In fact, one can do away with such assumptions of the noumenal in science, and science can still proceed to contribute to humanity based on is verification and justification of reality based solely on empirical evidences.
Newton, Mendel and other theistic scientists merely assumed God beyond the empirical and yet their scientific conclusions still acceptable. That is their personal assumptions, postulation, what-they-posited but it has nothing to do with the scientific FSK.
It is the same with the noumenal assumption in Science, it has no significance for scientific conclusions.
Again, modern science [Hawking] don't give a fuck re the noumenal independent noumenal beyond the empirical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Why people are so dogmatic with the idea of the noumena [an evolutionary default] is a psychological issue as driven by painful cognitive dissonances emerging from an existential crisis.Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
It is a cognitive dissonance and painful to bear if there is no corresponding noumena to phenomena.