"as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable".
But I fail to see the connection with Dyson here.
Having an open discussion about taboo subjects is at the core of progress.
Conflating science with morality is adding another barrier to having those kinds of discussions.
I am aware of Brandolini's Law:
“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
But if the criticism is done in good faith, with the tools of science, I think it's worth the debunking exercise.
Data is just data. It can be collected with a lot of bias in place and can be interpreted with the same biases. We are only humans after all.
When you say thinks like:
1. "it's just a dude not even bothering to learn research before dismissing it all as wrong" 2. "he stupidly used his social power to undermine the science"
I feel you are some priest that dismisses the sinner, by pointing out the vices of carelessness and stupidness, in the name of the sanctimony of science.