And, certainly, Science / Hard Facts are a useful and important weapon in the war on Post-Truth / Trump-Putin-May.Prop / Climate Change Denial / etc, etc. That's a blade I wouldn't want to blunt.
But 'Science' can be a double-edged sword; it also takes corporate / lobbyist money, supports all sorts of dodgy, unpalatable & unethical practices, institutions, treatment of workers, minorities, blahblahblah while being held up as some sort of monolithic Unassailable Truth... because, well, to quote a billion unthinking auto-parroted geektweets, "Because Science."
It's something I've been thinking about, on and off, for a while now - and Godknows you could lose yrself down a decade-long philosophical reading-rabbithole just tracking the different lines of thought on this - buuut I reckon I get at least two conversations a month where someone (and usually it's someone whose opinions I otherwise respect) tells me that so-and-so is dubious / not-ever-gonna-be-true because "it's unscientific" or "pseudoscience" or.
Full Stop, end-of-discussion. "Because Science."
The problem, maybe, is that people have been 'taught' to conflate Science with The Truth.
They are two different things.
Science is, oh I don't know, a methodology - a means by which ideas are are tested and potentially incorporated into a body of knowledge. That's different to The Truth. Science as a Body-of-Interconnected-Knowledge is different to Science as a Body-of-Interconnected-Knowledge 50 years ago, which is VERY different to Science as a Body-of-Interconnected-Knowledge 100 years ago, et cetera. Some widely-held 'scientific' beliefs of Today will almost certainly be laughed at and ridiculed in 100 years time.
Because, well, "Because Science."
Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling, but it's worth from time to time just considering how much Science (ie published / peer-reviewed research) is actually, er, true. Maybe that's why this caught my eye:
"There has been an increasing concern in both the scientific and lay communities that most published medical findings are false. But what does it mean to be false? Here we describe the range of definitions of false discoveries in the scientific literature. We summarize the philosophical, statistical, and experimental evidence for each type of false discovery. We discuss common underpinning problems with the scientific and data analytic practices and point to tools and behaviors that can be implemented to reduce the problems with published scientific results."