossible to quantify, they are denied their status of being Real Phenomena and Science dogmatically refuses to even consider them. So we are told by Scientists who cannot fashion a simple qualitative or aesthetic thought that our most meaningful Dreams are the results of entirely random firings between nerve cells. Why such a shallow explanation? Well, it seems they have a machine that can detect random firings of nerve cells. So science is only as good as its instruments of quantification.

It is a popular assumption that Scientists are smart; however, when one looks at actual science, it is all quite a bit of druggery -- collecting data into different columns. The numbers mostly have to speak for themselves, since the scientists are often too stupid to see what they really have to say. Take the American NACA Space Program for instance. When they were ready to launch the Challenger, the Doomed Space Ship back in the Eighties, a few of the Scientists pointed out that it was very cold outside and that at even higher temperatures than what then prevailed, the sealing o-rings would fail and the Mission would end in catastrophe, But the Head Scientist looked at the same information and explained that the tests of the o-rings were done at a higher temperature and so it was by no means proven that the o-rings would not somehow magically work at an even colder temperature than where the tests had been conducted... and so those who would delay the Lauch were doing so without any documented proof. That was NACA's Head Scientist. he was still Head Scientist when the next Space Ship exploded.

So, anyway, I would recommend that we all as a Collective discontinue the unreflective Worship of Science. We need to appreciate Empiricism again. We need to acknowledge what Science refuses to acknowledge, that our Subjective Experiences are Real.