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

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

This is something like a red herring, and at best can refer to strictly consequentialist ethics. Neither deontological nor virtue ethics are amenable to such.

But the more fundamental issue, which you completely ignored, was that science can give you the information about the world. But that's only a precursor to ethics, as ethics are what is to be done in the world given what one is. In other words, to move from the "is" to the "ought to". To claim science can give you this has been rejected in moral philosophy for something like 300 years thanks to Hume's discussion of the is-ought problem.

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

Deriving identical results from the same starting point, basically. Science, just by necessity, must in most cases accept some degree of error.

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

So you are talking about empirically accessible phenomenon. While I would mostly agree, this is actually not entirely true. After all, neuroscience isn't at a point where my exact inner thoughts can be gleaned externally, and yet I can do so at a whim.

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.

Again, this is false (for the most part), unless you're saying something trivially true like "Science, which works via empirical investigation, can empirically investigate things".
It seems to me that epistemology's investigation into the foundations of human knowledge, our conceptions of truth, and our means of justification have been going rather well throughout the ages.

And I'd like to see your example of a system of thought or field which is entirely empirically driven, to the last detail. People are very blind to the fact that they have much conceptual baggage which guides what they think about the world, and this includes science (which is not a knock against it, mind you).

Math and logic is only of value because they support, and are verified by, empiral investigation.

I'd like to see where Fermat's last theorem was empirically verified. Or modal logic. Or paraconsistent logics. None of these are even remotely empirically in nature of how they were verified; it was in abstraction.

Ethics have no justification only empirical investigations can demonstrate it furthers an uncontraversial eventual goal.

Refer to my earlier rebuttal of that at the beginning of this post. Saying science does, or even could do, this is patently false, and couldn't even apply to any but 1 type of ethical theory even if the is-ought problem didn't exist.

Political philosphy again demands empirical validation.

How so? As political philosophy is largely bound up in ethics, it ends up being about how we should structure society with other biologically comparable beings. But the obvious problem with trying to interject science here is that how we would want society's infrastructure to be set is going to depend on our own, collective values, not by just looking at the results of actions.

Otherwise I'd like to see your purely empirical analysis of why a Communistic government is to be shunned in favor of a more socially-democratic one, and in which you do not ultimately fall back on saying something like "Well, we just value that more", or "That violates some moral axiom.", because then you've gotten squarely into ethics.