You have to differentiate the goal of science from the goal of Buddhism. Science aims to understand nature empirically, while Buddhism aims to end suffering.
You have to differentiate the method of science from the knowledge of science. The scientific method is empirical, which is quite the same in spirit, as the Buddhist method.
The knowledge of science however, is continuously updating. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion predicted most of the observations of motion, but could not explain them precisely. Einstein later was able to explain it precisely and also calculate almost all motion and gravity except for those at the quantum level. All these were empirically proven.
However, Einstein's theory has now been improved with String Theory for quantum gravity, but this is difficult to prove or disprove.
This shows that science is continuously updating.
The Buddha's methods only need you to prove to yourself that you can end your own suffering. If you became enlightened, it's hard to definitively prove that to others, but that's not needed.
The scientific method needs the scientists to prove or disprove hypotheses to others. And unfortunately, the Buddhist enlightenment is not something that can be easily physically proven to others.
Retired physics professor Richard Muller wrote here a few days ago:
My opinion? I don’t have one. I think we should be respectful of the
iconoclasts, however. Consensus is an unreliable indicator of correct
So, you see... every scientist can propose something, anything. Then they have to try to prove it. One published paper may conflict with another. There may be a consensus among scientists, but that does not mean they are right. But they keep doing their work, and they keep updating their understanding over time. In the 80s to 90s, they said fat was bad, but now they say fat is OK and carbohydrates are bad. Things keep updating.
I would say as a man of integrity, either you should prove Buddhist teachings to scientists using the scientific method, or otherwise respect that scientists have their scientific knowledge (at whatever level it is as of today) based on the scientific method, while you have your Buddhist knowledge based on the Buddhist method.
Agree to disagree. Accept that an orange is an orange, while an apple is an apple - the two are similar in the sense that they are both fruits, but they will never become the same fruit. Similarly, science and Buddhism are both empirical in their methods, but they have different goals.