Anthropologists and "science": dark side epistemology?

I don't think it counts as dark side epistemology. As one of the anthropologists opposing the change was quoted in the Psychology Today article as saying, it's more a matter of cultural anthropology coming to see itself as a kind of esoteric journalism than a rejection of empirical data as such. It's also part of an ongoing intradisciplinary conflict between cultural anthropology and the other three fields of anthropology: archaeology, biological anthropology, and linguistics. The Chronicle of Higher Education article is a little clearer and less polemical than the PT blog cited, though the author has his own credibility problems.

It's entirely possible that the end result will be the Society for Anthropological Sciences seceding, and the AAA won't be the professional association for anthropologists anymore. It's already the case that archaeologists and biological anthropologists rarely attend the AAA annual meetings.

To be fair, "science" is one of the most abused words in all of science.

Taboo "science" and "rationality"! Replace the symbols with the substance!

(Uttered as mindless slogans, to set the atmosphere.)

Since there are already factions identified as scientific and not, I don't think faction not identified with the word feels guilty about the lack of identification, which is what I think you're saying. I think this is just snubbing their opponents' label. (cf jfm)

Many groups take up the word "science" as a PR move. I suspect that it is sometimes (in particular in anthropology) also a bit of "dark side epistemology" or at least to help them act more indignant. (cf Jayson)

Well, at least they're being honest about it.