That we are at the stage where problems with the prevailing materialist view are becoming more apparent, but that a viable alternative has yet to emerge.
I have already addressed that because as I indicated: "Holism or emergent properties are useful in describing new things in simple rule based ways even if we don't understand the underlying levels below this new thing. HOWEVER reductionism fills in the gaps and shows that there exists a continuum in this universe"
An example: Suppose you're a scientist and you're working in a less studied segment in the radio wave spectrum. Something doesn't quite add up in your experiments and you're getting higher energy outputs than the existing mathematical models predict.
Now there are two ways you can go about this (assuming you've re-checked and then re-re-checked the results to eliminate the possibility of experimental error):
1. You can use reductionism to try and understand exactly whats going on OR
2. You can explore this new discovery and try and figure out how the rules work (Holism).
Number one is much slower than number two but gives the most satisfactory explanation.
Pursuing option number two means you don't care about the full explanation because you're assuming there is one, and you're more interested in what the new rules for this discovery are. As you discover the new rules you start asking questions like: What can one do with this new discovery? Could this lead to a whole new field of inquiry?
Both methods are important in science. One is more methodical, the other is more exploratory. Both have elements of the other. Either is valid, it purely depends on who you are and which one is your preference. You might even try and do both at the same time.