But that's exactly the point - science and logic are also specific to human behaviour. Our ideas of what constitutes science and logic are wholly subjective, and boil down to certain kinds of predictability, inference, and consistency within our own experience.
We have no idea how universal, representative, or complete that experience really is. Worse, whenever we've assumed in the past that our science and logic are complete and perfectly self-consistent, we've always been proven wrong.
So IMO it's likely that we're operating with a small subset of the experiential and philosophical sophistication available to more advanced sentiences - and it would be naive and irrationally self-congratulatory to assume otherwise.
We have no idea how universal, representative, or complete that experience really is. Worse, whenever we've assumed in the past that our science and logic are complete and perfectly self-consistent, we've always been proven wrong.
So IMO it's likely that we're operating with a small subset of the experiential and philosophical sophistication available to more advanced sentiences - and it would be naive and irrationally self-congratulatory to assume otherwise.