Regardless of your opinion on typical hot-button issues, they do have a good point.
…One such minority is a growing community of scientific skeptics who see themselves as the guardians of science, ready to protect it from imaginary forms of scientific blasphemy or, as skeptics call it, pseudoscience. Organized skepticism is fast becoming a malignant force that masquerades as science but functions as a very deceptive and effective form of scientific thought police. Its purpose is to undermine all perceived threats to what it believes to be the one and only true form of legitimate science. [DS: appeal to authority] In the process of attacking, among other things, holistic therapies like homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, and even nutrition, skeptics inadvertently besmirch the reputation and credibility of genuine science itself.
Prevention in medicine is better than cure, but a LOT cheaper…
They’re status signalling without doing any science themselves. Science is a process, you do it. How many of them run studies? Zero. That’s why they talk about it. They can’t do it. They aren’t intelligent enough, so they bow to the cult of ‘Science Celebrity’ and share stupid pictures based on specious conclusions or tortured statistics.
It is important to understand how and why we have come to this impasse. Most people are not aware of the differences between science, pseudoscience, and scientism. Even the most well educated, including many scientists themselves, are not familiar with the issues involved. [DS: true in my experience I have had to explain the thought traps] The culture war between science and religion, also known as the science wars, is largely a function of misinformation. At bottom, it is a function of a blurring of the lines between scientific fact and scientific faith….
Basic thought traps;
1. I will always be right on subject X regardless of new data.
2. I have personal attachment for this theory and my feelings convince me it is true although I don’t trust ‘intuition’ (usually argue it doesn’t exist as conviction) and have no similar Sciencey-Sense when it comes to a neutral topic which hasn’t been decided in the popular eye (a social risk, wrong side of history blah blah blah).
3. Theories don’t really change, they evolve (one word: Kuhn). Hence I’ll never be wrong, really.
4. Let’s pour government money into one side of the hypothesis because the people paid to study it call it Very Important Work.
5. Insult people who disagree with you e.g. baby-killer.
6. Refute negative evidence e.g. “All swans are white”, “Here’s a black one”, “No it isn’t excuses excuses I don’t see it.”
7. Let’s force everyone to act as though they agree with me for the Greater Good (authoritarian bigotry).
As you can see, these are lovely people to be around.
My short version of this explanation is;
science – process, numbers, data, correction, paradigm, logic, heartless
pseudoscience – failing to apply the above and calling it science (actually very rare), does NOT apply to unpopular ideas which follow the proper methods, you don’t have to like a subject to count it
scientism – faith, popularity contest, anecdotes, ad hominem, punishments, state control, propaganda and guilt, hero worship (idolatry) of people on a screen when you don’t know what their real contributions are