They provide a useful service in investigating various fringe claims, but some of them also seem to be putting forward science as some sort of absolute truth and trying to limit experience to just the sort of sense experience that can be shared in public. It could be that science as a practice may choose to limits its domain to only those types of experiences, but we human beings have many experiences beyond that. There is more experience than science can pin down. It may be vague and hard to quantify, but it is still experience. From a pyrrhonist point of view, science is a useful tool for the social production of texts that have been well tested against experience and that can be used to predict future experience and to design technological artifacts, but we would have to suspend judgement on whether science is the only truth.
Science is a particular set of configurations of language, experience, and desire.
It is a set of social practices and texts. It may be the best tool we have for solving certain kinds of problems and should be used for that purpose, but it cannot replace religion as the source of authoritative truth. It is common practice to appeal to some authority, whether a religious prophet, a charismatic leader, some privileged text, or science, as the final source of truth, to be accepted without question. But this begs the question of how we know that authority is an authority. This immediately leads into skeptical arguments.