One of the problems with the view of science predicating the physiological over the mentative and spiritual aspects arises in the area of psychic phenomena. The scientific method demands that to prove something a phenomena must be replicable to an independent observer in an independent test. Why, though, does is this necessarily congruent with the reality? Let us posit, for example, a psychic who occasionally sees a future event, but has no control over the power. They might be unable to reproduce it at will, but that in no way proves it impossible. Science would disallow the skill altogether, but, since we have posited the power as actually existent for this example, it only proves the inability of science to study it.
Why can science not acknowledge this latter possibility? A psychic need not be in control of a power to possess it. You can give a computer to a primitive islander but he won’t be able to use it. He can still look at the monitor, though, and make some sense of it. We aren’t in control of the sun, but we can make use of its energy. To extend the analogy, we’re unable to harness the sun’s energy at night. Psychic phenomena don’t have to subscribe to the regularity of terrestrial rotation. They can be more chaotic and still manifest.
This is not to say that psychics have legitimate powers, can tell the future, or speak to the dead. But if they can, science may have no valid basis to study it.
Science has a noble mission and goal, that of seeking through reason and evidence verifiable truths, but it must also admit its limits. Thus far it has not. Those most likely to admit the limits are the top scientists themselves. Armchair scientists, to say internet scientists, tout the benefits to the highest hills as if science has no limits and never shall. They seem to enjoy principally poking holes in others arguments based on tertiary critiques of method or vaguely plausible alternate theories.
Any fool can see that a handful of humans on a tiny marble in the remote corner of the vast universe will never fully understand it. Each new discovery, like particle physics, brings entire new vistas to explore. This should be the joy of the scientist, to continually prove how tiny, how incomplete, our sum of knowledge of is. It will never be complete. In this proving, the ultimate utility of science shows itself. It will never become obsolete (unless we do), we will never know everything, and we can always share the tremendous joy of discovery.