Not essential to science; in fact, there’d a major viewpoint within metascience that explicitly rejects this as popular mythology of how science works in practice, holding that models change by revolution more than evolution.

> That replication of experiments and convergence is a truth-generating enterprise.

Not part of science, in the same way that your use of “truth” later is not.

> That truth can be expressed numerically

No. While scientism may make essential connections between science and truth, science itself only depends on useful predictive models being expressable, not about truth being expressable, numerically or otherwise, or even being a coherent, meaningful concept.

> That there are some values that are "known good"

That's not only not essential to the scientific process, but contrary to something that is: that all results are contingent.

Isn't this the idea of "free will". That you get to choose for yourself the metrics you want to optimize your life for?

Now I think that you'll use a combination of learned and inherited desires for it. But the idea here is that each individual can express those desires, and then the "success" of a society is thus to maximize each individuals success, even when they differ in their metrics.

That's a made up concept as well, but I think it still stems from individual desires. We've just mostly all individually observed that an organized society that compromises with each other to maximize each and everyone's individual desires has less risk to our own desires being squandered.

The alternative would be to try to achieve power over others to maximize your desires, and maybe from history and life experience, people have found that to be not sustainable or only achievable for a few, thus your chances at it are lower.

In essence, I think I'm saying that it seems over time people know their desires, but don't know how to beat fulfill them, and this is the metric.

I don't think this is what is held by those-who-do-science-and-philosophy-at-large (though it may be a generally accepted hand-wave, I don't know). See, for example Category Theory for a branch of what-I-believe-would-generally-be-called-science that doesn't use numbers, but instead expresses things with sets and relations.

The logician is the intersection of the set of all scientists and the set of all philosophers.

* That truth can be expressed numerically.

Isn't the basic point of quantum physics that this isn't true? We can only make guesses with probabilities, but we can't know the actual truth, and therefore can't express it numerically.