In regards to your straw man about me never taking a position, this can clearly be shown to be false. I have said repeatedly that science is dependent upon data. Therefore data (or empiricism or a similar idea) should be included in any relevant definition of science. What you call "splitting hairs", I would call actually trying to get a precise working definition. A reasonable definition is not something that simply feels good. It should precisely define what something is in reality, rather than what something is in an ivory tower ideal.