> That doesn't negate the fact that there's measurable, testable reality that can be reproduced using scientific rigor.
Yes it does. Who decided what scientific rigor was? What instrument did they use to come to that conclusion? How do they perceive the results of their experiments?
Lots of educated people over centuries of refinement with concrete evidence that such methods improved chances for individual and collective human survival. Medicine, agriculture, industrialization, the green revolution, etc. There's tons of science that is continuously focused on progress and in a continuous state of refinement and acutely aware that studies must be reproducible and held to a standard.
If we collectively decide we can't trust our own individual senses, what do you think happens to our chances for survival?
Yes it does. Who decided what scientific rigor was? What instrument did they use to come to that conclusion? How do they perceive the results of their experiments?