I think I'd like a little more solid understanding of what he is meaning by changing the nature of science; but, in general I agree. Science is not intuitive and is adversarial as it is taught in school and that is not as intended. When students challenged things that didn't line up with common sense, much less science, the teachers could be anything from abusive to dismissive and at the least - condescending. It isn't a matter of not liking what facts say. It's when we start wandering off into theories that stand on shaky ground that things begin to get dogmatic. That's where indoctrination comes into play. You call people names and abuse them into subbordination to the idea rather than proving the case. That ain't science, that's brainwashing.
Science must be redirected to follow what Science is - not what a bunch of people have hijacked it and turned it into.
That stance is dangerous though, it removes power from liberal elites and calls for accountability, so we can expect wingnut fringes (mainstream scientists) to scream like stuck pigs over any move to clean things up.
You realize you've perfectly described the way alot of religion is taught, yes? You don't do this, you go to hell? You do this, you go to heaven? And I (being the teacher) will never, EVER, be able to prove it, I'll just convinve you via brow beating/threatening you (or in the case of the crusades, torturing/killing)?