BB, my constant delight! I think you go to far with that statement. What the scientist is saying is more like: "Give me a theory based on evidence I can see, and reasoning I can follow, and I will consider it science. If you give me only your unsupported conjectures, based on your feelings, that's fine, and I may even share your views; but we both know it's not science."
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?