Yes I agree that when we study the nature of scientific enquiry we are at the same time studying what we mean by scientific reality, but that very study gives rise to the notion of the existence of an absolute reality that is mind independent and inaccesable. I consider the models that we construct are human (and by "human" I mean in the collective sense in that we all share notions of time and space) representations of this mind independent reality - we can never (in my opinion) know scientifically the degree (if any) to which they do represent the absolute, so in this sense this absolute reality (which is mind independent) will forever remain outside of scientific enquiry, although not outside the field of philosophical interpretation of course, but then that is not science.

It would seem to me that the real path to understanding our reality (as distinct from current science which represents it as an artificial separation of subject and object) is to try and understand and study this inseparable entwining we have with mind independent reality as opposed to attempting to scientifically understand the absolute as an entity in it's self. But how we go about that and what sort of science it would be I have really no idea.

So it is not that we would choose to divorce ourselves from studying scientifically the nature of absolute reality, we have (to my way of thinking) no choice in the matter. But I think physics is a very long way from admitting to this possibility, and in any event, there is still much to be discovered and put to use in terms of the way science is practiced - I just don't think this approach is going to lead us to answering the most profound questions regarding the nature of reality.