I think a lot depends on the definition of “science.” Rigorous thinking and methodology and adherence to basic canons of sound reasoning are all moral universals (or rather clusters of universals) for any serious research.
It’s interesting that the Anglo-American limitation of the word ‘science’ to the quantitative sciences is not only a recent historical development, but is not even universally recognized among countries with a good academic reputation; compare ‘science’ (English) with ‘Wissenchaft’ (German), for example.
Obviously, historical contingency is no argument against something; but it does raise seriously the question of how valid the ‘narrow’ definition of the word may be.
Ultimately the decision between the narrow definition and the broad definition should be a practical one.
But if so, what are the criteria for deciding this?
That is more difficult to say.