Science comes after observation. Observation is the origin point.
If the science ends up nullifying the observation and the observation persists, then the science may be wrong, ie, not sufficient to discern or negotiate the given situation. Science is a servant, a tool, a methodology, it is not an arbiter of reality.
The danger is that fallible humans tend to put dogma into science when science has nothing to do with dogma or projection of dogma.
If one finds themselves running in circles, then it is a problem of an incomplete question. As question and answer are a mirror of one another. Premise comes after observation and before science. Discipline of the mind remains integral to all.
Engineers and the vast majority of scientists are almost never (99.95% +) trained in the psychological and physiological aspects of mind, nor are they multi-disciplinarians, for the most part. The engineer is the most behind the eight ball in this scenario at hand. Realization, or discipline of mind - is key, here.
This complex question requires many disciplines to be discerned and fully negotiated in order to solve it. It is no simple question.
Otherwise the resolution of it would be in the record and all of us would have moved on and be wasting our time with some other misunderstood issue.