My point is that without a rigorous definition of love (or justice or any other such quality that you mention) and a rigorous way to measure such a quality, it would be difficult to do any kind of scientific determination that would make any sense. I was not suggesting that such a quantitative treatment would be possible, but rather suggesting that a scientific theory should not be faulted for failing to account for qualities that are difficult to treat scientifically.
that a scientific theory should not be faulted for failing to account for qualities that are difficult to treat scientifically.
Perhaps.
But then, one would think that PERHAPS such "scientists" would have the logical consistency and integrity to AVOID pontificating as though their methods were so robustly relevant, useful, functional, fitting etc. as to allow rational grandstanding of the most extreme illogical and grandiose lengths.
In other words, YA COULDA FOOLED ME! The religious fervor of said SCIENTISTS doesn't sound at all LIKE THEY appreciate the limitations of their "SCIENCE."