I don't champion science above philosophy. I've said a few times that my philosophical position is empiricism, it happens to be the case that science itself is empirical and for very good reasons. Biggest one being that there have been thousands of logically coherent theories throughout history, most religions are consistent with the observable facts, or can be hammered into some semblence of reality. Aristotle's physics is compatible with all the facts available to him, the Ptolemaic universe it inspired is perfectly consistent with what can be seen with the naked eye. The transmutation of elements wasn't proved wrong until Lavoissier in the 18th century. It wasn't until Pasteur in the 19th century that the theory of spontaneous generation was debunked. Phlogiston is a plausible hypothesis, so too luminiferous aether, phrenology, psychoanalysis even astrology, the list goes on and on. The human mind is a marvelous generator of explanations for the things it sees happening, always has been, always will. Some of the stories are brilliant and beautiful, others are heroic lunacy, some just utter bollocks. The only things we know for certain is what is wrong, another quote I should attribute to Richard Feynman. We do not know the truth, we never will, because it will always be possible for some bright spark to suggest an alternative. The worst thing that people can do is insist that they are right, on a harmless forum it's quite funny watching people who have no idea what they are talking about ranting about some fruitloopery of theirs, but when popes and ayatollahs start telling people how to behave on the basis of some yarn, it can get serious.
Of course many facts and many theories and sides of the stories have been brought up in the many centuries since knowledge and humanity has been around; however, despite the diversifying and variations that have spawned in science and philosophy (as well as politics, history, economic, and so on), these seemingly divergent philosophies all describe and still seek or propound on the subject of Truth, as in the true nature of reality. Despite the alternatives, Truth will always be there, at least covertly, even though they may be welded with opinion and/or falsehood.
It is self-constricting and erroneous to say that no one will ever know the Truth. I believe that the reason why humanity has never known the entire truth is because they never have thought to actually think and contemplate on what Truth is, for it is much simpler than what people have thought, no matter the diversification and divergences of inquiries to knowledge about things. I'm not here to impose on others what I
think of Truth; I'm just bringing an alternative to the postmodernist view that there can never be Truth, which that itself can be used in a dogmatic way, and has been used in a dogmatic way by academia.
Scientists as a breed are no better at metaphysics than anyone else, but they do have access to the best information about how the world actually behaves. They will argue amongst themselves, put out any number of hypotheses about was is causing the phenomena, but you can be quite sure that if scientists say such and such happens when you do x,y or z, other scientists will check that. Their explanation may be different, but the phenomenon is real, or it will eventually be disproved.
They may have the title as scientists, but that does not mean that they are the "end all be all" authorities on what Science is. Even the laypeople can figure out what goes on in the universe; they can buy books, they can experiment using whatever equipment that they can get, and they can think for themselves as well.
It is poor philosophy to nail your colours to any particular mast, it is the root of conservatism and to my mind, a sign of mental weakness. Our understanding of the world develops, takes some wrong turns occasionally, but overall science is doing a pretty good job. To stifle it with absolutes is a dangerous idea.
How is it mental weakness to put modern science under scrutiny, and to suggest that we bring a more holistic view of things? If anything, it can solve the problems and misconceptions of what science is and is supposed to be, as well as quite possibly articulate what Truth is.