I challenge all sciences WHEN all things inside it and it's way of doing things (or it's people representing those things) count some things IN and by doing so actually count things *OUT* other *at the same time*...

Somewhat selective calculating perhaps without realising or caring. So while it can seem without bias or not important it would be similar to being inconsiderate or like talking to robots that only understand it's own field.

Without a kind of allowance around everything to assume it's more than we see it can be a type of fascism... Oh boy... Ok so maybe not fascism but absolutist view looking upon things without space for things other than a number attributed to it.

My ideal is sapience and understanding in people more people in counting mode all the time- more the consideration and life-dynamics (this term I could probably improve) as a debated definition (which at the end I come back to planet always and keeping people alive).

So the above is important to humans (for machines it's also similar as parts of their lifecycle but as example human needs more considerations, which are very much like for machines like the greasing of wheels regularly which can't be missed out in equations but harder to calculate, but many more things like that unseen, unfelt by others but still greasing of wheels for humans and feelings)

So to even assume to be so absolute in things which are not absolute or even changing start and attribute (such as people themselves as individuals or attributes of things) I feel is a MAJOR over-sight and that I'm undefeatable in this! (but how some reasoning can test it)... so I can accept some part of sciences but all comes back to bite itself (and humans) if not respected enough it's limitations.

Again to emphasise I can accept use-cases etc, but too often it's almost an unsaid and faux-pas to only count some things but not others. So when x has many more attributes and functions, it fails to respect things which are REALLY important to humans! (but perhaps not important for equation-makers / matrix grid / columns and rows of numebers).

It might seem over-dramatising it and yes I am looking for a bit of a fight... but if you consider these kinds of equations miss out many humanistic factors and uniquely valued things (which are also subject to different people's OWN logic), then it might not be surprising all these 'logic' equation have missed out in MANY equations this factor by trying to rope in everything which to be honest they can't...
can they?

And maybe they don't claim to do that but seems standardising it and many techniques everywhere does assume that.

Teaching kids to count mainly and not consider people is perhaps why it's so well-taught, almost showing from schools what certain people (Governments) want to be included and what they don't- it's subtle isn't it... or if see it clearly it's really clear! DON'T TEACH PEOPLE THOSE THINGS LIKE ASKING PEOPLE AND CARING!)

This doesn't become a problem until you realise it all adds up.
Maths,,, all innocent of course. Hmmm very small cases and overall inside other living things kinds of infinitely debatable perhaps an an onion skin inside another...

So on a scientific level saying "x is not only x but has other attributes" means a lot is not counted in this equation and if we are not measuring (respecting) then we are creating trouble or leaving left-overs / cut-out values at the same time 'solving' them. What doesn't count human things seems certainly erroneous
and important to quote me is saying:

"Humans are not perfect and subject to change!"

"What stays static in that measurement is almost surely wrong...." unless there is really lots of other things to ask/measure from people and even then they might just say "I might not feel like it!" and it would need to be too real-time that actually people would be the one's who should be doing this as they manage consent too at the same time (machines and maths not having this function really or poor replacement and would have to ask almost everything which is why human mediation is best even if it's not perfect).

We did get lost in thinking perfection is possible or that it's better ... and while it may give fruits still the acceptance of less-than-perfect wonderful humans are my preference / priority here.

Distraction below / money stuff but above is the main.

So as one distractinary self-answer, on some simplified level quickly, it's just about asking the person / people what they think... not just trying to standardise people or opinions into numbers and stats etc... which obviously can't cover it...
and it needs far more intellect which is why the matrix way is dominating as it 'seems' so easy or for people to profit, measure etc.

As a funny counter point to myself... something more than a measuring tape to measure wood is about the best use-care for real / most basic measurement!

And by the way how much is your child worth ? Or if you don't have kids, how much is your mum worth? (goes into money but example shows some things are not about numbers or the planet is somewhat unpriceble or priceless and a mistake to change/value into money or even numbers beyond certain reasons like for keeping people alive more honestly / directly)