Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is
For starters, I think the proper term is not science, but empiricism, which comprises both the formal investigation of evidence in laboratories and observatories that most people mean when they refer to science, and the activities of daily life that involve interpreting evidence. They are the same process, and much more of my understanding of the world and how it works comes from that second process - experiencing life and collecting ideas that accurately anticipate outcomes. It is only this last category of ideas that I apply words like truth, correct, and knowledge to.
To answer your question, only the senses can tell us about reality, by which I mean the collection of objects and processes that interact with one another within space and time. Nothing can be known as fact through intuition or by faith.
We imagine that there are things that can exist outside of space and time, and which are not detectable even in principle, but those are the qualities of the nonexistent, like werewolves. I treat that which is indistinguishable from the nonexistent as nonexistent, and claims about it like I do any metaphysical (unfalsifiable) claim - neither correct nor incorrect, but rather, "not even wrong." That pretty much dispenses with the supernatural, which is described in those same terms.
These ideas are razors. They remove ideas from further consideration, which consideration leads to quite a bit of confusion. Consider Hitchen's and Occam's razors, which do the same. And there are several more.
do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal?
Wisdom is empirical knowledge, gained through experience. Intuition, by which I mean the feeling that something is or might be correct for reasons one cannot give, does not provide reliable knowledge, but is a valuable source of new ideas to be considered and investigated if possible. Unlike the results of reasoning, they're the result of unseen neurological processes that generate output to consciousness which is sometimes very valuable and leads to new science or great art, and sometimes just a nagging feeling not otherwise useful.
I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.
Perhaps, but if so, then it will never be explained. The argument isn't that empiricism (formal and informal science) can answer any question, just that if it can't, the question can't be answered, and by answer, I don't mean a metaphysical (unfalsifiable) claim such as God did it. I mean a demonstrably correct idea that can be used to anticipate outcomes.
Science doesn't tell me which herbs and spices to add to my stew
Empiricism does. You have experienced these spices or can taste them in the kitchen and have empirical knowledge of how they make you feel. And as you cook, you taste, and decide that maybe a little more of this or that is needed.
Does it tell you it will be tasty? Haha
Empiricism tells you if it tastes good to you or not.
Why do I need to choose a camp
Where else will you find campers?
If there were some fact (any fact... even a completely mundane one) that could not be verified through observation, science could never answer those questions.
I'm assuming that when you say cannot be verified empirically that you mean necessarily so rather than contingently so while awaiting the discovery that allows one to detect what was previously undetectable. These are the ideas that I call metaphysical, or "not even wrong." What does it mean to call something a fact that cannot be confirmed as such by any method from any perspective at any time with any device? I reserve the word for other kinds of ideas, ones that can be put to work.