Mysticism is a not an "understanding of the world" but a way of framing our knowledge of the world and coping with the unknown and the unknowable.

The realm of the unknown and the unknowable shrinks as our tools advance but there are very good reasons to think it will never disappear as there are both provably unknowable truths amd facts that are practicaly impossible to learn.

> Faith takes over there, where just believing something irrational to be true, makes it true.

This only applies to a limited set of things (the unknowable), getting enough people to believe the world is flat won't make that a true belief, no matter how many people have how much faith.

The types of things that faith can make true are subjective, sociocultural or related to our inner lives.

> Unfortunately, the scientific method is a bit annoying sometimes, given it's absolute insistence all things may be disproved.

In no way, shape or form does the scientific method suggest this, let alone insist on it.

There is a long history of faith pairing quite productively with the scientific method. The network of scientific knowledge is primarily drive by one thing: curiosity, not any sort of animus against the mystical.

Well okay, but when the scientific method produces knowledge, the voracity of that knowledge can be checked by an observer. When a mystic convinces a large number of people that their opinions are in fact, truths, that is not a process that can be checked by an observer, and the “knowledge” produced has nothing tying itself back to reality.

A critique of a strawman of empiricism, is not really a justification for an alternative truth system (mysticism.).

Yes, there are things that are unknowable, even with the tools of empiricism.

But pointing out this issue, in no way supports the idea of using a non-sense ideology in its place, or even ascribing any value to such a thing.

> that holds that there is value in both kinds of knowledge

No, there is no knowledge in mysticism. And is it a bad argument to point out a supposed problem in empiricism, as a justification for a different system, when that other system doesn't deal with the problem any better.

> believing something irrational to be true, makes it true.

Believing something to be true, does not make it true, unless you redefine the word "true" to a nonsense definition of "Well a true thing, is whatever we believe to be true. Gotcha, I win! I just created a self-consistent tautology, by playing word games, and making up a new definition! You can't call me wrong, because it's a consistent, self referential belief! That intro to philosophy class sure was useful!"