We can discuss reality only by dividing it into things and classes of things, and as soon as we perform this division, we create a gap which we can’t close between things and classes of things. This gap means that we can’t formulate a consistent statement of what reality is, but can formulate consistent statements of how reality works. The reason for this difference is that the gap turns the pattern of reality (ie, what it is) paradoxically contradictory, but the process of it (ie, how it works) just ambiguous. We can thus understand how reality works, but not what it is.
The fact that we can’t understand what reality is, is difficult to handle for many of us scientists (ie, those of us that seek an understanding of what reality is, that is, realists). Basically, all of us scientists are driven by a notion that we ultimately can understand reality, so the fact that such an understanding of what reality is is fundamentally impossible by the structure of conceptualization itself is thus not convincing to those of us that seek this understanding. Those of us may then ask themselves, if so, what are we then searching for? This question is rhetorical so that they themselves have to answer it.
Fact is thus that science can’t explain what reality is, but can just explain how reality works. This fact restricts science to a purely practical (instrumental) endeavor. This restriction, in turn, excludes many people that call themselves scientists (eg, cladists and particle physicists) from science, instead allocating them into the realm of beliefs. The mere belief that science can explain what reality is, is thus unscientific. Instead, science is like politics – a practical way to handle reality.
Everything outside of this fundamental restriction is hubris.