You're leaping from those two words[1] to a conspiracy around something you're calling "The Science(TM)"... Again, this seems like a very readable and worthwhile article to me. Explainer articles are Vox's specialty, and this frankly seems like a pretty good one. It's good you were paying attention four decades ago, not everyone was, and it's good that someone is trying to detail this for the people who weren't.
[1] Which can easily be interpreted as "surprising to the reader", which seems not at all controversial to me.
[1] Which can easily be interpreted as "surprising to the reader", which seems not at all controversial to me.