If they are upset, then we have to ask... why? Why can't we accept that one person has his science and another person has his? ... because there is only one true science. Methods that don't conform with the accepted way of doing science are rejected. It doesn't matter if they call themselves science.
You act as if religious people aren't concerned about radical religious cults.
But people are concerned about radical religious cults. They are concerned that these cults are advocating false religion. I don't deny that conformity plays a role. I'm pointing out that when people have a belief that something is true (religion or science), it's very important to them that other people believe that it is true.
Perhaps, you publish papers and never give a second thought about whether anyone else believes you did actual science. But peer-reviewed journals are very much interested in what constitutes true science and what constitutes pseudo-science. Professors in universities can be quite adamant about what is and is not acceptable. What is true does matter to a lot of people. Do you really deny this? Are you really willing to say the scientific method is just your particular way of looking at things? And that it really doesn't matter if no one else believes in the scientific method? Well good for you... There are some people who don't agonize too much over the truth of religions either. It's all highly subjective and anecdotal anyways, right? It's not like basis of a person's religious beliefs (which maybe also just so happen to be the foundation upon which he lives his life) are important in any way, eh? It's all about as important as some random guy's PhD thesis.