They think that they are the more rational, the more scientific-based, the more "centered"...(oh those corporativist)

And the reason is that "reason" can also be very very fanatic.

We are delaing with the rejection of the following idea: HAving a set of ideas and myths (religious or not) and tryting to obtain in good faith your facts and  take any criticism into the collection of facts.

The disregard of "looking for facts" as imperfect as it is.

Religious people as scientists do look for facts.. using different frames.. but they indeed look for them (most of them).  

Fanatics .. independently of the mythology they defend, disregard the facts... And there are a bunch of them in Science (remember the difference between the radical scientists which makes fun of everything which is not Sicence, and the scientists who knows very well the limits of his framework).

People not interested in facts have all the cards...because they know how to play the game. We should learn how to play this game. We should try to break the barriers that the different frames create between scientists, religious, magic thinking people, enviromentalists, corporatists.. in each group there are people who look for facts (they interpret it, validate it and reflect upon them differently for sure..but they are..well OPEN)..although the frame of reference may create the ilusion that they do not. They have something in common: they follow certain internal logic. They should be our target...

In the same vain, the corporativist in the article is tryign to co-opt at the same time the fanatics anti-green and the fanatics pro-science. See my point?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude