I have trouble deciding how to interpret that phrasing.
Taken at face value, it suggests the author has an implausibly bad understanding of science, logic, and thinking in general.
Given the context, I wonder if it's somehow meant in jest.
In summary that has authenticity emanates from an authority. The only problem here is people pretending not to know that language involves ambiguities, figures of speech, and so on.
To expand: in this case, two things are happening simultaneously: first, the author appreciates literature, and is genuinely happy that their intuitive belief that it is something "good" is getting a bit of empirical evidence.
Second, yes, I believe there is a hint of a smirk in the statement, that, if I were to dramatize it, is a comeback at all the STEM students in college that were dismissive of the author's enjoyment of non-non-fiction. It's all in good fun, however, because the article fundamentally rests on a believe in the scientific method, just not to the exclusion of other human endeavors.
There was nothing normative intended, and that's why I used the word feel. For brevity, I left off the bit where I regard my infinite ignorance (including sports, biology, math, religion, and fiction) as my own limitation, and one which I acknowledge limits my experience and interaction with people who cares and know more. Like my dislike of seafood. I don't blame the fish.
Since you identify specifically, let me be clear: Not less, just missing out on something I enjoy and learn from. My own ignorance and indifference limits my world, even if it is a necessary limitation I choose.
I'm sorry you feel judged. Snobbery is truly toxic, and my intent is inclusive. I apologize if my words are not.