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

[Anomalocaris]

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..

In so far as ethics seem to consist mainly of a set of intermediate goals and rules of thumb that has been posited to advance a uncontraversial ultimate goal, science can investigate, and only science can reliably investigate, what effect the intermediate rules and goals really would likely have.

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

Reliable for what? And how do you determine it is reliable?

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?...

Where the result involves anything more than a pure abstract mental construct, Where science can not verify results, nothing else really can either.

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

All forms of investigation of anything that is not a purely closed astract mental system ultimately hinges on empirical investigation. Permanently devorced form empirical investigation, an investigation becomes nothing more than idle fantasy.

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

Math and logic is only of value because they support, and are verified by, empiral investigation. Ethics have no justification only empirical investigations can demonstrate it furthers an uncontraversial eventual goal. Political philosphy again demands empirical validation.