I can't help but sort of fall back to a sort of view of the world as fundamentally ambiguous, in the way of de Beauvoir. The trouble, maybe, of "science-ism" is that empiricism is not the sort of "be-all, end-all" for various reasons. But I do think we are sort of culturally conditioned in that way, despite the fact that almost none of us act that way. So, almost no one votes for who they vote for due to some careful empirical valuation of policy, probable adherence to promises, or really anything besides what "sounds good."
But "mind" sure is a tricky thing. It's hard for me to "buy" materialism, but also hard for me to "sell" it too. However, I do think that it could be likely that what we experience as "mind" is not exactly what "mind" is. So, our subjective experience is likely real, but also likely to some degree an illusion. But everyone (to return to de Beauvoir, in a way) wants things to be simple. It is either one or the other. A Zero or a One. But even light tells us that maybe what separates the idea of a wave and a particle is not a point of fact, but a point of conceptual frame of understanding.
But we have, culturally, sort of rejected anything non-empirical these days I think, perhaps with a hand-wave to "use" or to "practicality" or to the idea of "objectivity." Perhaps thought there is a price to be paid in any case.