His phrasing might be improved, but whether or not you believe that water will freeze at a certain temperature has no affect on subsequent tests. Not trying to troll, but isn't that unique to science?
For instance, with history, whether or not you believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated doesn't change the fact that he either was (for which the evidence is overwhelming) or wasn't (if, by some amazing chance, the YouTube conspiracy videos are true).
But you bring up a point worth expanding upon. You mention testing. With history, and many other subjects, we can't directly evaluate things in the way that we test things with science. That is to say, we can't go back in time and take a snapshot of a historical moment and say, "There! That did actually happen!"
Some people have (mistakenly, in my mind) concluded that because we can't test a philosophical conjecture the way we can test a scientific conjecture, it's therefore not worth spending time pursuing philosophical truth. I think they just get so hung up on the scientific method that they try to apply it to things that are totally outside its domain.
Do you think that Tyson is using the word "science" in contrast to other disciplines that respect the notions of fact, observation, and evidence?
I figured he was using it in contrast to competing epistemologies that do not, like faith.
I appreciate this sentiment and attitude. I am perturbed by those that tout the scientific method as a catch-all epistemological tool that solves all problems of human thought. As you said, there are many things that sit squarely outside of the realm of scientific observation, and they are just as valid as science as attempts to better understand our universe.
And that is exactly the problem with Tyson's statement. It is not accurate enough to be in itself a fact and invites blind belief where questioning should happen.