In this case, you're staking the same turf that Touka was: namely, that while we have access to manifold perspectives, only one perspective is the "true" one. There's also the question of what "base reality" looks like, and whether such a "base reality" (the thing-in-itself, the hidden X behind appearances) can be accessed in the first place.
There can be many true perspectives, but of course the best one would be the one that holds all properties of reality without holding any properties not held in reality. Of course, if base reality doesn't exist then nothing is true, and if we cannot access it then we cannot discover truth. Hence, relevance. And that's also why I went out of my way to assume we have access to base reality at some level, otherwise discussing truth is without merit.
This is where I lose you. Science being a construct is fair, but what makes the scientific construct the one privy to truth? Remember that the central question I asked Touka was what makes science true; you're making the same claim a step removed, as science is the construction that gives us access to truth. Why? How do we know? If the answer is "because it's useful/predictable," then we've fallen right back into the circularity. This is especially troubling given that you accept this...
Science is one possible construct that leads to truth, but of the methods available to us I believe it is the most useful for discovering truth. I think you're getting things confused with your definition of truth. As science is a method, of course I have to evaluate it based on how useful it is. It's just that the standard of usefulness is defined by how good it is at finding truth. And of course I can't know it to be the best, because once again, I feel there is only a handful of things it's possible to know with certainty. Thus, certainty cannot be what I aim for. I'm aiming for what is most likely, given the information I have access to, to reveal truth.
...and then contradict yourself with this:
Science is an extremely powerful tool in that the assumptions it makes are only the ones needed to establish the existence of objective truth,
If you assume that scientific truth can grant you access to objective truth, then are you really surprised when this turns out to be the case? We can do this equally effectively with religion, Marxism, Hegelianism, Buddhism, etc. etc.
I claim science to be strong because if any of the four assumptions I made do not hold, then objective reality is impossible to access. Religion and other methods require additional assumptions to be made in order for their reality to hold, on top of the ones science makes. That's why they're weaker methods.
If objective reality exists, you can't simply assume that it is scientific. This is circular. You'll need some other grounding.
Objective reality must exist for subjective reality to exist, so either it exists at some level or nothing does. As for why choose sciene to pursue it... Well, I think I've covered that.
Who the hell is making a "god in the gaps" argument? I'm demonstrating that without God, the idea of an intelligible cosmos is a contradiction. If you have a way out of this conflict, I'd love to hear it.
The bolded section is what I'm objecting to. Because adding god to the equation doesn't change the situation at all, even mentioning it isn't something you should do when questioning things. Assuming an intelligible cosmos by assuming an intelligible god really doesn't add anything to the discussion. So while I do not know what the answer to why the universe is intelligible (assuming it is), I do know that god is absolutely not a way out of the question. So your demonstration fails.
--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.