I appreciate the sort of knowledge creation Kenji's engaging in. And I agree that it's the most rigorous I've seen presented in a remotely accessible way.
In some ways that just makes me wish he'd take it a step further. I don't think it takes any special equipment or money or MIT degree to follow the scientific method. It seems likely that Kenji already does record data of some kind somewhere. I'm not saying he needs to look at pie crust with an electron microscope, you could simply list a more detailed procedure and qualitative scoring data in a footnote.
I do think equivocating different forms of knowledge with science wastes a great way to introduce people to important scientific concepts. And I think one could argue it risks contributing to confusion about what science is, what it's capable of, and what it's limitations are.
Of course, "be the change you want to see in the world" is great advice. And at the risk of seeming to make an insincere "compliment sandwich", I really do like Kenji and his recipes.
(I may be misremembering some of the debate, so don't hold me to specifics).
McGee presumably didn't do "science" to reach that conclusion (I assume he got there axiomatically, like any good HN scientist would) --- though I'd note that Kenji frequently triangle-tests recipe specifics with panels, which is more science than most food writers employ. But he used science to get there. You don't get a journal article out of that, but it's a more scientific approach than the common alternative, which is why we call it that.
(Kenji graduated from MIT, for whatever that's worth.)