No reason justifies disbelief.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there you are, the other part of your "thesis".  That there are both questions and answers fundamentally beyond the scope of our best empirical tool.  Not hasn't, not won't.

Can't.

As I said, there's no evidence to demonstrate that science is well-suited to answering those questions, and there are pretty clear reasons to believe that they can't be.  I reserve my right to change my opinion if scientists DO break past the Big Bang singularity, or DO find a way to connect directly to subjective experience.  So far, hasn't been done, and we have very good philosophical reasons to think they might not be.

Airing the contents of your disagreement and dissatisfaction with science is useless with me.  

If empiricism is true aren't philosophical reasons ultimately empirical themselves?  

That this set of knowledge, metaphysics,  distinct from physics, is populated.  In what way is the question above other than empirical, in what other than empirical way could you answer it, and in what other than empirical way do you know either?    

This is your song, not mine.  I said there are some questions which science can't answer, and I have given my reasons.

Those questions are answerable neither by science nor by any other method I know of.  Pretending that science is "the best tool" because there's no apparent tool is a non sequitur.

There are also other questions which aren't answerable by science: i.e. all those to do with experience.  What's it like to enjoy a cup of hot chocolate with slightly numb hands while looking over a cafeteria table at a cute young ski bunny?  Science can talk around it, but can't answer it.  But I can, because I've done it.

Airing the contents of your disagreement and dissatisfaction with science is useless with me.

Why would an empirical object be immune to a method of empirical investigation? What method did you use to answer the questions that an empirical method can't, and what's the answer, for reference?