Person 1: Science is not perfect.
Reply: I agree, science is not perfect, mainly because it is done by humans. We have biases, we make mistakes, we are flawed in a myriad of ways. However, science is based on the scientific method, which has the goal of taking into account, no more no less, than the imperfections of human beings. You experiment, you observe, you gather data; you show your results to the world, so that they are able to repeat your experience. If they are unable to do it, you are wrong - too bad. If you cannot show it, it probably is not real, and will not be taken seriously unless capable of falsification. That is demonstrably the best method that we have of investigating and understanding reality. So, of course, science is not perfect, and the fact that you stated that is not only painfully obvious and redundant, but one of the cornerstones of the scientific method, which is uncertainty and the lack of absolute truth. No matter - you seem to be implying that you possess a perfect tool to investigate reality. Do you? If not, refrain yourself from criticizing imperfect methods when you do not possess a better alternative, let alone a perfect one.
Person 2: Your position on science is almost religious. You rely on science too much - that is scientism.
Reply: Calling my position "scientism" is nonsensical, and so is your position on the whole - let me explain why. If you are stating that I rely "too much" on science, I suppose you are implicitly saying "You rely to much on science for truth and knowledge about reality". We have been using science for centuries, and the assumptions and conclusions of it, although sometimes incorrect, were self-corrected by his own mechanism. Not only that, but its conclusions are not dependent on subjectivity and can be demonstrated to be true regardless of opinions. If you go to the doctor, if you take vaccine shots, if you were ill and were cured, if you possess computers at home, television, electricity, light bulbs and cars, you already know this, let alone the answers that science has provided regarding who we are, where we came from, and our place in the universe. Thus, science is demonstrably the best method we have for understanding and investigating reality, and I am almost sure that you will agree with me unless you have a better method. If you agree with me, consider this. There is a fire behind us, and we need to cross the river to escape it. There's a number of old boats we can use, but there is one boat that is newer and in a better shape than the others; it is more resistant and surely has a higher chance of not breaking while crossing the river. If you had no better way to cross the river, would you, in any situation possible, say to me something like "You are relying too much on that boat?" or "Your persistence about going on that boat is almost religious?". That is why "scientism" and your whole position is nonsensical. It is not about blind reliance on something. It is not that I am absolutely certain that the boat is not going to break and get us killed. It is about reliance on the best alternative possible to achieve a certain goal - it is about choosing the boat that is demonstrably the best we currently have to cross the river and escape the fire.