Yep, and you can add in a worse case still which is "people with enough background knowledge to sound like they know something, who have a particular motivation for wanting a particular scientific theory to be incorrect, who will never, ever admit to error" taking up the mantle of scepticism about current scientific theory.

In the "marketplace of ideas" practising the scientific method isn't antifragile in the face of such reckless certainty, it's downright fragile, because it's requires being the only side of the argument which will admit that its hypotheses aren't proven and some of its previous theories were wrong. Worse still, when the motivated sceptic has their "stopped clock" moment, practising the scientific method requires conceding they are right. The more science you practice, the more the opponent gets to point to the stuff you've conceded wasn't quite as expected.

Science might become sturdier in terms of better theory in response to attacks (where said attacks are accompanied by experimentation) but it's more vulnerable to losing trust