Well, that goes without saying. To say otherwise is to proclaim that science has established every single fact about humans, which is obviously false.
The relevant question here is if whether science can ever, not only in the future, but in principle, resolve the question of consciousness itself, the experience of qualia and all of that, or if there's some kind of inherent ontological barrier that prevents science from dealing with that.
I'm completely on board with trying to (and I think there are some future prospects of doing so), but I do think this hasn't been resolved yet.
This becomes patently obvious when you distill what Dennett (the best promoter of the collapse of this entire idea) says about these subjects. He just dismisses all of this like you do, saying something to the effect of "if you can't differentiate between a zombie and a human being, what does it matter", or saying that, obviously, the brain is a bunch of hacks anyway, and consciousness is like the equivalent of a user interface, filled with simplified experiences that hide what the brain is actually doing. The problem always lies in the wordings here. Who is being "fooled" here? Whose experience is being "simplified"?
We do have to talk about this being that is being fooled about having free will and stuff like that. To just ignore it is to precisely admit that science cannot talk about it.
