It's going to be impossible to convince you that your subjective experience isn't an absolute truth because it seems like the entire foundation of your approach to the discussion and psychedelics is based on that assumption. What you're entirely wrong about however is regarding the definition of science: science is (1) a set of logically consistent statements for a set of givens, and (2) meant to have its validity tested constantly in order to be invalidated so that a better fitting approximation can be found. Science, down to basic axioms of mathematics, is not debating "Truths" but only relative truths, and is making statements that for assumption A,B,C one will observe logical results X,Y,Z, where it perpetually strives to refine the process such that more logical links can be established and any assumption that leads to incorrect/invalid/uninteresting consequences can be weaned out. When in fairly abstract fields, even those assumptions are usually also explored over time and utilized by people as they see fit (maths without ZFC, relatively quick acceptance of relativity in the world of physics, and so on).
If your insights about science as a whole are so off the mark, I'm frankly not surprised that your assertions come off the way they do. And I happen to disagree with the stance that takes refuge in absolute truths (unless its validity were to ever be proven somehow), and even the mightiest of psychedelic trips of dozens of kinds (including ridiculous doses of DMT, Changa, DOM and what have you) have not fundamentally changed a thing about it since I wasn't susceptible to that belief in the first place. That you can just come out and say "well it was simply not enough drugs you took buddy!" is much more likely to be indicative of your wish for personal bias to be a truth than any alternative. And much like with religions in general, I'll respect your right to dive into your personal belief system, but my perspective will be wildly different from yours (and perhaps not as fixated).