The same is true of controversies about telepathy. Sceptics like Rutherford, who accused me of "crimes against reason", rely on the claims of other skeptics, like Michael Shermer, who rely on yet other skeptics such as David Marks, who ignore any evidence that goes against their beliefs.Their beliefs. That is true and it totally excludes them from being considered skeptics and tags them as debunkers.
That is also completely true.
Science is our best method for exploring what we do not understand. But for some people science has become a religion. They need authority and certainty, and want to believe that the fundamental answers are already known.
Scientific fundamentalism serves deep emotional needs, but it is counter-productive for the progress of science itself. It inhibits scientific exploration, gives science a bad name and puts young people off. Science advances through questioning dogmas, by considering new possibilities, and through open-minded enquiry.
Certain people need certainty because they are afraid of the unknown. If there is an unknown that means that they really have no control. They are afraid of having no control.
In fact, it does inhibit science as well. I know several people who have come up with great inventions and patents simply by not following "scientific laws." Yes, by trying something new. By trying something that others told them would never work.