What in the world makes you think that bad economics based on simplistic (and inaccurate) models has anything to do with "science"? You use this word "scientism" but if your definition is to be believed it has as much to do with science as "scientology."

Sure, there are no answers that science excludes, but that does not mean it has "failed" if cannot acquire "all the answers." This suggests that acquiring "all the answers" is not actually the goal, otherwise failing to acquire them would indicate a failure to reach the goal.

Okay, there are a couple problems with your argument:

a) Anything that happens an "unlimited time in the future" is not reachable from this point in time, thus, cannot actually be considered a "goal."
b) The amount of knowable information may be infinite, but the resources available to "know" that information finite, therefore "all knowledge" is unobtainable.

If the goal of science were to obtain "all knowledge" then it would mean that science may very well be a pointless enterprise. Yet, we would still do "science" even if that goal wasn't obtainable. Why? The answer: obtaining all knowledge isn't actually the "goal," at least as far as 99.99999% of people actually engaged in science are concerned. The goal is simply to understand more about the world.

If you don't believe me, here's someone who expresses himself a little bit better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfjWa6yW2mk