Do I get too wordy explaining pragmatic theory?

It's not that I think you're too wordy, I just feel like I have to reverse-engineer your every sentence to understand what you're trying to say. Could be just me, but that's my reaction. :)

What you referring to, the (1) truth statements of the 'scientific method', the (2) truth statements of scientific theories, the (3) truth statements of scientific realism?

2 and 3. I don't see any truth statements in the scientific method, maybe you can tell me what they are.

religious faith is based on certain core truth statements that are not taken as provisional but as true as an act of faith. I don't see any difference between this kind of faith and a scientific faith in certain core truth assumptions.

Okay, you're going to have to get specific now. Exactly what are science's core assumptions? You refer to them, but I haven't seen any examples. There is a difference between ore assumptions and core beliefs. When I calculate a freefall equation, I assume that there is no air resistance, though I know there is. I just don't have the equipment or information to calculate it accurately. When a scientist calculates a quantum theory equation, he assumes that it is correct, even though he knows the equation is ultimately an estimation, because it's the most accurate we have so far with the equipment and information we currently have. Those are assumptions. Faith would be my saying that there is no air resistance: assuming I'm right from the get-go.

You seem to be attacking scientists who make assumptions, but I'm still not clear on something. What do you find inconsistent about my brand of skepticism? Something specific, not "Well, you're making truth statements." Give examples of where my truth statements are more than acknowledged placeholders.

Could a scientist say that certain core truth statements they rely on are fallible, sure, but only if all reason must be thrown out. Similarly, any honest theist could admit that their core truth assumptions are fallible, but only if all reason should be thrown out. But, for the most part, that would be ludicrous.

Only if all reason must be thrown out? Why? I don't see any sense behind this statement.