lissen here, utley... permit me to quote the great phiolosopher, t;
"i aint got time f'no jibba jabba"
hh!
your documented response is long, ill give y'that much. but, its not length, its how y'use it!
focussing on both V, the exceptions, and VI, the conclusion, one can get the gist that the "escape clause" of the scientific explanation is always intact.
i find the scientific knowledge, theories, and method best summed up by the exception's starting argument:
While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving.
im summation; its necessary for science, and (perhaps) useful for not-science. which, i take to mean, its great for things that can be calculated, but horrible for anything involving a human.
and, were we machines, perhaps, the scientific method WOULD be exact and presise... fortunately, we're not. our human nature gives us the ability to be 100% irresponsible, completely unpredictable, and resilient beyond belief.
but because of our inherent nature, we, for the most part, are both beyond and above science and its method.
one will never find, discover, or deduce the true calculations of love. hundreds of years from now, when mechanics and engineers have developed robots with AI to resemble love (more so than young haley joel)... thats all they'll do, is resemble. doctors, even those of the current day, can tell me all they want that love, or the emotion it represents, is an influx of chemicals and blood rushed to specific sections of the brain... but so what!
love is undefinable, unproveable, un-science-able. its merely something you have faith in -- to know its there, without caring, without the need, or even the possibility, to truly understand it. and, that could be used to define the fundamentals of many religions, or even the basic belief of god.
using that principle, however weak, as a structured backbone, you now have the opportunity to prove, disprove, or "merely" believe in other items of that same catagory, be it aliens, or spirits, life after death, etc.
none of those fit into the (current) methodical patterns of science and are, thus, dismissed, even laughed at; (much like the heliocentric view, america, and even planes.)
but are they any less real? because i cant tell you how tall aliens are, that mean they're not there? if you say ghosts are green, and i say they're red, did we disprove each other?
repeated proof might be a techinical, "hard edged," more-so definable characteristic... but there's so much more to be said of belief, and faith.
bottom line... you wanna make me a medical chemical? science all the way, baby. how's bout buildin me a bridge... you wanna build me a bridge? bring my ass a scientist!
but, unless you wanna include the makes of william shakespear, michaelangelo, jesus christ, etc, within the sacred realm of scientists? ... then keep that high school subject the hell away from the important stuff. 
references
1. Kamphausen, Robert. "i have a book?" (ghostdog productions, 1978).
2. T, Mr. "that fool i did pity" (gold productions, 2001).
