And some people treat it as a quasi belief system, which makes sense, with precepts like 'the world is deterministic, causes precede effects' and so on. You could do worse. But they aren't scientists and they don't generally grok that science is an activity whose output is sometimes useful models and not 'Truth'.
My mental model here is that you thus get people who trust in science as a paradigm, who then see doubt or skepticism as aimed against the whole edifice that is part of their fundamental understanding of the world, resulting in discomfort and leading to expected results.
In other words pretty normal stuff that resembles when you come across an argument whose implications are opposed to your principles, that you suspect of trickery, but lack the rhetoric to dismantle yourself.
Assume that you consider yourself unable to evaluate the truthfulness of scientific claims.
Being told that claims you'd thought were properly vetted are actually wrong, then means that you have no way to know if other claims are accurate or not.
If your process doesn't work, then any knowledge based on that process is called into question.
Part of the exasperation of "Team Science" is that so many from "Team Other" are not acting in good faith. Most of "Team Other" doesn't actually care about getting to truth--they only care about winning (for some value of that--the leaders grifting and the followers "sticking it" to the other team).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25926188
The problem appears to be that our present text conversation climate is such that you must either pick Team Science or Other Team, and should you mention that there are faked results hiding in plain sight, people get upset because they think perhaps what you're saying is "Maybe vaccines do cause autism" and "Maybe HCQ does cure COVID-19".
But that's not the truth. There is no monolithic Science entity. It is a property of every organization that reward-alignment is a stronger long term mechanism than fact-alignment. And it is impossible to direct the two in the same direction. This means that among the science establishment, there will be those who have ruthlessly optimized for the reward.
This is part of why the general Internet arguer's approach of "There is some evidence that X is Y look at this study url://url.url/url.pdf" is often the blind leading the blind.
Non omnis scientia est scientia.