I know of a case where someone was forbidden from visiting their child's school because they hadn't been vaccinated twice, only once (and they also caught and recovered from covid twice)--because cardiac issues they had from catching covid the first time recurred with the first vaccine and their doctor told them not to risk a second. The school's reasoning? Their policy is based on science.

I also see "evidence based medicine" that doesn't collect evidence because no study shows that something works. And doesn't do a follow-up study on a studied intervention because "the science is settled".

I see climate doomers "following the science" which is supposedly going to result in an uninhabitable earth. (I quote the IPCC AR6 to them. They brush it off.)

I saw anti-HCQ arguments recycled without change to be anti-ivermectin arguments (all the way to the point of listing the wrong side effects).

And on and on and on. Among people who identify as pro-science!

Christian Science, Scientology, and the others have not situated themselves as "on team science". They're an alternative. That's a much easier threat to resist than one where people join the team and then start cheating.

"We're on your side, not the science deniers' side!" is the claim. But it's still pervasively using bluster, authority, tradition, ideology, popularity, or whatever else to avoid actually carefully basing things on evidence.

I do think that it's very important to preserve the institutions of science.

Part of that is rejecting "defenders" who undermine the effort. We have to actually do the right things--otherwise the scientific method doesn't work.