Interesting question, and - not really. Some of it yes. The thing is that in science we focus so much on the empirical side of things. Finding things outside of ourselves, solving physical problems such as illness, or how to make and build things, or understanding how the world works. All of that is important. But - still, even if you are healthy, and happy, and have everything that you need to satisfy your basic needs, and live an interesting and productive life, still, you may feel that there is something more to life.

Particularly, we all know that the best things don't last for ever. You can see that things you enjoy one day, that you waited for with great anticipation, then after a while you get bored and need a new car or new gadget or whatever it is.

You can only spend so much time eating chocolate cake, then you get sick of it, or just physically can't eat any more.

And on a longer timescale, that you know you will get old, may get sick, eventually will die. Even the wealthiest, most powerful, or most clever people, or the funniest people or the ones with most friends, they too will get ill and eventually die, or may have accidents and so on.

So this much we can all see and verify - the impermanence of things, that there are no lasting solutions, no way of making a perfect state we can live in happily for ever. There is no real "happy ever after".

Which is not to deny at all that there are many ways we can be happy in this world. And that short term happiness is a positive thing. And it is great to help others to be happy also.

But - when you help someone to be happy, or help yourself to become happy, still, you recognize that this happiness is short term, and you haven't sorted yourself out for all future time.

That's not pessimism, as so often is suggested, it's just reality which we can all recognize.

So then the next part, that there is a path to address that, which involves understanding your situation clearly - that's the next part that is not really verifiable empirically. The Buddha taught that by looking at our situation clearly, meditating on impermanence, seeing how things change, and really deeply looking at that, that we can come to see through the cause of all this suffering.

That's something you can come to by reasoning, and recognize that seeing the fluid nature of things is likely to lead to more skillful behaviour, better understanding, that your expectations are not going to be disappointed so easily as you are "going with the flow" of things. Not so much continually looking into the past and trying to recover past possibilities that have disappeared into history and are no longer options.

Again that is easily misunderstood as saying that we shouldn't commit, or have friends, or hobbies, or things we dedicate ourselves to. But of course, we should do all those things. Buddhists have close friends and partners and children like everyone else. If they choose to be a monk, or nun, they will still have friends, and even someone who spends years in a cave is still supported by others, and is doing their meditation for the benefit of others.

The next bit is where it goes beyond empirical ideas of science. It's the idea that there is a truth to be seen that you have to see for yourself. When Buddha gave his first teaching to the five ascetics, they all understood what he was saying logically - but only one of them, Kondanna, had the direct realization of what he said.

This is an idea that is very common in religion, but not so much in science or philosophy. The idea of truths you have to see and experience and realize for yourself. For instance the famous passage from Corinthians: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

In the first sermon we read:

"When this discourse was thus expounded there arose in the Venerable Kondanna the passion-free, stainless vision of Truth (dhamma-cakkhu; in other words, he attained sotapatti, the first stage of sanctity, and realized: 'whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature of ceasing.'"
First Sermon of the Buddha

What he realized there seems trivial, something we an all see, that anything that has the nature of arising also has the nature of ceasing. But the teaching here is about a truth you can realize, not just understand intellectually.

To follow the Buddhist path you need a faith that there is such a truth to be seen. That everyone has this capacity to see this passion free stainless vision of Truth.

His other four companions understood it only intellectually. But they had faith that there is such a truth to be seen, and so they also were following the Buddhist path.

That's true of most Buddhists. We haven't seen these truths for ourselves. But through reasoning, through reading the Buddhist sutras, from listening to teachers talk about them, we come to have faith that there are such truths to be seen / realized.

Buddha reached enlightenment as a young man. He didn't say that he was going to become enlightened when he died. He said he had already reached cessation, and then continued to teach for several decades after he reached enlightenment.

So - it's something that you can not only come to see, but also it is to do with this world itself. It's not an afterlife, it's not some other state that you escape from this world to find. It's not either extinction of yourself. Buddha still continued to teach and didn't disappear.

