I don't see this as an issue worth much discussion time, though. We both view science as tentative, and if you prefer to see the origins of tentativity in empiricism, go ahead.
There was a scientist who turned into a philosopher. He was called
Charles Sanders Pierce. He basically founded the philosophy of
pragmatism, which includes
fallibilism. Pragmatism was an offshoot of empiricism. This is as far back as I can go into the idea of the tentative nature of knowledge, but I thought you might be interested.
Rather, we say science is empirical and tentative, separate concepts.
I would agree with that. Science is a methodology that comes from various ideas about how to seek truth. Empiricism, rationalism, positivism, fallibilism, verificationism, falsifiabilism (Popperism?). Science brings together a wide range of ideas from various fronts and attempts to do something with them. If we develop a theory using scientific methodology we have to now how we should treat the theory - do we go with scientific realism or should we go with instrumentalism? Fascinating stuff if you really want to dig deep, but most people get by without worrying about it