I'd say that Buddhism is or can be pro (in favour of) a scientific attitude. The structure of the four noble truths, for example, are analogous to medical thinking: symptoms, cause, cure, and prescription (or, possibly, analogous to the "scientific method": observations, hypothesis, prediction, and experiment).
Also there are different types of "desire": tanha is unwholesome craving, whereas chanda can be wholesome.
Furthermore Buddhism (more-or-less) encourages the proper functioning of lay society: including right livelihood and so on.
And a contemporary Buddhist leader (the Dalai Lama) says that Buddhism has a lot to offer or to add to science (e.g. here) -- or for example here, "The Science for Monks project is a direct result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s long-term personal interest in science".
I think it's true though that Buddhism doesn't put faith in merely technological development, any more than it says that the mere accumulation of material wealth is the ultimate solution for all life's problems.
Also, I think that "(idle) curiosity" may be endless: meaning, both "without limit" and "without (or with no good) purpose". But Buddhist Dharma is overtly purposeful and, therefore, limited (see for example Simsapa Sutta). I think it expects endeavour should be harmless, beneficial, benevolent: so I expect it opposes some types of "scientific" Research and Development (notably, probably, of weapons for example). Conversely I think there are scientific fields that have more affinity with Buddhism (possibly medicine or ecology).
For the sake of completeness I think that Buddhism (or some Buddhists) can also be dogmatic: the ancient descriptions of (for example) cosmology and pre-history don't co-exist easily with modern "scientific" theories of astronomy, geoscience, and evolution.
Some contemporary Buddhists might discount or excuse such dogma: for example as the unscientific product of its time; or as a corruption introduced into the (perfect) Dharma during subsequent history; or as having a metaphorical or pedagogical purpose which no longer needs to be taken literally.
Other Buddhists might hold that any doctrine that's canonical is therefore important (in spite of the Kalama sutta mentioned in Suminda's answer) and therefore (as you asked) be "against" modern science and "scientific attitude".
There are also some practices in Buddhist cultures and countries, which might be seen as "superstitious" rather than "scientific". But there are also Buddhists who would view these practices as "superstition" and (therefore) not "true Buddhism".
There are many suttas in which the Buddha seems to use and to encourage the use of "scientific attitude", as opposed to the superstitions of his time.
People sometimes contrast Buddhism with Religions, which say "This is true because the prophet (or 'the holy book' or 'our tradition') says so" -- whereas I think that Buddhism's attitude is more like "This is true because it stands to reason, is observable."
One more comment -- I see people try to reconcile, compare, and/or compete Buddhism with science: for example, sometimes, saying that the Buddha taught about Atomic Theory well before "atoms" were discovered by modern experiment; or conversely, saying that science's discovery, that seemingly-solid matter is mostly empty space, is comparable to Buddhist doctrines on emptiness (sunyata).
I see them (science and Buddhism) as separate (independent) fields of endeavour and doctrine.
Within science, there's a conventional way to classify the fields of science into layers, e.g. illustrated here:
Each less "pure" discipline is arguably more complex, less simple, and is based on emergent properties of the field below (or to the right of) it.
I'd place Buddhism well to the left of that scale: highly complex, describing properties of complex phenomena (e.g. human beings). It's a study of things like:
- subjective experience (suffering and non-suffering)
- afflictive and affective obstacles (kilesa)
- beneficial or practical qualities (bodhipakkhiyā dhammā)
- ethics (sila)
- social interaction (brahmaviharas)
- mahayana ideals and aspirations
Buddhism is a bit ruthless about what it considers on-topic and not. For example people ask, "Is there a Self?" and I think that Buddha's answer is that it's better not to think about that, that there's no view or doctrine about Self which would lead to the goal (of non-suffering).
There's an expression "not even wrong" which is used to describe what seem to be muddled statements about physics. I like Wikipedia's description of it:
The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German.
I especially like the phrase, "Pauli remarked sadly".
In my opinion, Buddhism might describe science in general as neither "right" not "wrong" but as "not even wrong" -- because science more-or-less fails to make useful statements about topics which Buddhism considers important, for example "ethics" or "liberation from suffering" or anything like that.
I think that Saptha's answer and comments are that even when science has pleasant practical applications and consequences, these (and the pursuit of these) don't help to "unbind" people (i.e. to unbind from the "wheel of life").