This sounds like modernism to me, maybe more of a more contemporary modernism that acknowledges some limitations, but still modernism. From an epistemological view, the core of modernism is the focus on science, which includes technology to a large degree, as being the primary ways of knowing. Scinece, here, is seen as an integration of empricism (knowing through senses) and reasons (applied to science which brings the scientific methold).
I don't think postmodernism denies that there is additional confusion with multiple ways of knowing. However, what I think it maintains is that this is a more honest look at the world. The world is not a nice, neat place with easy answers. Of course, generalities about postmodernism are always limiting, too.
The emphasis on multiple ways of knowing also does not say that all ways of knowing are equal or valid in all circumstances. Rather, in some realms we need to rely more on science, but also consider other ways of knowing and the limitaiton of scinece. In other places, science does not provide the best answers and other ways of knowing are more central, but science should still be considered.
Many people stay away from postmodernism precisely for the reason that it doesn't provide clear answers, it brings much more information into consideration, and it emphasizes our limitations in knowing. All three of these things can lead to anxiety. I think its quite legitamite to critique these from a philosophical perspective if there is a difference in opinion. However, my concern is that many people shy away from postmodernism because of the implicit anxiety related to this theory. It's more comfortable to rely on science and technology, but is it a more honest way of viewing the world? Or more honest of a philosphy when examining the world? I don't think so.