What I was saying here is that there ARE conditions where the scientific method is ineffective, and also reliance upon reason produces worse results than trusting intuitively. An overconfidence in a belief your mathematical models are flawless will cause this to happen. Watch the Nova article I posted to say why I said this.
Consider a simple reality where someone motivated by a religious text, starts to do good in the world, helping people, practicing charity and so on. The basis of this is NOT rational, but one of faith. And, it can be found in science. Science studies what is, NOT what might be or could be, or things that will happen if a person steps out in faith.
It would be real good if science could also fully explain the creation process of art, and be able to reduce it to formulas, but it doesn't happen that way. We aren't at a place where we can get machines to create art either. And we have a multiple things we consider true, that we can't measure in science labs. Things like beauty can't be measured by science, nor are other personal preferences either. People consider morality to be real to, but that isn't found in science either. People can study how the brain functions when thinking about such things, but NOT the study of ethics or morals.
Another simple way to look this is to take a look at a comment: "That is NOT science!". Well that means by saying "That" you are acknowledging something exists. And, secondarily, that it exists outside the bounds of science. If one says something exists outside the bounds of science, then it means that science isn't equipped to deal with it.
