What you're saying is fine and true, but I think you've missed the point of Ted's article. Most of the end goals of scientific research are humanist; for example, in biomedical science, the major end goal is to cure human disease (I'm sure that some physicists will disagree with this claim, but if they like getting public funding for their research, they at the very least are good at convincing others that they have humanist end goals). When a field of study is complex enough, a scientist must develop a way to prioritize what to study. In biomedical science, this often means that scientists choose particular areas of focus based around the area's likelihood of being implicated in disease. Choosing the right area of study is not inherently scientific, but will nonetheless have a huge impact on how others view a scientist's skill. Likewise, understanding the anthropological sub-context of another scientist's work provides an advantage in understanding the impact of that work.
This is what I think Ted meant when he claimed that science is anthropological at the margins. While what we publish in journals is definitely science, the path to get to the bottom line takes something more, and being able to understand what that was in other people's work and use it in your own ultimately makes you a better scientist. The difference between us and pseudoscientists such as Creationists is that our results are predictable, repeatable, and understood mechanistically once we are done, but this does not mean that there isn't an anthropological nature to what we do.
This is what I think Ted meant when he claimed that science is anthropological at the margins. While what we publish in journals is definitely science, the path to get to the bottom line takes something more, and being able to understand what that was in other people's work and use it in your own ultimately makes you a better scientist. The difference between us and pseudoscientists such as Creationists is that our results are predictable, repeatable, and understood mechanistically once we are done, but this does not mean that there isn't an anthropological nature to what we do.