I think part of the communication breakdown that occurs in these discussions springs from different people holding different definitions of 'knowledge.'

We would all agree that science is the only way of discovering 'scientific knowledge' that you have articulated above. Intuition cannot reliably generate such knowledge alone.

We would be divided on whether 'scientific knowledge' is the only 'truth.' This belief takes an act of faith and is unprovable. Eventually we'll arrive at the argument that if there are 'truths' that cannot be 'scientifically known' then we cannot even talk about them rationally. I'm OK with this in principle. In practice though, talking about these kind of metaphysical issues is very stimulating for many people.

It doesn't do any damage to anybody as long as we realize that these discussions do not generate the same kind of knowledge that actually doing science generates.