It's not an enditement of science to accept that it is fallible. It's precisely the point of the article that "science as inquiry" as it is taught has led people to acquire a mystical infallible view of the scientific method which holds that people who come to different conclusions than the current consensus are biased. When in fact scientific consensus and scientific authority are social agreements based on trust.
As far as I can tell, it is not the point of this article that science teaching has led people to acquire a mystical infallible view of the scientific method which holds that people who come to different conclusions than the current consensus are biased; rather, it takes it as a premise.
In the final section, "Scientific Dissent versus Science Denialism", the article takes the position that this posited reverence for science makes it difficult to see the flaws in climate-change denial: "And without a social epistemological critique of the claims of climate change deniers, it is difficult to recognize that they are not doing credible science."
Ironically, the article itself does not present, or even mention, any empirical evidence for this being an important factor in people failing to recognize the above (maybe the evidence is in one of the references, but if the author can't be bothered to say so, I'm not going off on a wild-goose chase. The author here prefers to try deducing the alleged cause of this state of affairs from the position of another philosopher.)
I'm all for people gaining a better understanding of how science works, but I am doubtful that this particular issue is central to denialism not being recognized for what it is.
