Well, you're assuming that behaviour can't proceed from conflicting motives. Often, we consciously picture ourselves as aiming to achieve a certain goal, but unconsciously we're driven to achieve a different end. We must "psyche ourselves up" to overcome our instincts and our gut desires and limitations. Our conscious self-image is self-serving. We save face by blocking out uncomfortable truths. This is why it would be foolish to take everything we say at face value, as though the mind and the brain weren't complex and often self-conflicted (due to their modularity, etc).

Clearly, scientists aren't explicitly cosmicists who recognize that objectification entails zombification. But philosophy is supposed to bring deeper truths to light, including ones that hide in plain sight. Evidently, the industries and institutions of science and technology couldn't proceed without a favourable image of "modernity." We deceive ourselves just to get out of bed in the morning, let alone to maintain our practices that are threatening the biosphere.

Possibly, my interpretation here is mistaken since it's speculative, like much of philosophy. But the fact that scientists tell a more politically correct story about nature and about scientific procedures doesn't carry much weight. On the contrary, what you've said here is consistent with what I'm saying. It's just a familiar question of false collective consciousness.