In what universe would such a person be called a scientist and not a huckster doing what hucksters do?
Here is richard feynmann's poignant take on the matter. BTW, it has gotten way worse since feynmann's interview.
Paul Graham http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html
But there are plenty of empirical studies in computer science that are certainly science.
Yes. Theoretical physics is theoretical. But physics is not. Computer science is purely theoretical. It's math. Adding a theoretical designation to computer science is being redundant.
> But there are plenty of empirical studies in computer science that are certainly science.
Plenty of "empirical studies" that you failed to name one? There are engineering tests for computers and algorithms. But there isn't a "science". What natural law is postulated within computer science?
You can use computer "science" like any other math to do science, but it isn't itself a science. It's a mathematical tool.
Now this person in question almost certainly was huckster, but he would have been just as much of a huckster if his PhD had been physics and he'd been a physics professor.
Regardless, I agree he does not deserve to be called a "scientist." Calling him one is an insult to actual scientists.