The scientific method is worthless without something to quantify. Since soul is not a “something,” it is reasonable to conclude that soul is not quantifiable. Furthermore, soul, according to Heraclitus, is without limit, immeasurable. Therefore, the scientific method, as we know it, cannot fully comprehend soul.
This does not make soul supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about it. If we really understood matter, we would understand the ways of soul. Perhaps we are beginning to.
On the other hand, soul encompasses matter; they are not distinct, as in Cartesian dualism. As I have written elsewhere, what I call animatter is the “substance” (for want of a better word) that composes the universe. One can, indeed, quantify animatter to a certain extent.
My desk is animatter; I can measure its width, length, weight, etc., but I cannot measure the soul within the desk. So, the scientific method cannot discover the nature of soul in my desk. The desk is cherry wood, made from an American Black (cherry) tree. These trees can grow up to one hundred feet high, with a trunk of up to two feet in diameter. The beauty and majesty of the tree are part of its soul, as well as the fruit it bears. All the words I have written while sitting at this cherry desk contribute to the soul of the desk. None of this can be measured.
The scientific method is certainly very useful to us and to our civilization, but its mode of presence, to borrow from Heidegger and Corbin, is not applicable to the immeasurable elements of soul. It must remain in its own realm of soul, i.e. those things which are quantifiable. It should not make negative claims concerning the realm of immeasurable soul, since it does not have the means of ascertaining it.
This post has been read 1768 times!