Neil D- indeed.
Also, Kant's Critique predated a lot of technology that has allowed us to examine all kinds of things that we can't directly perceive with our 5 senses. Look at dark matter (well, not literally look at, exactly, but you know what I mean!), and relativity, and quantum physics.

And let's take a deeper look at this paragraph: The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know – reality itself. This view says we can find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. It holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.
1) Fallacy: calling it that begs the question, no?
2) How is it an assumption that reality is limited by reality? For it to BE an assumption presupposes that reality is NOT all there is, i.e. that the supernatural is real. Again, begs the question.
3) How does reality being the only reality mean that we could ever run out of questions? You can always ask another question, so there will always be things to be found out. Especially if you allow technology into the equation.
4) Even if human reason and science COULD unmask the whole of reality, what would be the problem with that? let's say we COULD actually understand ALL of physics and chemistry etc, we would still have chaos theory preventing us from, say, predicting the weather more than a few days in advance (which was discovered by human research, of course), and even if we could, how would this mean that reality ISN'T all there is? Unless you are coming from the assumption that it isn't, of course, as was Kant.