"Everything in our long history of experimental evidence"
has been a
component of the thing we're studying.
If a group of fish in an opaque fishbowl concluded that the fishbowl itself existed but that there was nothing outside of it, their reasoning would be 100% sound, since they would have no way of experimentally confirming anything beyond what their senses could detect. Even their daily dose of fish food would make sense to them, as it would simply be a natural law that food appeared at a certain time, and why add "unnecessary entities" to explain what seems to simply exist without any need for a creator to explain it? Science can only confirm that the fish food appears, not these wild tales people come up with about it coming from another realm. Indeed, given that the food is made of similar stuff to the fish biochemically, a scientist fish would have reason to assume that they evolved both from and to eat the only scientifically known source of food in the universe, which simply exists and reoccurs at consistent intervals, no theories of intelligent design necessary. So there'd be nothing wrong with their logic.
But they'd still be very, very wrong.