As to whether or not scientists be subject to ridicule, I dont think that would be helpful to anyone, why do you suggest that? And why is it matter that you either have superstition or ridiculous science? That sounds like the choice of no choice really.
I think that science does indeed comprise methodology but it also involves a philosophy, ie that things can be knowable in the first place, that there is something to know, that there is a reason to know, that there is objective truth and it is knowable and then a lot of myriad things which follow from all that as first principles.
Maybe that is human nature and maybe it isnt, there is an argument to be made that a lot of cognition and consciousness is compensatory, ie that drives being obstructed or channelled differently by external events, ie war, famine, contest, defeat, victory etc. resulted the growth of cultural explanation, story telling and narrative. If everyone had been able to live without any challenges compelling growth then we would still be idyllic herd animals of a lesser nature than we are today, its one other literary or not literal interpretation of the Genesis story as leaving this paradisical early state, perhaps a "fool's paradise" but a paradise all the same.