It was supposedly an example of a time science was wrong. I think it's fair to label an assertion that something was wrong an "anti-something" assertion. But no big deal.
Science rarely elevates a theory to a "law" and instead speaks of evidence accruing for or against theories. Ditto for taxonomy whether classifying a planet or a fossil.
The point is that the evidence didn't change, and the question of whether Pluto is a planet or not wasn't a theory. We didn't learn anything new about Pluto that led us to reclassify it--it was purely definitional and entirely up to science how to define "planet." Right or wrong doesn't enter into it.
Scientists argue amongst themselves all the time and we all benefit from it. Ditto for politicians, philosophers, mathematicians, Joe-six-packs, etc.
Scientists calling an argument from a non-scientist (e.g. mathematician, philosopher, theologian, etc.) ipso facto "anti-science" is unseemly in a country founded on freedom of speech.
Besides, if we were to build a tree of inquiry like the tree of life - it would become obvious science branched from philosophy and that mathematics is closer to its philosophical roots.