All science is materialistic

[polymath257]

The essence of science is the scientific method: to test all ideas via observation, to only consider ideas that are testable (usually falsifiable) and to agree to modify or eliminate those ideas that are shown wrong via observation.

Nothing in this method *requires* 'matter' or even 'physical' aspects to be fundamental.

A particle is fundamental when it is determined to have no constituents.

An electron, for example, is fundamental, while a proton, made of (fundamental) quarks and gluons, is composite, even though energetically a proton has no decay channel (under the Standard Model at least, if not under assorted proposed extensions to the SM).

Fundamental implies that the chain of inquiry has terminated.  The masses of fundamental particles (if they have masses) are simply brute empirical facts.  This makes for an unwieldy theory, but it's the best we have.

Which, again, does not address the question of what it means to be 'matter' or 'material'.

A photon is fundamental, but is usually NOT considered to be matter (it isn't made of atoms, for example), while it *is* physical. Muons are usually regarded as fundamental as well (although they decay into electrons and neutrinos), but are not considered by most to be 'matter' even though they are fermions.

Whether electrons and quarks are truly fundamental is still in question. There are theories that have quarks as composite particles. To say that the chain of inquiry has terminated says that science has nothing further to say, which is almost never the case.

For example, are electrons and muons simply resonance states of the same particle? Is there a symmetry between fermions and bosons?

Ultimately, whether photons and other bosons are labeled as 'matter' or not is pretty irrelevant. Science is based on using observation to test our ideas. There is no required assumption that all explanations are in terms of matter or even physical things. But there *is* an expectation that all ideas have testable results.