That's about the size of it, I'd say. There's so much in life that cannot be reduced to a scientific experiment.
What does science do about beauty, morals, truth, decision making, emotions, society, relationships? Aren't those things real? If so, how do you describe them scientifically?
If science deals only with that which can be observed and tested, then it automatically eliminates a chunk of reality. It's only looking at a subset of reality, which then makes it fairly useless for describing the whole, which it has never dealt with.
Of course they are real, and science deals with them.
You don't need to come up with magic and supernaturalism to deal with those subjects! They can be observed and measured. Perhaps the fields that deal with them are in their infancy, but they are not something that science can't address.
If science deals only with that which can be observed and tested, then it automatically eliminates a chunk of reality. It's only looking at a subset of reality, which then makes it fairly useless for describing the whole, which it has never dealt with.
A subset of reality? That subset called science currently excludes magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, faked moon landings, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, a flat or hollow earth, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.
If science is the poorer for excluding all of that nonsense -- well, I'll take science any day. You can have all of that nonsense and you're welcome to it.