One of the disturbing trends of the modern era is the blind delegation of all reality-focused ideas to science. The presumption is that if something is real—if one can taste it, touch it, or smell it—then science is the best approach to dealing with that subject. This is the approach taken in most academic journals, and the reason for even traditionally humanities-oriented subjects being treated almost entirely in scientific terms and categories. The ostensible purpose of this is to render our ideas closer to reality. The thought is that by making a subject more scientific, we can make it more precise and predictable, and therefore, more real.
There are many problems with this approach. One of the most obvious problems, which I will not deal with at length here, is that this approach cuts off a large part of human thought processes. If humans experience the world in deeper terms than those available to the sciences, it makes sense that serious and rigorous studies of the world should take these deeper ideas into account. If they are not taken into account, we cut ourselves off from a large part of the real world. Rigorous study should expand our ability to reason, not contract it.