The scientific process is very dynamic, social and intimately connected with reality. Ideas and hypotheses are continually being developed, challenged, debated and tested. Experiential validation, mapping theory against reality, helps keep science honest. This, and the scientific process of critical review by colleagues help counter the perfectly human desire to guard and promote pet preconceived ideas and prejudices.
Without experiential validation and the peer critique and review, science would become stale and dogmatic. It would end up serving commercial and/or ideological paymasters.
I think this happens in some commercial situations where scientists lend their reputations to product endorsement. The situation of retired scientists without any research involvement who promote climate change denial also comes to mind.