T. M. Woodman,
-"the view that science is the sole criterion of truth is scientism, not science."
Lucky i wasn't advocating that position then. If you read with a little more care you will notice that i was responding to Paul Davidson's request for a 'comprehensive and coherent' view of reality. I offer science as meeting both requirements in spades. Not only does it work and work well (as you have demonstrated) but it does not require any deity in order to give a coherent view of reality. Deities are simply not necessary.
-"It rests on a circular argument: scince cannot dsciern certain things therefore they do not exist."
Firstly, that is not an argument nor is it circular. Secondly, this is no criterion of science, merely a strawman of your own invention, albeit one which i find is common in Christian circles. Funny how such rumours and heresay acquire the status of fact when the chattering Christians get together.
-"It excludes ethics, art, love etc as well as religion."
It excludes subjective opinions since it is concerned with reality and reaching an objective description thereof.
-"One way forward, howeer, if you try to insist on that worldview..."
I don't, so any point you think you are making is moot.
-"...is the begin to examine the 'phenomenal efffects of spirit in the world of matter' (William James)"
Assuming your conclusion, as William James does, *is* circular reasoning.
Funny how you will castigate science for this (quite wrongly) yet when it comes to your pet religion it is advanced as good reasoning. Well that's religion for you; double standards, intellectual dishonesty and confirmation bias running roughshod over facts.