I think that the way Might conflates physical strength and the ability to cast powerful spells is somewhat problematic. Josh has stated explicitly that "realism" just wasn't a priority for the design of the attributes, but rather he was focused on making the mechanical benefits of each attribute clear, and making a wide variety of attribute allocations viable for each class. I think, though, that more attention to how the attributes work in combat vs how they work in dialogue and scripted interactions was warranted.
That said, Might is really the only weakness in the attribute system, as far as out-of-combat stuff goes. The other attributes are pretty clear. I think people also forget that D&D suffers the exact same problem. Wisdom, as a single attribute, is complete nonsense. It conflates perception, willpower, and proficiency in an incoherent and poorly defined set of fields (e.g., why is Heal a Wisdom skill in 3.x? Other than the expectation that Clerics will take it?). Depending on the edition, Charisma is also pretty much nonsense, conflating charm and some sort of "strength of character" that overlaps with Wisdom in weird ways. I think people are just more accepting of D&D's quirky attributes out of familiarity.
