Yeah, but isn't emotionalism the dumbest "alternative to science"?   
I assume this follows on from my comment.

The answer is, it depends. As I said way way way way back, I am a rationalist at heart and it's how I earn my living. As a strategy for long term development as a group, it takes some beating. But the simple fact is that not only is it not how we make many day to day choices, when it comes to fight-or-flight, or simply things like second by second driving decisions, it would probably kill us quite quickly if we took the time to carry out a proper rational analysis. And that is also true for some long term decisions: most voting decisions are not based on a rational analysis of the choices before us. For example, leaving a certain US election to one side, here in the UK we are being asked to vote for police commissioners for the first time on Nov 15th. To date I have recieved exactly zero leaflets, emails, texts, whatever from any of the candidates. In short I am being provided with no information whatever on which to make a rational decision.

So when I think about alternatives to science, I don't mean we drop scientific approaches: I mean we augment them as best we can with other approaches in other situations.