and then rely on my internal motivational drives to find those facts compelling.
Doesn't this assume that our internal motivational drives, our core values, are sufficiently aligned that our "oughts" also align? This strikes me as an unreasonable assumption.
In between was an interval where the scientist rationally knew something that the public social process of science hadn't yet confirmed.
Isn't there another interval to consider in the process? There is (often) a point when the scientist's intuition is pushing him toward a hypothesis or an interpretation of data which has not yet been confirmed by his rationality. A flash of insight is required by the scientific process and yet is not accounted for.
It seems like a bit of a blind spot - if we had no more flashes of insight, the scientific process would grind to a halt, no?