Thanks for reading and I appreciate the comment!

But I disagree that it is somehow metaphysical to claim that science cannot perfectly encapsulate the complexity of the brain. Rather, it’s an epistemological claim about the boundaries of knowledge. As the next sentence in the article reads: All models are wrong; some models are useful. That is to say, scientific theories are not ultimate truth —theories are just groups of pragmatic falsifications (hypotheses) that have immense predictive value.

Despite what some scientists might say, the goal of science is not to determine the ultimate and final nature of reality. Science actually works through consilience, which means the convergence of evidence across independent viewpoints (a form of precision rather than accuracy). In other words, the worldview constructed from scientific results is nothing more than our current best guesses composed from many empirically tested opinions. But this description is in no way meant to deconstruct the power of scientific theory. Unlike religious beliefs — which are more or less determined by the whims of a small set of powerful men and texts — scientific opinions are democratic and tend to be mutually reinforcing due to their rigor, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This does not make science foolproof, but it does provide scientific consensus with a predictive ability that cannot be matched by religious frameworks.

You may disagree with the statement (and I’d love to hear your thoughts if you do), but it is not a metaphysical claim to say that scientific knowledge is inherently incomplete.