I don't think it is even possible for a rational person to be anti-science. By definition you are engaged with a scientific proposition or prediction by focusin

I don't think it is even possible for a rational person to be anti-science. By definition you are engaged with a scientific proposition or prediction by focusing on it and disagreeing with the veracity of claims. When people say so and so are anti-science they appear desperately wishing to smear another as ignorant or irrational and themselves as smart and rational. But a pro-scientific accusation would involve the exact irrefutable point the other is being irrational on. They don't do accurate accusations well because that would be to suppose poor use of rational faculty when all that can be proven is none was detected by the accuser, which might too readily expose their flawed non-scientific approach to accusations. I posit that these smears are based on dogma and only a symptom of one's unwillingness to engage in tense moral debate with cordiality.