The point is perfection, completeness and totalness are impossibilities within the human world.
You are demanding the impossible [i.e. ALL] and thus your point is moot and a non-starter.
Popper stated Scientific Theories are at best polished conjecture[s].
So what we can do is to keep polishing existing polished conjecture[s] with the understanding ‘ALL that is need to be known…’ is an impossibility.
What we can do is to work with and do our best with whatever polished conjecture [justified] we have at present.
As for the either/or world, consider the points raised in this documentary from the Science Channel: sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … holes-real
It is [one suspects] staggering what we are likely not to know about the relationship between a God, the God, my God, the “human condition” and the explanation behind existence itself.
I can’t listen to the video, here is a summary.
New discoveries are challenging everything we know about black holes – astronomers are beginning to question if they even exist. The latest science tries to explain how they work & what they look like, despite the fact we’ve never actually seen one.
Science is very transparent in declaring what it can do and what are its limits.
As long as we understand such, there is no issue with Science.
In this particular case of yours it is most optimal to forget about any Gap derived from comparison of an actual to an impossible limit [apples and oranges]. The most effective is to work from the known into the empirical possible to be known to move forward with the best effort [improving] one can.
In your case you are taking a leap across a canyon without support and this is more like dogma than knowledge.
I can only point out yet again that I have no clear understanding of what “on earth” you are talking about in this particular “intellectual contraption”. As, for instance, it relates to human interactions revolving around the points raised in the OP.
My point is your demand for ‘ALL that is needed to be known …’ is a non-starter.
If ‘ALL is impossible’ how can you determine what is the difference between “ALL” and what is actual at present?
For example the typical guesswork, ‘humans are only using 15% of their brain potential.’
The problem is we cannot know what is 100% [ALL] of the brain potential.
If we do not know what is 100% how can we know what is 15% and begin to fill up the missing 85%.
In your case you are asking for ALL [100%] of what is needed to be known.
There is no way you can know what that 100% or ALL is, thus an impossibility.
Thus your thesis based on the above is a moot and a non-starter.
What works should be we start from what is known and explore to improve from the known on what is possible.
Hope you get the point?