Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[MindForgedManacle]

There is no such thing as a "type" of thing science is designed to investigate. Science in principle investigate all type of things. What science does do differently from everything else is to insist upon reliability of its own investigation by insisting on rigorous verification of its own results.

This is a bit silly. Of course there are limits to what science can investigate, both because of categorical differences and practicality. Categorically, science isn't useful in discussing ethics, aside from providing information about the world.

And in terms of reliability of results, both maths and logic have science beat.

If science can verify its results, than science is superior to any other method. If science can not verify its results, then science is still no worse than any other method.

If the thing that makes science supreme amongst other methods of knowing is its ability to verify its results, and in some hypothetical case it cannot do so, then how is it no worse?

In principle, under no circumstances can any other method be prefer to science if one is concerned with reliability of one's investigative efforts, rather than attempting to uphold that which has no ground to be upheld.

Depends on what you mean by 'investigate'. I think I'd agree if you just mean in terms of empirical investigation.

To say something in principle can not be investigated by science is to admit whatever that thing is in principle unverifiable and thus in principle indistinguishable from hallucination, or bullshit.

This would leave out maths, logic, ethics, political philosophy and the arts being bullshit, which I don't think you believe.