I think maybe the appropriate distinction (restating way you said) is "science" that models the physical world, like physics or chemistry, vs "science" that exp

I think maybe the appropriate distinction (restating way you said) is "science" that models the physical world, like physics or chemistry, vs "science" that explores statistical relationships between stuff, like many medical or social studies. In general an element of both is present, but on one end tou have, say Newton, and on the other you have some study that says electromagnetic waves are bad for you because of some statistical health outcome but proposes no causal mechanism. The problem seems to be that the further towards the latter part of the spectrum someone's research is, the more likely they are to be adamant that they're "doing science" and promote all the BS about consensus and peer review that gives a pretend version of how science happens. Presumably due to insecurity. When your work rests on a foundation of p-hacking, you're more likely to be pounding "the science" as justification, vs if you're a physistics that's traced a result back to basic axioms of your field, your work speaks for itself and you don't need to yell how the science is settled