It jives with my own broader observation that most people who are (forgive generalization) "anti-science" have a different basic definition or perspective - whereas I think of "science, yay!" as a method, a way of thinking, an approach to things ; they think of it as "body of knowledge approved / disseminated by The Man". It can enable a starting from point of agreement - you should be skeptical, you should look for proof or consistency. But just because any given theory or hypothesis may be flawed, I have not personally found a better method to discover things. (I await Poppers and Khuns to attack me with appropriate zeal :-)
> most people who are (forgive generalization) "anti-science" [...] think of it as "body of knowledge approved / disseminated by The Man"
I don't think this is unique to anti-science people, but the majority view. Increasingly, the narrative pushed by pro-science factions (whether media, politicians or even academia), are increasingly eroding and morphing "science as a way of thinking" into "authorities who claim to be scientifically oriented". This can be observed in the premature and vigorous pushes for consensus, and silencing of scientists who disagree with some mainstream narrative, and a lack of openness to debate. So I agree with the post that we do have a crisis. Personally, I'm much more concerned with the quality and integrity of actual science than about those on the fringes who reject it.
