I've had another thought about why these guys rebel against science. This thought actually casts the whole thing in a slightly different light, which I haven't really thought about too much before.
See, there are some scientific theories for which it is very difficult for the common man in the street, to clearly identify evidence for them having directly resulted in
practical applications. For example: Evolution and (somewhat) unfortunately, I think …. the heliocentric view of the solar system. (Perhaps the 'Theory of 'Global Warming' is another ?
)
These theories, whilst having resulted in scientific revolutions which emancipated the scientific minds of the times, (and therein led to many practical inventions in the longer term), I think, have little direct, immediate and practical applications from a common-man's perspective.
If their impact has truly been more on philosophy, religion and culture and other areas outside of their immediate branch of science, then I can better understand why the reception of these, is not met with more open arms throughout society and also resulting in the parallel development of pseudosciences.
It also exposes the 'softer ground' one may have to stand upon during debates with these folk, as well. An awareness of this 'softer ground' is important to have in one own debating arsenal.
Cheers