That begs the question then: Is science necessary but not sufficient?
Science, in the proper sense of being a form of disciplined inquiry, could be both necessary and sufficient. When we consider science as a basket of disciplines, rather than a club of privileged fields, we can imagine a holistic sufficiency. There is, for example, no reason why religion should not be 'scientific', or, indeed, a scientific discipline in its own right. I define religion as a shared human response to the awareness of being in an animate reality. But then I do describe myself as an 'aspiring animist'. The shared human response to our perceptions of the nature of reality is important. The fact that some have a materialist POV is fine - but it is not sufficiently shared to give it status. Christianity invented appalling garble called theology because it was hamstrung by 'pillars of faith' - propagandistic irrationality that had to be treated as sane and rational. We cannot understand the rise of materialism without comprehending the catastrophic gobbledegook of theology and religious dogma.
By confining valid sciences to the art of finding and then measuring stuff, we allow the materialists to define what is valid and valued knowledge, and what is an esteemed discipline of inquiry. The denigration of the 'inner sciences' as mere sentiment and opinion is no more than materialists deciding to trash what they can't find and measure. There's something fundamentally Trumpian about that passionate invalidation what it cannot accept, accommodate or abide as a valid way of knowing.
We need only look at the Great Pyramid to see an example of the fusion of sciences - physical and metaphysical - into a harmony that still leaves us in awe millennia later. For me that's a better benchmark than anything else I know for showing how the physical serves the metaphysical - and not the other way round - which has the absurd notion of the metaphysical being an epi-phenomenon of the physical. That is not only crude, but contra evidence - and hence not 'scientific' by any criterion.
This 'insufficient' science violates its own precepts constantly. It does not gather data or evidence. It does not then make a reasonable inference, because it cannot. In short, it neither inquires, nor applies discipline. It employs the tools of propaganda only. I like Michael Pollan's idea of 'edible food-like substances' (manufactured stuff that can be eaten, but should not be) . A lot of the insufficient science could be described 'thinkable reason-like notions' (concocted stuff that could be thought, but should not be).
What might be objectionable to a materialistic scientist on entirely rational grounds might be entirely acceptable to a metaphysical scientist on entirely rational grounds. We are all obliged to make a 'metaphysical guess' at the foundation of our thought - and we proceed to construct our thought on the assumption that our metaphysical guess is right. In the case of the materialist, the evidence that they are wrong abounds - and they respond by challenging the evidence, and not their guess. Challenging evidence is fine, but it is no good alone. It must be accompanied by a challenge of the premises and presumptions of the inquirer. The two must always go together.
In my romantic idealisation of skepticism I know I have made a guess, but I constantly tune it against the evidence that I permit myself to experience. I don't expect to be right. I expect to be true to my subjective existential sense of who and what I am. I am certain of the essence, but not of the detail. And while the Devil is in the detail the Divine is in the essence.
At the heart of inquiry must be that paradoxical doubt of one's essential being, but also an assertion of its validity and certainty. But I guess that may take an experience to precipitate that passion. It is what the mystically inclined seek - but what the materialist intentionally avoids. Our core reality is not certainty, but a harmony of certainty and uncertainty. This notion is exemplified in the famous Yin/Yang symbol of Taoism.
Either extreme of religiosity or scientism destroys that harmony. The ability to inhabit that certainty/uncertainty watershed is, I think, where real 'Science' dwells - is where disciplined inquiry is best conducted. People obviously operate to their capacity and exaggerate or inflate the ability. Its a standard human thing. So I want to say that for me proper Science exists only at that certainty/uncertainty boundary. It is territory that was occupied by mystics, yogis and high-level magicians (many of whom possessed considerable material knowledge BTW). I am not about to opine of who, among conventional scientists, might occupy that space these days. I have no idea. But I would be astonished if none did.