> But, has science even tried to measure the levels of love?

Yes, I'd say it has:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrR-6Vwle1I

> And, what they are doing is called "unscientific."

By who? I drink raw milk, and I think there are valid, rational reasons for me to do so, though I could be wrong. Nutrition is something (like science) which is constantly improving and adjusting as our understanding of the natural world improves via our technology for measuring things. It's usually a step forward, though there are certainly steps sideways and even steps backwards. Fat used to be bad, now we know healthy fats are good and our understanding of cholesterol was incomplete, etc. It's easy for someone to get cynical about it, especially when government and lobby interests push agendas backed by bad science. Those with a longer term view, I think, view things more accurately as a progression forward. Steven Pinker's books do a good job of this, I think.

Metaphysics and health are both discussed by the panel. There are parts you will agree with and parts you won't. I think it's a balanced discussion.

As to metaphysics, to call that half the universe is odd to me. The universe is a physical thing. Metaphysics is a word created by conscious homo sapiens in an attempt to categorize concepts which make up our consciousness. Yes, it's important, but like thought, it's something we're still exploring in a physical sense. I think some day we will better understand it as the science of the mind progresses forward.

Do we know why babies need love to survive? Not that I know of, but it is likely that there is a psychological and/or biological reason. My first guess would be that it has to do with hormones that are produced when others show affection that are necessary for a child's survival.