I had a shameful fling with Ayn Rand.
No, it's an expression used by people who can see that for many, science has replaced religion, but is still performing the same function. It has its high priests, who have all the answers and cannot be questioned. It has dogma, and prophesy. It has its flock and it has its heteretics. It has many self-righteous zealots.
You're one of the zealots. That's why you can't see the truth of what I've written.
You can try and wriggle out of this one as much as you like, but you've been found out here. You're a phony.
For the record, Wittgenstein had some big problems with science. He was in opposition to the notion that science is the only respectable form of enquiry. He also opposed the way modern science was conducted. In many ways, he hated science itself, as a methodology. He actually had a lot to say about science.
Literally no one of note has ever advocated the idea that "science is the only respectable form of inquiry"
You're not of note, so you're not strictly incorrect… but that's your approach.
You must not have read On Certainty (1969), published posthumously, obviously.
What I find so funny about this exchange is that anybody else reading this will be wondering what exactly it is that I've said that you object to.
Given your insistence that science is the only way to know anything, you'd disagree vehemently with him. Your alleged hero.