What do you even intend when you use the word science? Are you speaking of the scientific method, or are you speaking of your word from some neoplatonic acheteur that has declared psychiatry to be the ideal of the demiurge, to be applied without understanding? Reasoning by analogy is the totality of the basis for psychiatry. This is not the accurate use of the term and terminology of science.

If you understood grammar, which from your writing it is clear you do not, and logic, which again, you are clearly deficient in, then your rhetoric would, at least be coherent, which it is not. Appeal to novelty is not an argument.

Without the classical trivium, your understanding of science cannot be of any merit whatever. The classical trivium is not an alternative for science, but a basis, without which, the use of the scientific method is scarcely achievable. If you studied the classical trivium, and not the trivium method, It is clear that you did not understand how to apply it. Your writing is barely coherent, and filled with fallacies, and misapprehension. It is apparent that you studied the Prussian model, and are continuing to strive toward the organic unity. You attack, rather than reason. Yes, I studied the Latin as well, you are not the only person who can read. your "Gymnasium" and the neoplatonist, Martianus Minneus Felix Capella is what gave you away. Please go back and study the classical version, before it was dismantled, and turned into a slave training exercise, by the neoplatonists, and further by the Prussians. We are striving for understanding, not dogmatic indoctrination.

Appeal to novelty, strawman, false dilemma, ad hominem, ex silentio, These are what I see at first glance. Insult, though it is fun, is not reason. so, we can play the Dozens, or we can strive for understanding, but we cannot do both. I leave it to you to choose.