Science is the word people use to describe their method of inquiry when they believe it to be beyond reproach, nothing else. You can never let go of your own biases - in fact, if you did, you’d be summarily disarmed, since “your own biases”, i.e., the total of your existing belief set, is all you have to operate with. It is impossible to act without bias, and therefore skepticism of the kind you describe is impossible.
The main problem here is the notion that the evidence can speak for itself - it cannot. Data has no voice and no natural form. Observation is a conscious act of interpretation - the world must pass through a lens of our own construction, and we must make the decision that this-or-that form of observing is useful and meaningful in this-or-that way.
What we’re left with are modes of thought that we feel are useful to a purpose and therefore safe to use without great need for examination. When these modes are particularly refined and involve great skill in their application we term them “science” - but its practitioners are no more free of bias than any other person.
The notion of a scientist as a hard, cold, person bound by objective rules and who has learned to shed biases and pre-conceived notions is incorrect. The fundamental act of creating scientific knowledge is hypothesizing - an act of humid imagination that requires bringing to bear the whole of your mental being and applying it to the world. A mind free of “bias” is null, empty, unable to formulate the least thought, never mind being able to discriminate the good and useful from the gibberish.
