Source : EBS KSAT Completion, 144p, No 34.

When someone gives a reason for his action, he makes reference to an end (or goal), plus a belief that the action will somehow advance the end. The very invocation of a reason for action suggests that the person himself is a cause, directing himself toward an end.
Economist Frank Knight addresses the problem of reasons for scientific accounts of choice as part of the more general problem of the place of human consciousness in scientific explanation.
The challenge of human consciousness arises from the fact that humans react to their interpretation of reality, not to reality directly.
Humans assign variable meanings to what they perceive, dependent on perception, belief, emotion, and long-term goals. Knight notes that human consciousness does not fit neatly into the natural science paradigm: “Science can find no place for it [consciousness], and no role for it to perform in the causal sequence. It is epiphenomenal.”
The nature of social science, and its relationship to natural science, depends crucially on whether or not we take seriously the reasons that people give as causes of their actions.

================================================== =

I can't understand the underlined. Does it mean that human interpretation of reality is arbitrary compared to scientific one?
For example, if you see someone fail in his business, you might interpret it as either a pre-step for a success or a complete failure depending on your perspective, but science can't do that.