Hi PH! This statement is eminently sensible, and I don't disagree with it. But again, a qualification: Human beings don't "see" everything -- on a physical-visual basis. There are eminently reasonable things that cannot be detected by the eye. To the extent that science suggests that only what fits its method is "real," and everything else either positively unreal or unimportant, then to my way of thinking, we have a very serious overreach of a particular conceptual framework. Capice, amici?
I'm so pleased to have the opportunity to clarify this. To my knowledge, the scientific position is not "everything else either positively unreal or unimportant." Rather, phenomena that cannot be detected, observed, measured, etc. are simply outside the scope of science. They would have to be, because there's absolutely nothing of a scientific nature that can be done with such things. No one claims they are "unreal or unimportant" (well, some individuals may express that as a personal opinion), but speaking strictly about the scope and procedures of science, although undetectable phenomena may exist, it is not feasable to perform any scientific work with such matters.