[jthacker]

Unquestioning acceptance of science is definitely not a conclusion of this piece nor is it alluded to.

The main argument of this piece is how "an understanding of what real truth-seeking looks like" can allow you to reject claims when they are scientifically proven to be false. While he does not directly state that one should be skeptical of the scientific community he also never states that there should be unquestioning acceptance of it either. It is however made clear that skepticism is a key trait of being a scientist.

He begins by pointing out the seeming contradiction of being a scientist who is "supposed to have skepticism and imagination, but not too much" while "gathering facts and testing your predictions" before you "either affirm or reject the ideas at hand". Even then you still must "accept that nothing is ever completely settled, that all knowledge is just probable knowledge." Establishing early on that a scientist must be willing to accept that "a contradictory piece of evidence can always emerge" while still advancing our collective understanding.

"Knowledge has become too vast and complex for any one person [...] to convincingly master more than corners of it". You therefore must rely on the collective of scientific knowledge and those who practice it, the "scientific community". He points out the difference between this group and one of pseudoscientific thought is that the claims of the latter can be demonstrably rejected using the scientific method.

A scientist must remain skeptical, but in order to be productive you also need to rely on your community, no one person can verify all claims. Being skeptical is inherit in being a scientist, and therefore part of the scientific community. Relying on the scientific community is not akin to unquestioning acceptance. Questioning established beliefs while backing it with scientific evidence is the key difference between the scientific community and the pseudoscientific one.