In general tone I think this article has something useful to say, but in the specifics its way off base.
Science is not just about experimentation either. However to go from possible findings to robust findings requires rigorous testing and opportunity to be challenged. From one perspective scientific papers are not published just so everyone can learn what is what, they are published so any errors, hazy notions, imperfect reasoning etc, can be discovered and exposed.
Science is not however a monolithic beast. It has more like a tree of different perspectives and methods, with current research at the leaf tips. If core science is brought down, then entire branches might be lopped off. Science is dynamic, ever changing, and subject to mistaken interpretation. Cutting edge immunology and cutting edge physics are worlds apart in many respects.
There have been moves to have experiments/pilot studies into domains like administration etc. They are fraught with peril. Social structures, including government and industries, are only in part subject to scientific experiment. We are a very long way from the social or political or economic "sciences" being precise or rigorous enough to be science . That does not mean they cannot be academically rigorous, but such rigor is not science ... it would apply even to things like poetry.
It does remain valid I think, if suitable outcome measures can be identified, that experiments in these domains are useful. Small pilot studies before rolling out large projects can be an example of this, provided such pilot studies are not simply used to sort out initial problems so the full implementation can go more smoothly. Such pilot studies, from a critical perspective, should also be about determining if an approach is even valid or useful. That does not make it science though, but the experimental method applied to other domains.
What alarms me is the increasing bureaucratization of science. When what should be science is more about politics and consensus, then there is a blurring of the lines, and its subject to abuse in part because they can claim something is "scientific" or "evidence based".
What does very much seem to be the case, still, is that something is not science if it cannot in principle be tested rigorously, or at least have good prospects for future rigorous testing. When we cherry pick evidence to support our position that is not reason, its rationalizing, though the line between the two can be very blurred. When this happens in supposed scientific studies it can be either scientific or pseudoscience. Picking out which is which is hard.
The reason it is hard is that in the early stages of development of scientific hypotheses there may be a lack of great data, and certainly would be a lack of heavily tested predictions.
I do think a case can be made though that psychogenic medicine is pseudoscience. It fits the major definitions of pseudoscience, and lacks the rigor of what I consider science. Yet the implication is its "scientific", and even "evidence based'.
