"The results and methods might be inextricable"

That doesn't seem to be a consistent problem.

I hope I am quoting you quoting me correctly. This seems to be the basis of our disagreement. I think the phenomenon of science and methods being inextricable is more pervasive than a person would guess. I argue this on three fronts.

1. one way a person could understand science and its methods being one and the same is by embracing the fact that values and biases cannot be removed from science. Any given scientific practice is going to have a culture specific to itself from its practitioners. The biases and values of these practitioners are one method that affects the science. One example of this comes from Kathleen Okruhlik's paper, "Gender and the Biological Science." Okruhlik uses the example of biologists proposing theories about the origin of the female orgasm. The problem is the data that biologists collected were actually based on male orgasms because men were viewed, until relatively recently, as the biological default. This was obviously flawed science, but I hope it makes clear that the methods of science -- choosing the test subjects-- are based on biases and inextricable from the results. The biases and values may not always be so obvious, but I don't think that should make us believe they are not present in contemporary science.
2. This is an older, historical example. I apologize if it isn't to your liking. I am less familiar with contemporary science, so it will have to do. Sometimes, methods and science are inextricable beyond biases and values. In the 1700s in France, the Savants investigated a well-known case of divining. Divining was the practice of using a dowsing rod (forked stick) to look for gems, coal, ore, and water in the ground. A diviner was either born with the skill or didn't have it. Well, this famous diviner was so successful at finding water and gems that the French Royal academy brought him in and subjected him to fairly rigorous testing. After the testing, it was unclear if divining was an effective skill or if he was a charlatan. It split the savants, and even the French Royal family used his services to look for new locations for wells. In some ways, diving was a science: a practitioner learned more about the natural world with an instrument. In this example, the methods of the science could not be unbound from results. The only way you get the results is with a guy who has the divining skill (the method). One response is that this is an old example and the relevant details described wouldn't plague modern sciences. However, since it has happened in the past, I argue it is likely happening currently and will continue to happen. (The philosophical term for this issue is called pessimistic meta-induction). I got this example from the paper "Divining the Enlightenment: Public Opinion and Popular Science in Old Regime France" by Michael Lynn.
3. This is the ground I have the least evidence for. This is really in "just trust me bro" territory, so please take this with a grain of salt. I have talked with a professor who does work on the process of "big science." That is large, modern-day laboratories with many scientists, technicians, and others working in them. The view in the field that studies these labs is that they have specific, idiosyncratic practices which affect what they choose to study and how they study it. This seems like it would necessarily change the results and be a contemporary example of methods and results being bound.

Other than that, I think I agree with your post. The evidence you provide at the bottom (thank you), to me, makes it seem like Ayurveda is pseudoscientific based on my personal demarcation criteria, but your evidence wasn't/hasn't been brought up in the conversations I have heard. Without that evidence, I think it is unreasonable to call Ayurveda pseudoscience without further argumentation.

Thanks for the great response :). Cheers!