Both! There is a sense in which either can be true. Our physical perceptual limitations even effect the instrumentation we develop to extend our senses. So in the theoretical end we stretch our imaginations outside of what we "know" and venture into possibilities which then lead to see from different perspectives and even unusual discoveries. A pure materialist cannot see beyond the box or think outside the box and only rely on what they can perceive or demonstrate about the box (Universe). This leads to the two positions. Philosophy forces one to think in what we consider logical terms (but even this has its flaws because some things defy logic and there by necessity is a degree of uncertainty), but I am speaking of purely scientific reasoning as it has its limits as well.
Consider some of the limitations of scientific reasoning here paraphrased from the book Living Philosophy
Science cannot answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.
Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. This would be like a limited creature inside a box, never having even been to all places in the box, trying to make assertions regarding the nature of being outside the box. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural simply means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe and instruments designed by outside intelligent forces (the experimenter) from and regarding things only of the natural aspects of the universe they perceive or are aware of (forms, forces, and their functions and interactions). Supernatural questions are therefore outside their reach BUT because it cannot prove them, or find proof of this, does not negate the possibility of its/their existence.
Science can't tell you how to appropriately use scientific knowledge we discover.
Applied scientific rreasoning is limited by our perceptual abilities, our intelligently designed instruments and experiments, and our ability to, rightly and without hoped for bias, interpret properly the evidence free of preconceived conclusions dictating that interpretation. Secondly, it is mostly limited to the present regarding these factors (not accurately knowing the past and only able to speculate possible futures). Thirdly it is impotent in revealing most purpose of things. It can tell us how something happens but not always why.
Finally applied scientific reasoning cannot deal with the unique. Personal experience , especially those confirmed by many (which makes it empirical), cannot be always tested or defined or even denied by anything science can do however not making these any less important or real. A signal received from space that is not regular may not be repeated for centuries therefore, it is real and true, yet outside the scientific definition of proof or evidence, thus the inability to prove something scientifically by materialist definitions of proof and evidence cannot and do not negate the reality of something. The applied scientific method therefore falls quite short in many instances in matters regarded as part of the arts, philosophy, and theology to confirm or negate issues these create or bring to our attention.
So therefore we can draw many inferences directly from the Universe, and at the same time we cannot draw many from only the Universe.
May the Lord enable you to grasp the deep thinking you are about to venture into and allow you to use this to His glory...
In His love
brother Paul