Of course the practice of science is a social activity, but collective humanity confronts nature, which is outside of man, as a singular subject. To be bewitched by the interactions between men in their deliberations is to miss out the big picture, man-as-such has a relationship to nature, which is mediated through social relations. Intriguingly the social constructionist view is the solipsistic one, that cannot see past the jealous competition of individuals, while the empiricist-inductive one (against the usual characterisation) takes the collective social subject, mankind, for granted.
The relationship *between* man and nature is modern industry. Within that relationship, there is social conflict, which of course gives rise to ideological characterisations of natural laws. But when we use the word ideological, we plainly appeal to an objective truth beyond ideology, or the definition has no meaning.
That, I think, is what Marx meant when he said all science assumes that the appearance diverges from their essence.