[StJacques]

"To restrict the practice of science only to the information which is gained through the scientific process is to discredit the art of practicing science. Just ask Einstein. Shucks, Newton would have told you that, centuries ago."

I think you need to review what you have learned of Newton and Einstein. Newton's scientific method was pure induction, which was in fact one of his great contributions to science. I'll paste in the following, reorganized as a bulleted list, from this link on Issac Newton:

". . . Newton presented his methodology as a set of four rules for scientific reasoning. These rules were stated in the Principia and proposed that:

• We are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances
• The same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes
• Qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal
• Propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them. . . .

. . . Newton wrote, 'As in mathematics, so in natural philosophy the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis ought ever to precede the method of composition. This analysis consists of making experiments and observations, and in drawing general conclusions from them by induction...by this way of analysis we may proceed from compounds to ingredients, and from motions to the forces producing them; and in general from effects to their causes, and from particular causes to more general ones till the argument end in the most general. This is the method of analysis: and the synthesis consists in assuming the causes discovered and established as principles, and by them explaining the phenomena preceding from them, and proving the explanations.'"

Einstein, by comparison, was much more willing to discuss metaphysical concepts than Newton, but he nonetheless was extremely careful never to mix the two. As he saw it, scientific method was a means to understanding objective reality, but that understanding is not the highest end to which humanity aspires. I have a second link to give you a quote from Einstein that makes this clear:

". . . For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. . . ."

In Einstein's opinion science and metaphysics were not to be mixed, but metaphysics had its own place just the same.

[unspun]

Thank you for your lesson (truly) but the point is that humans need to practice the full force of their imagination and intuition, in order to practice science --or they would never be able to interpret data, nor create tests.

Otherwise, it would all be a nod, as good as a wink to a blind man.

That being true for the actual practice of the scientific method upon meaningful criteria and physical operands, the same is even more necessary for forensic studies involving etiology.

In other words, one cannot stretch pure "science" outside of its domain.