A lot of "rationalists" of this kind are very poorly informed about statistical methodology, a condition they inherit from reading papers written in these pseudoscientific fields about people likewise very poorly informed.
This is a pathology that has not really been addressed in the large, anywhere, really. Very few in the applied sciences who understand statistical methodology, "leave their areas" -- and many areas that require it, would disappear if it entered.
I don’t know where you get this idea, at least about Scott. He has written extensively about flaws in science and misuse of statistics. My favorite is the one where he cries at the end “ Science! YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE! It was said that you would destroy reliance on biased experts, not join them!”
I agree, I had to read things for an ethics course in IT in uni that read more like science fiction than actual science. Anyway, my point is that it feels pretentious - very pretentious, and I'm being kind with words - to support such pseudo scientific theories and call itself rationalist. Especially when these teories can be debunked just by reading the related Wikipedia page
More charitably, it is really, really hard to tell the difference between a crank kicked out of a field for being a crank, and an earnest researcher being persecuted for not towing the political line, without being an expert in the field in question and familiar with the power structures involved.
A lot of people who like to think of themselves as skeptical could also be categorized as contrarian -- they are skeptical of institutions, and if someone is outside an institution, that automatically gives them a certain credibility.
There are three or four logical fallacies in the mix, and if you throw in confirmation bias because what the one side says appeals to your own prior beliefs, it is really, really easy to convince yourself that you're the steely-eyed rationalist perceiving the world correctly while everyone else is deluded by their biases.
This is a pathology that has not really been addressed in the large, anywhere, really. Very few in the applied sciences who understand statistical methodology, "leave their areas" -- and many areas that require it, would disappear if it entered.