Of course it can. Scientists are constantly exhorted to hold all beliefs tentatively. There is no better platform from which to critique things than one of evidence-based skepticism. Of course, scientists are humans, and people who are fond of science are also humans, so it's well worth pointing out that, yes, how we organize our society and so on also contains all sorts of assumptions that we should hold only tentatively. If Critical Theory is the way someone wants to get jolted out of complacency and to start questioning assumptions, sure, that works. But the stated epistemology feeds into our worst cognitive biases, and if you ask, as a practical matter, has this seemed to play out in the expected (biased, overzealous, etc.) way, the evidence is: yes. You're much better off following a standard Enlightenment-style thought process, with the occasional "but what if I'm wrong?", than embracing Critical Theory more deeply.

For instance, Derrick Bell's project that turned into Critical Race Theory was originally not in the Critical Theory tradition at all, but the scientifically-minded Legal Realism tradition that was rather in opposition to the critical-theory-based Critical Legal Studies tradition! It was only later on recast as a Critical Theory--and to my eye got a lot more dogmatic, less insightful, and less constrained by how things actually are, at that time. The point is, though, that a lot of the key insights were not reasonably attributable to anything coming out of the Frankfurt School.

Anyway, the reason why lauding Critical Theory might appear to "trigger" scientists who actually know something about it is the same reason why people might be "triggered" by suggestions to get to work by riding a horse: it's impractical, and has a lot of downsides. (Even if there are, still, a few cases where travel by horseback is the best option.)