On one hand, Einstein's relativity was non-scientific knowledge until it was proven using the scientific method. Since then, we can say that relativity is part of scientific knowledge.
On the other hand, the occidental musical theory provides a set of rules that would describe occidental taste about music. But since music is a subjective perception (repeat: subjective, not objective), we do not tend to include any proof about music as part of scientific knowledge, even if it is obtained using the scientific method. Musical theory, the behavioral rules of a tv series, or just the rules of love are not considered scientific knowledge, because they deal about our subjectivity.
My point is that several elements in science are subjective, and nevertheless are considered scientific knowledge. Thermodynamic temperature has no physical meaning, even to the point that we needed to introduce the Zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics just to give it a physical meaning; nevertheless, temperature is a feeling, as we know, there are no hot atoms. In other words, a subjective feeling is used to sustain an objective theory. Biology would be another example: we don't have a precise definition of life, we just accept entities following certain subjective intuitive behaviors as life. If we would have an objective definition of life we would know if virii are biologically alive or not, which currently we don't know. We just have subjective opinions. Nevertheless, we have a huge set of scientific knowledge about life.
So, can we consider subjective knowledge (as thermodynamical temperature, biological life or the psychological oedipus complex) as part of science? Wouldn't that be a fallacy?