I think the issue here is, that anatta (which can't be separated from dukkha and anicca) is not simply an ontological position we (Buddhists) hold, just because, but how it relates to how suffering arises and ceases.

In Buddhism, the (conventional) self is a construct, maintained and perpetuated by us, as we delineate, what is "me" and "belongs" to me.

Now, a deep insight of the Dhamma is that, what we claim (cling to - upadana) is essentially what we are, but since none of what we claim/cling to, can last forever, we are in a constant state of building and rebuilding "the self". The Buddha calls this "I-making" and "mine-making".

The suffering we experience, is as a consequence of this perpetual, exhausting action, undergirded by avijja (literally, not-knowledge)

Our experience, at the end of the day, is nothing but subjective, even "objective data" is, ultimately, mediated through subjective experience.

Buddhist epistemology says that name and form are the sight of valid knowledge (vijja), when perception has been purified. The end of all this is of course, to put an end to dukkha and alleviate the dukkha of others, by passing on this knowledge.

Buddhism being compatible with "science" –in its current cultural / ideological form – is simply not true. Buddhism, as a religio-philosophical tradition, makes claims that are decidedly non-rational, but what it yields experientially, for individuals and communities, are states of human welfare that many today have lost sight of.