If this is the substance of your counterargument, then how about I use it too:

"Because you identify as a philosopher, you are jealous of the incredible success of science and the comparative irrelevance of philosophy, so you self-servingly invent stories about how science is villainous and philosophy heroic."

What are you supposed to say to that? You can't argue the merits, because any argument is you "saving face by blocking out uncomfortable truths".

Alternatively, if we're going to accuse scientists of things like telling "a more politically correct story about nature and about scientific procedures", maybe instead of just making the charge, you actually demonstrate the disparity: e.g. they keep saying X, but their revealed preference is not-X.

You might have been right sixty years ago or so, but society is non-stationary. For instance, supporting the Russians against the Germans now would be a bit late.