> We can't say what sort of echolocation sensation a bat has anymore than Mary can say what a color looks like before she leaves the black and white room.
Actually we can. For example, there are reports of the older generation dreaming in black and white due to the black and white tv [1], in much the same way, the days event can shape the dreams someone has. On the physical side, because science is now showing how light and other environmental stimuli affect chemical processes in the body and brain [2,3,4], science is not only discovering the ability to emit and measure, but then find instances in nature where its being used.
>what would the rest of the EM spectrum look like if we could see it all
Ultraviolent is a good example, the lens of the eye tends to block this, but people with no lens due to early cataract operations which just removed the lens, and anomalous lens have reported seeing UV light. [5,6]
>What would a scientific theory that could answer these sorts of questions look like?
So it depends on whether experts take reports seriously or not, experts applying real scientific conjecture, and/or whether funding and permission can be obtained. We can all detect Infrared (heat) through our skin, but we cant really see it. On another point, which perhaps best describes and exemplifies the boiling frog syndrome is the fact that UV destroys folates, yet we dont really detect as it takes place because its taking place over a larger perceptible window of time [7], at best those suffering from SAD or depression may feel better after a session in the tanning salon or by the end of the tanning session depending on how much UVA light the flo tubes are chucking out. It also highlights that some vegetables like Brussel Sprouts a vegetable high in folates may be harmful to your mental health during winter months, especially considering its a stable for Xmas dinners. But back to the point of what would a scientific theory look like, we already see that ad-hoc practice in action in the scientific world. Generate, Detect, Search for examples, Elucidate, Pontificate.
Scientific knowledge is not really performed in a scientific manner because it relies on the ad-hoc, if not, chaotic ability to detect phenomena, a known stumbling block, hindered in part by capitalism of all things and we all know no one person has all the ideas, and we know that some test equipment is massively expensive and in the past didnt exist. So the low hanging fruit of being able to devise tests using our own senses and imagination, think Newton's gravity theory when hit on the head by an apple, or even theory's from ancient Greeks demonstrates that in practice, scientific discovery has been extremely unscientific despite the protestations of its adherents.
>There's no magic or supernatural stuff here. It just means our scientific description of the world lacks the subjective. There is a fundamental epistemological limit to our ability to know how to combine the two. It doesn't mean the world itself has such a division. We just can't cognate how to reconcile the two.
I'm sure you are aware of the internet and search engines [8,9], if not perhaps films giving tantalizing inspiration and hope [10] of possibility's and insights into how to cognate and reconcile the current and future time beyond the realms of religions which constantly harp back to the past.
Not bad for an undergraduate of https://rb.gy/xhuwo9 if I might say so, whilst I might have spent time reading a dictionary, in order to create obedience to authority with the use of uncommon words from the vernacular of the commons, I'm not engaging in it here consciously, because the military have taught me some highly efficient means to get my message across which isn't compatible with those tenets from the law and order fraternity.
[1] https://rb.gy/xilvko
[2] https://rb.gy/grprda
[3] https://rb.gy/ahwngn
[4] https://rb.gy/j2dibr
[5] https://rb.gy/7rpejx
[6] https://rb.gy/vwgr1o
[7] https://rb.gy/yhxhlm
[8] https://rb.gy/s9wdn6
[9] https://rb.gy/5kte4d
[10]https://rb.gy/hzmop7