"This is a philosophical, not a scientific, statement. It is an a priori assertion. There is zero scientific evidence to support this assertion. You believe it in blind faith.
No. It conflicts with the science. The truth is singular, unique and there's no room for a dual here. When a conflict and contradiction is posed against something with scientific evidence, the unscientific loses. There's no need for apriori assumptions. The scientific evidence overrules the claim with no evidence. That's reality.
Example. Olf says, "lightning is the result of Thor tossing thunderbolts." Benjamin says, "lightning is atmospheric electricity caused by the breaking of ice crystals in the clouds and other effects of wind shear". Benjamin provides a theory of electricity, fully supported with evidence and all Thor can come up with is traditional stories. No evidence of Thor, or evidence of where, or how Thor obtains his bolts. Benjamin is justified in on scientific grounds that Olf's stories are a bogus reality.
Example 2) Cops shoot boy for rampaging in school with pellet gun. No one on the scene learns the gun is a toy until kid is shot. Father later says he told the cops before the kid was shot, that his son doesn't have a real gun. Father is overruled by phone records(the scientific evidence) that show his phone was never used.
Example 3) Man creates ID model that shows the laws of physics can't account for the observations. The man claims an unseen fifth force exists that directs all the others. The scientist notes that there is no evidence for the fifth force and that the modeler's claims regarding it are completely arbitrary. The scientist also notes, that the modeler's claims only apply to steps in a process that are presently of unknown mechanism, but not inconsistent with all else that is known about the process. The scientist is fully justified, on scientific grounds to say, "your model is wrong." He can also address the details of why it's wrong, but that isn't required for his conclusion to stand.
Example 4) The same applies to the the claim that a soul is required for intelligence in biological organisms. Science is rightly justified in saying that is not so. It is justifiied, because it can demonstrate the aciton attributed to intelligence and moral action, is inherent in the physics. "Soul", ocnflicts with science. It is not simply a dual, it's an arbitrary force that acts in contradiction to observable reality. That means the concept of soul must be revisted to determine what it really is.
" Therefore "The scientific method requires that science ignore it, not the individual" is false."
The "therefore" is unwarranted, because it does not follow. The statement w/o the label, applies in the case of the dual, where there is no conflict between science and some other claim not subject to the scientific method. In this case science has nothing to say. The individual doesn't have to ignore the claim. He can treat it as a rational problem.
I notice that you offered no scientific evidence for these claims. They are in fact a priori, non-scientific, beliefs you hold. You cannot offer scientific evidence for them. There is none. In this statement and others like them you assert your beliefs about who loses, what exists etc. When you offer me scientific evidence, we can talk.
I find it mind-boggling that you simply make an assertion "when science and non-science conflict, non-science loses" with no scientific evidence to back it up. I don't doubt for a second that you believe to be self-evidently true. I believe it to be false. I do not claim that science proves it false; I claim that philosophical reasoning and observation of non-scientific data indicates it to be false.
Now, how will you go about scientifically proving your belief to be true or my belief to be false? You need either to provide scientific evidence for your claim that science explains everything and is always right or you need to admit that it is a philosophical/religious claim and argue for it on those grounds.
Please do not bother me with another "Spunkets says so, that's why," argument. That kind of philosophical reasoning is for 7-year-olds on the school playground.
Asserting something as fact based solely on Spunkets' beliefs is not good philosophy, nor is it science in any way, shape or form. That you somehow think this is scientifically established fact only shows how poor your science and your philosophy is.