I agree science is myopic but I am not sure this form of argument is the way to show it.
The proposition you beg is that "absence of evidence" is not necessarily "evidence of absence" whilst true leads nowhere.
It is better to point science into its true context, as an observation model - not underlying reality - that explains what things normally do, not what are they are or why they exist.
Take.
What IS gravity? Not what it does.. but what it is ie why does matter affect space? Why does it have the value it does? Why does it exist at all? When did it start? How can you prove it will not stop? Bertrand russels philosophical chicken shows what all investments say...history is no guarantee of future!
How do you prove it always was what it is today?How can you prove it will be tomorrow?
(and before anyone shouts "quasi science" I can say as ex director of an astronomical institute, that a serious piece of research concluded that some of the problems with einsteins folly the cosmological constant disappear if you assume the speed of light has changed, despite the fact that science says it cannot)
ALL you can conclude is gravity is a model of what happens, that works well within limits that says what observations do. It has little to say about what is or indeed the fundamental question of what the universe actually IS... Coming to which - What is matter (and at a philosophical level -moving the problem elsewhere does not help..because what is a quark begs the same question). Does it exist before you observe it? Is it the same seen by you and me? Are there lots of you and me?
- the answer to all of those ask fundamental questions about science and reality.
And when you put science back in its true philosophical box, the field is then open to ask the question why is and what is?
The trouble with humpty dumpty is you will be dismissed as clutching at intellecutual straws, whilst actually trying to open a serious question of "what is"