You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
To rephrase this, what you're really asking is, "is science special? does it actually get objective knowledge (unlike everything else in the human world)?" which is a related but somewhat different question.
And a question that there are many different philosophical and historical takes on (there is no single consensus view in the communities that study this specific question seriously).
Personally, I think there is a big difference between saying "science gets us to objective truth," and saying "science is the most reliable method we have for generating knowledge about the natural world."
The first position is not compatible with a subtle idea of the interconnections between science and the rest of human activity. The second however is very compatible, and does not denigrate scientific knowledge much (it keeps it as a form of human knowledge, but a reliable one).
For what it is worth, I think the second position is much more compatible with the study of the history of science than the first position: it allows more room for error, improvement, and evolution, without reducing the possibility of science being a means to reliable knowledge.
Which is why I say that most of these things are not "really" postmodern in the way people tend to read them. There are perfectly respectable epistemic positions that do not require science to be "pure" to be useful and "true" in a qualified sense ("it fits our evidence so far").
As for whether this approach is more actionable — I actually believe it is, and I say this as someone who is something of a science communicator and is, indeed, trying to engage in real world issues. But that's a longer Tweet-storm than I suspect anyone wants to read. 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
