The first part of the last sentence(bold type) is somewhat ambiguous to me. Can I infer soul doesn't yield to science because its issue is a matter unto itself? Or, despite the issue of soul is a matter unto itself, it could be analyzed by science like feelings, thoughts, morals, etc.?
The debate about how to understand social life has ancient roots and can be traced at least as far back as Plato, who analyzed the differing worldviews of poetry and philosophy (which was at the time an approximation of science). Echoes of this debate are still heard today in the endless dialogue between the humanities and the sciences regarding how the world may best be comprehended. Some thinkers argue that the internal states of humans cannot be examined scientifically at all and must instead be understood nonscientifically via intuitive, interpretive, or even religious methods. Even some scientists devoted to strong empiricism adopt this view. B. F. Skinner, the leading twentieth-century advocate of behaviorism and the author of Walden Two, famously reasoned that internal mental states are unobservable and unquantifiable subjectivities and thus belong outside the range of objective scientific scrutiny, in contrast to observable (individual and collective) behaviors. Some philosophers and theologians continue to embrace the age-old dualistic separation between the material world and the mental world. The underlying claim is that we cannot use science to fully understand the soul or even feelings, thoughts, morals, or beauty. While the issue of the soul is a matter unto itself, feelings, thoughts, morals, and even beauty — and their evolutionary origins — are, in fact, yielding increasingly to science in the twenty-first century with techniques as diverse as MRI imaging and behavior genetics.
Nicholas A. Christakis, Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society (Little, Brown, 2019)