I did not say your example was a strawman, my point was that it was reductionist. Determining the general color of the sky or whether or not things will fall is predicting human thoughts and behaviors many degrees simpler than what I am talking about.

Agreed, but you appeared to be saying that human thoughts and actions are entirely unpredictable, not merely poorly predictable. I disagree. For example, you brought up the topic of "what is love, what is happiness, what is family":

Well you are wrong about that. No competent sociologist or anthropologist would make a claim to be able to do what you are suggesting.

Why not ? Here are my predictions:

• The average American thinks that love is a mysterious yet important feeling -- perhaps the most important feeling in the world, and that this feeling is non-physical in the dualistic sense. Many, thought not all, think that it is a gift from a supernatural deity, as long as it's shared between a man and a woman (though a growing minority challenge this claim).
• Most Americans believe that happiness is an entity similar to love, and that there's a distinction between short-term happiness that comes from fulfilling your immediate desires, and long-term happiness that comes from fulfilling a plan for your life; most, again, believe that the plan was laid out by a deity.
• Most Americans would define "my family" as "everyone related to me by blood or marriage", though most would add a caveat something like, "up to N steps of separation", with N being somewhere between 2 and 6.

Ok, so those are pretty vague, and may not be entirely accurate (I'm not an anthropologist, after all), but I think they are generally not too bad. You could argue with some of the details, but note that virtually zero people believe that "family" means "a kind of pickled fruit", or anything of that sort. So, while human thoughts on these topics are not perfectly predictable, they're still predictable.

You can make fun of my diction all you want,

I was not making fun of your diction at all, I apologize if I gave that impression.

but I think it is pretty obvious love; morality, life, and happiness are of the utmost concern (grave concern) to people.

First of all, you just made an attempt at predicting human thoughts -- i.e., what's important to people. When I claimed to be able to do the same, you said I was wrong, so what's up with that ? Secondly, I agree with you that most people would say that these topics are of great concern to them; however, I would argue that, despite what people think, there are other topics which are at least as important (as per my earlier post).

...the practices currently being implemented to increase crop yield are board line ecocide. They are incredibly dangerous, yet we continue to attempt to refine them further and further ignoring the risks...

Again, that's an argument against a particular application of a specific technology, not an argument against science as a discipline, or even against technology as a whole. I agree with you that monocultures and wholesale ecological destruction are terrible things, and that we should be more careful with the environment, but I still believe that feeding people is a good thing. Our top choices are not between technology and nothing, but between poorly-applied technology and well-applied technology.

Since the cold war America has been heavily indoctrinated in an ideology of free will (individual autonomy) being a key aspect of morality. I question this idea.

Ok, first of all, "individual autonomy" is a concept that predates the Cold War by a huge margin. Secondly, I have some disagreements with the rest of your points regarding "collectivist vs. individualist morality"; we can discuss them if you want, but I think they are tangential to our main discussion of science and technology, so let's stick to the topic for now. However, if you do advocate "collectivist morality" and "socially engineer[ing] people", would this not constitute an application of technology (in this case, social technology) on a grand scale ? I thought you were against that sort of thing ? You say you're "hesitant", but why don't you reject this approach outright ?

BTW:

But I do think that there a mass of indoctrinated people that does not think about what it is they belief is a social reality.

This is yet another prediction about people's thoughts that you are making. This would again imply that people's thoughts are somewhat predictable, just like I said.

Fair enough. I respectfully suggest that your language was loose.

For example:

a large portion of human existence is socially created.

Consider the difference between saying that and saying "a large portion of human decisions are socially created, even if they appear to be universalizable. A much larger proportion than people realize."