Is importance and relevance always verifiable by scientific facts and discovery? The Enneagram cannot be seen, touched, or quantified by a computer; does that mean it isn’t scientific or valid? Are our opinions, though un-provable and usually the very support for many of our decisions, unscientific and therefore irrelevant? Considered that human experience is proof enough to validate our life practices. Do hard evidence and human experience really have to be on opposite ends of the scientific spectrum? The Enneagram produces the desired self-understanding and self-development for many people and yet defies the senses and scientists’ computer programs. Don’t the positive benefits still rate consideration and exploration?

Read the full article here: Science.Whose?