I'm writing a paper based on Husserl's The Crisis of The European Sciences. I'm having a difficulty forming a clear argument that argues against his claims based on subjective-relative experiences need in explaining our realiity based on his model of lfe-world. I understand that his main argument evolves around the idea that science can not successfully explain our reality since it doesn't count for subjective-relative experiences and rely purely on instrumental reasoning. I would appreciate it if you could include a short clear argument in a short sentence. Also maybe provide some comments, and define possible argument premises. I will focus on part one of Husserl's writings (about the first 55 pages).