Scientists in a race to discover why our Universe exists

Scientists can only explore their own Experience. The method of Replication forces science to only validate Experiences which are shared. So it's limited in it's remit. It makes up useful predictive stories to join these Experiences together.

Science is reduced to using the results of past experiments to probabilistically predict the results of future experiments.

Replication cannot and does not validate experiences, not even shared ones, because there is no telepathy by which to do so. Results of experiments might be replicated, but that hardly counts as having the same experience, as each scientist's inner world is private to the others, so no-one can verify how they think or feel privately about the results.

Stories are the stuff of ideology, not of science...

Nor can science use results of past experiments to probabilistically predict anything ~ that's a philosophical interpretation of an experiment, not a scientific one.

Replication cannot and does not validate experiences, not even shared ones, because there is no telepathy by which to do so. Results of experiments might be replicated, but that hardly counts as having the same experience, as each scientist's inner world is private to the others, so no-one can verify how they think or feel privately about the results.

Stories are the stuff of ideology, not of science...

Nor can science use results of past experiments to probabilistically predict anything ~ that's a philosophical interpretation of an experiment, not a scientific one.

The points you raise don't really touch my position... so perhaps better to restate it...

I'm coming from the position... (as noted elsewhere), that scientific inquiry occurs within Experience, and that the organism that appears to be doing the Experiencing, is the same organism creating the predictive stories to explain Experience.

I'm speculating that Experience emerges from some shared mathematically described structure within the organism, resulting in an emergent shared world (Experience)... and that it is this which accounts for the consistency across organisms, and which removes the need for some type of independent external world.

Science's success with predictive stories would therefore be no longer absolutely dependent on external world, because the consistency of it's predictions actually comes from the mathematical structure that shared Experience emerges from.

It's this simple concept that Experience and the predictive Stories are coming from the same place. Which later leads one to conclude that the predictive stories will keep getting generalized... until they eventually end up colliding in some 1:1 mathematical correspondence with our Experience of some structure/s with the Organism.

I didn't really understand the points you were making...

Science is all about objective results. I don’t really see how scientists having different private feelings ( for example one feelings sad, and another happy) changes the fact that they both measure say... the speed of light at x m/s. Isn’t the consistency of those results what matters, and couldn’t that consistency come from a shared world within experience (from the reasons I've suggest above) rather than an external reality?

I didn't really understand why you're suggesting stories are just beliefs, and not scientific... that didn't make a great deal of sense to me if the stories are based on empirical inquiry... as I'm still proposing? Same goes for the idea that prediction isn’t scientific...unless I'm misunderstanding you, prediction has a vital role in the scientific method to validate the usefulness of a story (theory), and science practically uses past Experience to predict future Experience all the time... like the Experience of the past path of an asteroid used to predict the Experience of it's future path, or, the Experience of drug trials used to predict the Experience of a drugs efficacy.