It is interesting to see how difficult it can be for people to see outside the framework of science, when they have spent much of their life living with that perspective. To call the title excessive, you have to see the point being made first.

We should always remember that science is supposed to help understand the world, but the world isn't limited to science. In other words, social aspects of our lives are just as important as learning anything else. Just because they are difficult to study through the framework of science, doesn't mean they are not important or worse - that they are inferior in any way. If anything, they are more important than the material sciences because it involves the interpreter i.e. the scientist and it is far more difficult to study. That being said, I agree with you that the social sciences are poor overall currently. But that's not because the field is poor, but those who are leading it are terrible at it - like what you have mentioned yourself.

My article is obviously going to be my interpretation of the world. Sure, there are other possible interpretations as well, but if you read the first paragraph, I have linked articles as to what is considered better interpretations than others. Others cultures and individuals have their own interpretations, but they aren't better than what I have shared there (in fact they are worse than mine)- and if there are, feel free to actually share them.

Vague general claims about why I am wrong, is not useful in the slightest manner. You have made claims about me cherry picking but haven't actually wrote anything to refute my point. So all you have done is make an argument that is entirely baseless, because you didn't even post quotes or evidence of such cherry picking.

I think what you are feeling is also another form of cognitive dissonance, and I can't help you there if you are not willing to actually discuss your points more clearly. You are right that English is not my first language, but at least I have made actual arguments and not beat around the bush. Btw pointing that out is absolutely irrelevant to any of the points being made here. If you don't understand something, speak up and don't mock the author. It comes off as a shameful tactic that almost made me ignore anything else you had to say.

Depends on what conclusions we arrive at, after integrating both our rational and irrational minds. However, without enough understanding of our drives, we won't ever know what that is or how to get there.

So you don't feel either way about life and our species existing? Or is it only because we fail in making things better?