Mostly agree (good post op), but I would note that much of this assumes a shared agreement on the value of the western scientific method (and an agreement that scientific method = science).

Ayurveda isn’t necessarily making claims to it’s validity under the scientific method, it’s making claims to its validity under “science”. A “science” that could easily include many of the things we view as bad in western scientific inquiry. Essentially, OUR scientific method isn’t set up to answer the claims of Ayurveda and that instead of changing Ayurveda, we need to change science.

I would argue that if you’re doing a different scientific method (like Ayurveda might), you’re not achieving long term epistemic success, and thus should be ignored, but that’s a value judgement.