I agree, except that such a stance throws into question the degree to which we think our models match the absolute. You quite often hear comments that suggest our models are asymptote in nature - they continually approach the absolute but never reach it, but if we have no conception of what mind independent reality is then we have no means in which to ever make a scientific judgement as to how close or distant our models are, the judgement is philosophical in nature. But if we accept this distinction between what is scientific thought and what is philosophical thought in terms of models and their relationship to the absolute, I think we would all be much clearer about what science can and cannot achieve, and clearer regarding the relationship between science and philosophy.

Yes, I have often compared the methodology of engineering to that of physics, but does this mean physics is just engineering? I don't think so, because the models that physics teases out and constructs from our interaction with mind independent reality are discoveries about that interaction and hidden in those models are elements of the absolute. This is what Bernard d'Espagnat ("on Physics and Philosophy") says:

Experiments at the quantum level involve predicted observations at the measurement device, the idea that a "particle" is localized independently of our knowledge is not assumed - the notion of an observer (which is the same as the measurement device) becomes an essential ingredient of the experiment rather than an option (such as watching or not watching a stone being thrown). So the experimental nature of quantum mechanics points to an underlying reality that is mind independent and hence scientifically inaccessible (though I must mention that Ken G considers this notion can be discerned clearly at the classical level, not just at the quantum level). For me, to ignore the implications of what physics is telling us is to instill a false sense of what physics can achieve. But if the implications are faced, then what we are left with is physics as a discipline that explores our relationship with mind independent reality in terms of models that are human representations rather than providing an illusory asymptote journey to the absolute. And that human representation is where the proper scientific methodology (as I understand it) ends. But hidden within those models is the absolute and whilst we scientifically cannot extract that absolute, philosophically, the pointers that d'Espagnat talks about may at least provide some kind of link to it.

Thanks for the advice! But my real interest is simply knowing what the scientific methodology can and cannot tell us about the world. If I can get a handle on that, then notions of the absolute fall into their proper place and the picture that science gives of the world becomes so much more meaningful.