When we read a story, we're acutely aware of the human realism. That is, if a person's reaction smacks of falseness, it's upsetting and we may call the whole story bad. Plot holes are next: if the stream of events sets off incohesion alarms, we might tell our friends not to bother. Scientific realism is a distant third.

What if we considered the human realism just as much a question of science, given that psychology and neuroscience are domains of study subject to the scientific method?

That is, the human and the scientific need not stand against each other in a pit. In stories, we tolerate some unrealism. When, how much, why, and in exchange for what - these are personal questions, though we overlap.

Likewise, subtle concern for scientific accuracy need not be seen as stodgy or unartistic. The natural world and its forces are just as nuanced, just as real, and just as lived as the human mind and heart.