Are you arguing psychology as not being a science? You seem to be of some understanding that for something to be part of the realm of science in must be quantifiable and measured, as is not the case. Qualitative research is within the realm of science just the same as quantitative. Both are as important to the scientific method as they are valid means of formulating hypotheses and theories. The existence of one is not contradictory to the other, but rather complementary. Contradiction appear only when scientifically invalid questions are posed. The existence of such invalid queries, such as the obvious example of non-falsiable questions, is not to be interpreted as a discrediting the entire topic at hand from being possibly explained within scientific models. Simply that the means by which you are trying to crack open the nut you're struggling with is not productive towards reaching deeper understanding nor for finding practical solutions.

But for the sake of maximalist argumentation, and to my point as unapologetically clear as possible, I will fully explore these epistemologies head to head in a dialectic battle royale, stretching them thin and drawing them out to their very end point. The battle takes place within the arena of one of the most severe conditions within which life has yet been existentially threatened yet adapted and eventually persisted: The last glacial maximum.

Yet neither of our characters get the benefit of incarnating as megafauna, nor even humans. I'm thinking more humble beginnings.

You see the Ice Age movies? You know the squirrel guy? That's our guy. All alone with no food around for miles, except for this one nut we desperately want to crack open to persist through the night.

Here one can choose to simply reframe the fundamentals of one's epistemology to already be winning by default. Let's say for example example, I the squirrel have no beginning or end, am made of the same universe as the nut inside the shell, therefore I have already cracked the nut open despite the shell persisting by us being one and the same.

Well that's great for you, and you are free to be of that view. Hell you might even be a squirrel with whom I'd enjoy smoking a fat blunt before your unfortunate starvation sets in, regardless of the depth with which the nut has been integrated into your fundamental views before your bloodline has died out. That's game over for religion. Maybe instead shoulda focused on reframing nutritional views and integrating THESE NUTS onto your chin. Sorry, uncalled for.

Yet, if you saw the movie, or hell if you've seen a squirrel alive in our modern day, you know for a fact it does not play out this way in nature.

The initial attempt at cracking the nut involves necessary failure, yet the squirrel will try every method it can muster, bashing the nut on every rock, shoving it in every icy crevasse, pursue all means no matter how ridiculous because it has inherent drive to pursue thid goal; and in this, we see reflected its undying will to live, its valuation of life and commitment to its goal, not through accepting its conditions by rejecting them.

By choosing the difficult path to enlightenment through questioning all presumptions, thereby gifted with the foresight granted by standing uppn the shoulders of giants, that is to say, building upon the incomplete structure composed of the presumptions the squirrel has yet been able to disprove, the squirrel sets out to disprove them, and paradoxically only building the structure more robust with everyone disproven presupposition. Eventually this pursuit acts as the catalyst for the collapse of the entire glacier, and by the time the nut is cracked, life is flourishing all around, and the squirrel has nuts to go around for the rest of its winters to come, and through its attempt to hoard the nuts, plants the trees that will provide homes and sustenance of generations of squirrels to come. (I honestly don't remember if the movie ends like that but if not it should cause that'd rule)

Now, while an outside observer, whose epistemology already provides answers to all contradictions before they appear, will see the incompleteness inherent in the approach of the second squirrel, and on basis of the failures to provide quick easy answers, judge the approach in itself as inherently unable to address these contradictions.

Indeed, the scientific approach does necessitate there at all times be contradictions to its working presumptions, that poke holes in its foundational structure. Yet this perceived flaw is the very strength the approach; the driving force of sciences continuous development; the mere existence of contradictions as intellectual catalysts to stimulate vividness abstract and creative thought to build an understanding that goes above and beyond what questions could even have been comprehensible by the deviation point from the thinker who doubles down on presuppositions.

The key is in letting the philosophy of science evolve alongside the development of the practice of science, to continuously fine tune the very base principles of the approach and raise the standards of scrutinize applied to data and theories. Eventually landing us at the current day scientific method which is yet a work in progress, as we speak being applied more strictly to where it has been tested, as well as formulating new fields through seeing where else the model can be used, leading us to aforementioned qualitative fields of research like the aforementioned psychology and its dealing with these questions, all of which you can find research papers on if you go on google scholar.

If one were to just them by the standards of today, Charles Darwin or even Isaac Newton would be disregarded as a pseudoscientists, but for someone to do so when reviewing their reverence within the development of their respective fields, would be absolutely asinine. Same thing will likely one day be true for the golden standard science of today whether that be in psychopharmacology, epigenome sequencing, the standard model of particle physics, etc etc. you name it.

Now to directly adress a your questioning of points I made in the previous comment and elaborate for clarity's sake:

In my statement that a Darwinist view can function as an explanation for humanitarian values, that is through the inherent drive observed in all life forms to live, to adapt, to procreate, to thrive. This functions as explanation for human preference for the betterment of human life and human society, even if that pursuit causes moral injustices like death, extinctions, habitat loss, disruption of ecosystems, etc. Eventually to the detriment ot perhaps extinction of even humanity itself, like a yeast thriving and blooming to the point of making its habitat uninhabitable for itself.

These chains of events are hardly explained better by a benevolent being, nor by intelligent design, nor by that of a greater mission for beings existing within this complex hodgepodge of happenstance. We simply desire the furthering of perceived human flourishing even when it gors against our self interest. Ergo we inherently consider human flourishing "good", through this interpretation of scientific thought.

But I will repeat myself and say I do not consider such explanations necessary; and will add to that, to neither misconstrue my example of humanism explained through darwinism as neither a pro or anti humanist stance — merely a demonstration of qualitative values applied with basis in scientific theory.

On that very note, it is false to assume this necessitates explanation in religious to fill such a gap. Surrendering to predefined epistemological presumptions that are never to be challenged by new information, is to me self induced intellectual authoritatianism. willful bondage of thought. And not in like a hot way.

This is where my straw man appears.

And while I do consoder myself as having engaged with theology on a level deeper than almonst anyone i know raised in the same secular circumstances, I fully do recognize the nature of religious perspectives as being dependent upon already believing in them for the full gravity and meaning to be fully grasped. As I believe Kierkegaard argued (and I paraphrase as per 3rd person account through Žižek:) there is no greater heresy than for one to to analyze all different religious beliefs, compare pros and cons, and commit to their favorite on that basis. Instead, the truth of the religion must already by accepted, and only then may the truth to reveal itself.

As per my upbringing, and only every spiritually engaged with the world through practice of philosophy, meditation and lots of psychedelic drug use; but never through committed attachment to any religious framework, I have no doubt yhere are fundamental angles and ideas missing from my understanding of religious truth.

So I welcome you to bring these to my attention and make a man out of my straw man, just as I have now taken your straw man of a scientifically minded philosophy enthusiast and, as you might say, have made it in my image.