All of that can be true, Theland, but as a rule scientists are more likely to be aware of these considerations than others. And flaws in the approach of a single scientist are likely to be exposed by another one.
If you are attacking the mentality of the crowd, though, there should be some better justification of it than merely an oblique reference to worldview. After all, the motivation is and remains the same as your own, namely the pursuit of truth and the attempt to further understand our Universe and how it works. Scientists individually and perhaps collectively are subject to the same subjective flaws as any other human or community, but the key difference is that the methods they have established are designed explicitly to tackle these flaws. The reproducibility criterion makes it clear, for example, that every experiment and the data it produces is only worth something if somebody else can do it and obtain the same data (to within expected experimental errors); or that the results of a given calculation were obtained because that is where the maths led the scientists, and not where the scientists led the maths.
The reason you can trust expert scientists, in the end, is not because they are *right*, but because they are open about how and why they are wrong.