The World's Happiest Man

The New York Times has an article about the man who is purportedly the "world's happiest":

Daniel Goleman wonders if science can explain the good cheer of the “world's happiest man.”

These kind of article are really annoying. Of course science can't explain this man's good cheer. "Cheer" is a human, value-laden term that is completely subjective, not to mention exceedingly vague, and can't be scientifically defined.

So is the claim of "happiest."

Science is good with electrons and cells and even neutron stars. It's not applicable to made-up, undefined terms like "cheer." Can we stop this silliness?