It's rhetoric grounded in common human experience, which actually defines our experience of reality.

You're making the usual mistake of assuming math and science are objective. They really aren't.

They're consistent experiences, which is not the same thing as being independent of our senses and reasoning ability - neither of which are infinite.

This is not the same as saying that science is a social process, although of course it is that too. There are very non-objective political and social processes deciding what gets researched, and how, with how much money, for what ends.

It's more fundamental - we're seeing the world through hard filters while telling ourselves those filters define the universe.

And we're not even great at it. We have economic beliefs that are predictably and catastrophically self-harming and also hold back fundamental research and progressive engineering.

So no - STEM does not have a solid basis for discussing ethics, reality or the nature of consciousness. If it did we'd be inventing more credible and exciting futures than the current likely-suicide run.