Rather - it's said to be a dawning realization that something you thought existed all your life is not there, and never has been there. So realizing that something doesn't exist. It can't be got rid of, because there is nothing there in the first place, so trying to get rid of it will only reinforce the idea that it is there.

So this central truth that you can come to see - it's described as "non self" but any idea you have of what that means is bound to be either wrong or a pale shadow of what it refers to. Because if you understood it you'd be enlightened already.

So - this part of the teaching is not something you can verify empirically. You can't tell if anyone else is enlightened either. It's something you have to see for yourself.

And the Buddhist path is based on faith that there are such truths to be seen. Doesn't have to be a conviction that you are sure of it. Just an open mind, that you think there is enough reason to think there is something in it to want to follow the path to find out for yourself.

There is nothing else you need faith in. Buddha gave many teachings in great detail and many others since then have added to those teachings. So - it is clear what the central teachings are. But he also taught that there is no value at all in affirming belief in something you can't see to be true for yourself. So - there is no creed. The very idea of a creed is counter to the central teachings of the Buddha. But lots of teachings, lots of very specific suggestions and ideas and meditation techniques and such like that you can try for yourself. His message was "come and see for yourself".

It can't really be made into an empirical science for this reason. This idea of truths that you have to see for yourself is the central thing - that is not much addressed in contemporary philosophy either, as far as I know. As someone with first degree in maths,second degree in philosophy, this was one of the things that was so refreshing about the Buddhist teachings.

But you can study philosophy in this way also. To try to understand it as something you experience, and notice how it transforms the way you look at the world to adopt various philosophical views.

Indeed that's a technique in Buddhism also - lots of philosophical views you can investigate. But they also are all experiential, you are expected to meditate on them, and they transform your experience of the world. And the most interesting thing there is not so much the view itself, as seeing what happens when you switch between different views. That's one of the techniques used in Buddhist meditation in some of the Tibetan schools.

Perhaps some day all of this can be integrated with science. But to do so, science will have to venture into new territories, to do with truths you can experience yourself. Not just psychology, but the idea that what you experience yourself can have a validity. We do have inklings of this in Quantum Mechanics, the idea that you have to have an observer for anything to take a particular state. But that's a long way away from a complete approach that could recognize possibilities of things such as realization of truths, and this transforming your world from direct realization of certain truths.

It would be a more experiential science, and I have no idea how it would work. We don't want to discard the science we already have, which has much that is excellent about it. Especially the scientific approach. That's a way of searching for truth, which works. It's what Buddhists would call "relative truth". Truth about this world, and the things in it, and how they are connected, what scientists call verifiable truth.  So that also is to do with connecting in a grounded way with the reality of the situation we are in. You can't fool yourself so easily if you follow the scientific method. So it also is to do with relating to the reality of situations.

But Buddhists also talk about "absolute truth" which here means truths you can come to see for yourself, and that you have to see for yourself. And that just understamding the reasoning is not enough, that as with Buddha's first disciple, Kondanna, at some point eventually you will encounter the "the passion-free, stainless vision of Truth".

Most Buddhists just go about their ordinary lives like anyone else.  In the West you might get the idea that all Buddhists have to meditate - but actually - you can be a Buddhist and never meditate at all. But it's an inspiration, the idea that there is something that can be seen in this way. And the practitioners who do follow that path sincerely are seen as people to be supported in their quest, with the idea that by so doing they are benefiting everyone. Even the meditator meditating for years in a cave - there's the idea that right away the world is blessed by these meditators, that they are contributing something positive, just by following the path so sincerely, so directly trying to see the stainless truth for themselves and for everyone else. So that's why Buddhists support monks and nuns and solitary meditators and so on.

For more about this:

Four Noble Truths (Wikipedia article as it was in 2014, lede gives a good summary of the four truths. This article was excellent up to then but the current version has been rewritten extensively by editors with little understanding of the dharma and is very poor).

The Eight-Fold Path

The Four Noble Truths (Buddhanet, teachings by Ajahn Sumedho)

Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught - widely acknowledged as a classic, expressing the central truths of Buddha in English.

Here on quora, What are the Four Noble Truths? has some good answers.