This is the definition of materialism:
Not even close. For an avowed aristotalian, you seem to have an extra-ordinary amount of trouble delineating the proper sets in this discussion. Science concerns itself with things that can be detected. Science does not claim that the things it can detect are the only things that exist. Philosophical materialists claim that only what you can detect, exists. Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Do I actually need to state this in formal syllogisms for you to get it?
Yeah. Right.
For an avowed aristotalian
I never claimed to be an "aristotalian"
Science concerns itself with things that can be detected.
Tell that to Theoretical Physicists
Science concerns itself with things that can be detected. Science does not claim that the things it can detect are the only things that exist.
So you are claiming non-material things exist - but science can't concern itself with them yet science is not materialistic. Yeah. Right.
Philosophical materialists claim that only what you can detect, exists. Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists.
Yeah. Right. You claim science can only concern itself with material things yet science is not materialistic. Right. Fancy bit of tapdancng you are doing here. The text of YOUR definition of science is the definition of Materialism. In your definitions - in regards to science, only the material exists. Then you go on to try and claim science knows there are non-material things but somehow science is unable to study them.
HINT: All thought is based on some sort of philosophy. All thinking is based on a priori assumptions. Your definition of science claims science has an a priori assumption of materialism. That was may point all along. Materialism is the dogma (the a priori assumption) of many that claim to be men of science. Materialism is not a requirement of science any more than Christianity was a true requirement of science is medieval europe.
Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Sorry dude - nearly nonsensical rambling does not constitute proof.
You claim science can only deal with the material yet science is not materialist - like your earlier statements, that statement is completely contradictory and is certainly not proof.