In general, we should start channeling various scientific sectors into specific goals, instead of diversifying them into separate versions of what we refer to as "truth".  If you ask Google what's "truth" or what is "Real" you will see that there is no 1 definitive answer, instead we have more than 100 different versions of the answer, coming from various scientific, religious, philosophical points of view, and for some reason, all of them make sense and are perceived as "true". 

That is kinda funny, as our everyday functions are based on what we believe to be true or real. It should be impossible for us to function when we are not sure about what is "real", yet we are somehow convinced that we know what is real based on one of the possible versions of true which serves our respective organic processor. 

According to Vico, "Real" is a series of words (or other forms of recorded intelligence - able to be re-used in the future) that someone once said or recorded. Nothing less, nothing more. If you read the Bible and you're convinced that what they say is true and real, then it's real. It's as simple as that.

At the same time, while we believe positive sciences like physics, chemistry etc are more legit and those who define the common truth or reality, we still act like faithful acolytes, believing everything the scientific community releases without questioning it, convinced that they are the ones who already questioned it. 

Science is just another attempt to explain reality but it's not definitive and we shouldn't rely on it as it is the only one, proved itself wrong infinite times in time. While religion, for example, remains pretty much standard to its roots. 

I believe that sciences, philosophy, and religion should work together to understand common reality and finally explain it to us in a brand new, more definitive way that will upscale the overall understanding of "what is really going on". 

This text is, in condensed form and German language, also available under

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/physik-mehr/vom-nutzen-der-philosophi…

at a few €s.

The paper by Carlo Rovelli is also referred to in the following Opinion (open) that extends further to science in particular with examples from life sciences: Opinion: Why science needs philosophy