One other thing is that when people talk about bashing science, there is a big difference between searching for the structure of the universe that limits and structures our existence and talking about a social science.
A social science is philosophically sketchy by default; it can change as people will it too and thus for irrational reasons. You can never be sure you understand other people completely or that what you think you know will always be a factor in the future. We're all irrational in this regard. Politics, for example, is a social science (and perhaps all social sciences rolled into one broad term) and it includes our egos.
A science of physics looks at what laws govern or allow the existence of our free will. It knows there are structures to reality and seeks to find them. But to do so it has to be honest about how it goes about doing that and embrace skepticism of all its conclusions to do so. Its search is independent of our egos.
If science counts ten apples, it's counting those apples based on how they are part of a particular process; and that process is always assumed to be up for criticism for the sake of gaining a closer or better understanding.
But if a social science counts ten apples, now we're looking at how each apple impacts a person and how each person impacts each apple differently with their thoughts; and it will be different for each person and the results might even change if the same person repeats the counting. The results will even change if the apples are initially arranged differently, if the apples are different than before, or if some factor outside the experiment just happens to change the thought pattern of that person so that they see the apples now differently.
This is why using psychiatry to control moods is insane.
Does that make sense?