The Problem With Reason And Understanding

Although last class we were focused mainly on the two personal accounts of varied religious experience, the introduction and subsequent articles detailing how one should go about approaching such experiences were much more interesting to me. Particularly, I found the problems that arise out of the “emic / etic” distinctions, as well as the “empathetic, explanatory, agnostic, and postmodernist.” The main question all of these distinctions brought to my mind, was an underlying problem of what type of evidence is valid, and respectively, how one should approach looking at that evidence. I cringe to use the words “valid” and “should” here, as I do not wish to imply that there is a definite answer. (I actually believe in a complex compromise, that I wish not to sort out here. Mainly because I have not fully sorted it out myself.) But the problem remains as to which datum to look at when, and which way to look at it when we are looking at it.
The most perplexing issue of the datum for me, was the problem of empirical data and inductive reasoning. The general introduction shows the problem that with inductive reasoning “one can never be certain wether the next observation will confirm or falsify the claim”. And the problem with empirical data, arises when the “emic” perspective shows that what one gather’s from their experience might not always be the whole picture. What this seems to suggest, (and I would like to see developed arguments on the validity of both of these types of reasoning) is that meaning involves a third type of reason that supercedes empirical evidence and inductive reasoning.
This is problematic, especially for the scientist who believes so firmly in these two conventions to bring meaning to his experiments. As to what exactly that type of reasoning is, I would guess it would be “emic” in nature...but I’m not sure if it can be gathered empirically, (at least in full) or even guessed at inductively (without leaving something out). So what is left? What does this say about the sciences? I cannot put an exact name to what this third type of reasoning would be...if it is reasoning at all. Perhaps the implication is, that in order to fully understand, one has to step outside of reason, and use some other unknown tool entirely. Can one reason their way into understanding things? ...if so, what part of reason should they use if empiricism is incomplete, and inductive unsure?
Logic, does hold a rather tempting vantage point to me at this time. However, parts of logic are reliant on empiricism and inductiveness. But logic is generally a study of the connectives, of the relation between variables and constants and the meanings that can be derived from them. The mind-set of searching for meaningful connectives is I think a good compromise of the emic and the etic approaches. At the same time, I have trouble thinking of a religious practice in terms of a Logical proof (which has a tendency to ignore the meaning of the parts in order to study that of the whole...which may or may not be apt.) Again, there seems to be a part of the picture missing. And it is that part of the picture that disturbs me. Because it means that there is another force that needs to come into play, or, it is simply impossible to reach a true understanding.
Not to mention that the possibility of a true understanding is in itself problematic. But the fact that there are these problems alone, makes me seriously question our tools for understanding, and how much we really understand as a whole. It appears that our understanding, although we purport it to be vast, is in fact dismally short sighted. We have a long way to go.