Many pro-science people (including some well known science communicators) don’t need much encouragement to appeal to the ultimate authority of science. There was an HN thread on the munchausen trilemma a little while ago, full of people commenting on how intuitive it was, but absolutely unwilling to accept how it could impact their own beliefs in science.
That's because science is a distillation of consensus experience, not absolute truth.
That doesn't make it invalid, because the "experience" part really really matters.
But it means its validity is limited to "for all practical purposes" - which is perfectly good enough as a baseline, and certainly more useful than "It's just my opinion and I'm right about everything because I say so" or even "Because my god says so" or "I'm going to lose money if this turns out to be true, so I'm going to spend some money up front on a PR campaign to persuade people it isn't."
