It's not my term. Ask Lexinom. He or she seems to want science to address something that science cannot observe. I'm just wondering how that works in practice.
I'm sure lots of scientists are investigating thoughts and emotions. I would guess that they do so something like the way they investigate subatomic particles: do something and infer from the results. Maybe someday they'll be able to observe thoughts and emotions directly, I don't know. Would you rather they stop trying?
Who is arguing against advances in observational sciences?
Nice attempt at deflection.
So scientists think that thoughts and emotions are part of the real world, eh?
And now they're spending time trying to observe the unobservable. They can only determine it based on inferring from the results.
But that doesn't apply to all things that cannot be observed.
Mighty selective of them. Sounds like a somewhat biased viewpoint that they're working from. Not very objective of them. Kind of disqualifies them from being scientists from the get go, doesn't it?
Seems to me that at one time electricity was considered supernatural.
Science has come a long way. Downward. if they immediately disqualify something from being studied based on personal prejudices.