On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry...

[bananas]

39. "No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems"

You said "No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems."
That's what this thread is about, the OP states "What I don't understand is why people assume this reliance on empirical evience is somehow limiting."
He's unaware of the limits of science, since you indicate that you are aware of some limitations to science, perhaps you should explain them to the OP, because he started this thread asking exactly for that.

You asked, "Do you turn that recognition of limitations into disparagement, as if these limitations are a fault, as if they are a reason to distrust or be dissatisfied with science?"
Science is just a tool, you sound like it's something to be worshipped, something we should place our faith and trust in.
When we say a hammer is just a tool, are we disparaging the hammer?
If a hammer doesn't work with a screw or a bolt, do you blame the hammer?
Or do you pretend that there aren't any screws and bolts?

You ask, "Do you act as if every limitation of science implies that there must be something else (perhaps "other ways of knowing"?) that overcomes those limitation?"
These are bizarre questions, it's like asking:
Do you act as if every limitation of hammers implies there must be tools that overcome those limitations?
Do you act as if every limitation of screwdrivers implies there must be tools that overcome those limitations?

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Intuition and gut feelings are "other ways of knowing", and they are often much more accurate than "science".