Thomas Kuhn had the notion that different paradigms are incommensurable; one cannot understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another. If one is approaching the issue through the paradigm of scientific materialism one cannot see the rational structure of a paradigm that holds consciousness to be independent of the brain.
When we perceive and know the world we do so through an explanation or theory. We don’t perceive the world in the raw as it is in itself, but rather as we interpret it. We see it in terms of meanings and significances, which are mental constructions.
Kuhn's conception of incommensurability is controversial and I think to a degree highly overemphasized. Yes, there is a degree to which there are problems of terms used, concepts, metaphysical assumptions, etc., but to say that there is incommensurability in the sense that the two groups talk right past each other and that communication is almost impossible I think is incorrect.
Just like very different languages can be translated, and even very different concepts fr different cultures can be described to help understanding, the same can be said of scientific paradigms.
For example, even though there is no direct translation for the Sanskrit word "cit" into English, it can be communicated by first translating into consciousness, and then describing how it differs from the western use and definition of the word.
I think that if dialogs are rushed, or there is too much prejudice and no genuine interest of communicating ideas and understanding the other paradigm's position, you can have more talking past each other. However, with the right conditions of interest, openness, patience, and effort, translations can be done to greatly minimize incommensurability. The real problem isn't some almost impossible incommensurability, it is a lack of these positive conditions and characteristics that cause the problems, emphasizing the sociological issues with scientific knowledge rather than logical issues.