Two people may subjectively perceive intersubjectively existent things in the selfsame way, but they will not experience them the same (experience involved perception plus conception). The sight of an actual Christian cross, or an actual Jewish star, or an actual Islamic crescent and star, will provoke reverence in some people, fear in others, hatred in still others, and disdain in yet others, and all because of the different memetic baggage, learned and internalized earlier in their lives, that they will attach to the sight. Because of their prior experiences, the meanings they ascribe to these perceptions varies.

Uh, no, what I’m saying is that “perception of the moon” is different from “pereception of a purely subjective process” because the one is actually an objective entity, and the other is not. The objective reality of entities is important to scientists in general, because while it does not guarantee the utility of any particular measurement or definition, it does imply that multiple different means of measurement and definition, if externally and internally consistent, should all approach scientific truth. The utility of such an approach to establishing scientific truth has not been established for purely subjective states.

The rest of your post is crude ad hominem and argument from authority. Scientism is in fact a word, quite apart from creationists, so you were quite wrong. I thought you siad you acknowleged mstakes? Well, here I am rubbing your nose in a howler. The credulous acceptance of Memetics as valuable and insightful (and apparently on par with the contributions of Einstein and Darwin) is to me as good an example of the over privileging of science as it can get.