What you are calling "hippie" is Daoist philosophy, not anti-esablisment druggy-speak. My point is that you advocate a way of knowing, yet you refuse that others may also have an opinion that may be valid in this regards.
It means that EVERYTHING has a reason and a flaw. Love, hate, murder, even opposing philosophies. Science has a reason, but it also has a flaw.
The flaw is it's own egotism combined with its recent willful dismissal of dialectic thinking (conversations with laymen isn't an option to many "true scientists" as it is seen as "wasting time")
It's benefits are seen in our worldly progressions.
Your scientific views are incomplete in it's search for what is. And willfully so.
Science willfully limits its inquiries to those things that science can study. It also resists inclusion of methodologies that have no history of being helpful in scientific inquiry.
I think the real problem is that science has a long history of producing useful knowledge -- medicine, digital watches, and so forth. Non-scientists would love to associate themselves with the prestige that comes from centuries of achievement, and would like to call themselves scientific.
I notice, for example, that ID calls itself scientific, and not Taoist or Buddhist or Christian or Marxist or Deist, or spiritualist or whatever. If these other ways of knowing are so great, and science is so limited, why does everyone want to ride the coattails of science?