So let's define this thing.
- The Polycorn is non-physical.
- The Polycorn's direct phenomenal effects cannot be measured physically.
- The Polycorn has phenomenal effects on regular physical matter and energy around us, but these residual side-effects cannot be "quantified by science".
- Science cannot form a theory of the Polycorn, ever.
- The Polycorn exists.
- You must believe the Polycorn exists.
Actually this is quite good, because it highlights an important distinction. The only thing I would change is the last dot point "You must believe" to "You cannot deny the logical structure".
You begin with the apriori assumption that the "Polycorn" exists. In other words,we are making an assumption about an assumed cause for the way the world is. Furthermore,if we understand the nature of the "Polycorn" then we intuitively understand the claims being made about the "Polycorn". One possible way of demonstrate this is though the use of a tautology:
Reality is such that you can have a "Polycorn" and the "Polycorn" explains reality.
The thing is we don't need the scientific method to demonstrate the existence of the "Polycorn". In fact, even if we wanted to use the scientific method to demonstrate the working of the "Polycorn" in the world, it would be impossible. The "Polycorn" is non-falsifiable and not demonstrable. It is a metaphysical claim to reality. To try and prove this metaphysical claim to reality is science, is to do nothing more than create pseudo-science.
I think you have done a good job with this Kuz.