Check this editorial Scientific Pride and Prejudice by Michael Suk-young Chwe
Anthropology is not mentioned (which may be a good thing). We, of course, know about bias in observation and analysis, we are getting to know how science is actually produced, and we can criticize. But we must go further than Chwe. We cannot simply end with bias. Bias, a point of view, a starting point and an angle of attack, is essential: how else would we chose what to look at? Then, we must trust the communities of our practice to point out what we should also have looked at, redundantly. Of course, we also know that polities can develop common blinders (more or less powerfully enforced). But, we can hope, that future polities will show what these common blinders have been, from new points of view, new angles of attack, new biases.
In any event, it is nice to read a clear a cogent, well-written, clear, critique of scientism hiding behind methodological hocus-pocus! (And I do love Jane Austen!)