I don't see why scientists would be bound to the scientific method in all aspects of their life and who they are.
I guess they would only be bound by that if they are good scientists;
Notice he said in all aspects of their life. There isn't a (sane) scientist on earth who has completely bound himself to the scientific method in all aspects of their life. That is simply not possible as a human being. Human beings are feeling, emotional animals; we are products of our time, culture, upbringing, genes, worldview and much more. Every human being sees the world through a set of lenses and regardless of what some people claim, there is simply NO verifiable evidence that any person on earth who applies the scientific method to 100% of their life 100% of the time. It is just not possible.
And this I think is the biggest difference between some Atheists and most religious people. Some atheists claim that they never fail at this rigorous method of living and are always being logical, rational, and use science to determine truth at all times. This is, I'm sorry to say nothing but a delusion. Even the the most hard atheist in the world is still using "something" other than the scientific method when he looks at the world, particularly within relationships with other human beings but often times even in his search for truth. We are not clean slates or robots or PC's ready to go at our first boot up. By the time we have the ability to begin skeptical inquiry we have been influenced and conditioned in numerous ways. I speak in part from experience. even in my periods of deep agnosticism I tried to be honest enough with myself to realize that part of me was still viewing the world through an emotional and "unscientific" lens of my life. Unless one is born fully formed like Data on Star Trek, none of us is free from our life experience which colors our view of the world. Even the best scientists are "guilty" of this because it is part of being human.
But the existence of bad scientists just emphasizes even more the importance of the scientific methods, of reviewing all assertions yourself. It just proves that you should never believe someone because you like what they say or because of their reputation,
I agree with this very much actually!
you should only accept it if it is proven and verifiable.
How does one prove their deceased loved one cared about them? You cannot talk to the deceased loved one. You cannot perform experiments to repeat or verify anything. So how does one prove that?
How does one even prove for example someone's spouse loves them? Someone asked Richard Dawkins in a debate (I think it was Dinesh D-Souza whom I really cannot stand, but he managed to make a good point in his 25 year career, so what can I say? LOL!) Anyways when asked "how can you prove your wife loves you can it be done?" Dawkins did attempt to answer by saying "yes you can verify it", by a "smile she gives" or a "the wink of an eye" etc...That sounds nice but these are merely subjective things. Maybe his wife is just a good actor?! A wink and a smile is scientific evidence? They can be reproduced of course but they are totally subjective in nature. Just as subjective as any religious experience, possibly even more so. Just because someone I know winks at me doesn't mean they love me.
One cannot even prove via the rigorous scientific method if one's parents "loved" them. the fact that they fed and nurtured them doesn't prove love at all. Many parents "raise" their children and in fact do not love them. And yet children with these types of parents actually "know" that they are not really loved. How do they know this? They were fed? They were clothed? They received Christmas presents, but they "know" somehow they were not loved in the same way as say their best friend down the street was. How do they "know" this? It certainly isn't by the scientific method that's for sure.
Now maybe one day we will get answers to these questions and maybe we won't. For now such feelings as far as any of us know are "subjective". People like Sam Harris believe one day many of these types of questions (like vibes, and intuition etc) will be proven scientifically, but of course this is not an opinion based on anything but wishful thinking and well, his own worldview. He "believes" we will one day know answers to this and so that's what he argues. Some atheists are hard on him for some of these believes, but in reality no one is immune to such thinking. Scientists are no different in this respect. And the subject of "my wife loves me" is but one way scientists view the world outside of the scientific method, there are plenty of others.
I'm not trying to "prove" there is a God at all, I don't think that it can be proved, not even close. But it does bug me to no end when atheists claim that they view the world through scientific means at all times and in all areas of life when such is simply not the case. And notice just as you said, the one's who do use their feelings are "bad scientists" not real scientists like me!
No one thinks completely free from what it means to be human, it would be the sign of a sick mind (literally) in certain cases, like instead of experiencing sexuality with one's partner, one thought "hey this is an interesting scientific experience I'm having!"
No one can do that. It's not like Data's emotion chip in Star Trek TNG. It's ironic thought that in Star Trek characters like Data WANT human emotions and eventually learn when to use and not to use it, but some Atheists think emotions and intuition are bad and always bad. It's like Atheists are aspiring to be Vulcans, but without the ritual and meditation that Vulcans use. (well except maybe Sam Harris..LOL!) And of course Vulcans are not completely honest about "not having emotions" they simply know when to use them and when to not use them.
Philosophical lessons from Star Trek! What can I say, Gene Roddenberry was a genius...