I absolutely disagree.
Your measurement only works because some people gave a definition of freedom
for some certain cases - very limited ones!
With this definition, you're able to count how many programs fulfil the
requirements - and yes, this is kind of a measurement.
But think of beauty. Let a group of people create a definition of beauty (the
nose has to be this long, the ratio of cheeks to the forehand has to be xy
and so on); this would give you the ability to measure how many women fulfil
this requirements.
But does this make beauty to science? No one would claim this.
The FSF provide a very useful and sensible definition of freedom concerning
software; they transform something rather vague and undetermined to something
we can work with.
But this does not make freedom a scientific topic, and even less in general.
Furthermore, the whole thing about freedom doesn't include finding out
something, doing research.
I think when you talk about freedom being scientific, you rather mean
"concrete". And in my opinion, that's only true in a very limited area.
You can say: free software is concrete.
But not: freedom is science.
