The very principles of science would fail this test. Science (i.e. empiricism) essentially states that reality can best be understood (or at the very least, understood at all) through observations via the senses. But this idea can't be tested scientifically so surely it must be bunk, right? This recent "science is the end all be all" mentality is dangerous as it fails to see that truth can be found through other means. Hopefully this mentality is corrected with time.
After studying a lot of science, then some epistemology, I can say that science doesn't claim to be empirism, it's the other way around. A lot of philosophers tend to compare science to other philosophical movements, but it should not be. Science is what happens when you blindly choose to follow the path of empirism. It doesn't justify this choice, it just notices all the working predictions it can make. The general population tend to rely on science because of its past success, not because of its philosophical validity. You can discuss and compare empirism to, say, constructivism, but it won't affect science itself because it's mostly disconnected from this debate.
I completely agree, science is the blind following of empiricism. But what I often find with scientists (at least in the public sphere) is that they make a lot of philosophical claims on no basis or on many presuppsitions with this "lazer sword" as a perfect example.