All science is materialistic

[polymath257]

Yes, it would. But it is still rather vague. What, precisely, does it mean to say something is physical?

I would still argue that testability via observation is a far better criterion.

In my opinion, Physicalism is a statement that there are four fundamental forces (noting the unification of the electroweak), and nothing more at present, except, perhaps, a fifth fundamental force that could account for Dark Energy.  If any additional forces beyond the Four or Five exist, they will someday be observed and modeled, and if they are never observed, it is almost surely due to the fact that they do not exist.

So physicalism is simply the scientific consensus at the time and not an overarching viewpoint?

How would we tell if there is another force? If we create a model with such a force and it is tested and verified by observation, does it then become physical? If supersymmetry is a thing, that would imply many other 'forces' in the form of bosons corresponding to known fermions. I would hate to say such speculation is un-scientific merely because it postulates more forces.

I'd also point out that this has a similar problem to materialism. Where materialism was focused on the fermions (matter), this seems to be too focused on the bosons (forces).

Once again, the relevant criterion seems to be testability.