There is quite a difference between forming a wrong conclusion based on the logical analysis of the evidence and forming a conclusion based on folklore, cognitive bias, and superstition.
Theory-ladenness is not a problem for science because the scientific method is a self-correcting mechanism. All theories are challenged and tested.
If anyone from any background wishes to put forward an alternative theory or thinks they see a flaw in our current theories, then putting those to the test is a part of science, too. Science does not demand that you subscribe to any theoretical perspective.
That's the issue with criticizing science as "biased." It's literally our most effective method for reducing and correcting bias. That's the whole point of science.
What is the qualitative difference between basing a conclusion on logical analysis, and basing it on folklore, when both offer only an approximation of reality? Unless you believe that scientific theories describe reality as it is: But how can this be so? If it were, we would have to conclude that Newtonian theory was true until the beginning of the 20th Century, after which it suddenly became false; and that the Ptolomaic model of astronomy was true until around the 16th century, when it began to be challenged by the Copernican model. The point being that both Ptolomeic astronomy and Newtonian physics were confirmed by observation; the empirical elements of the theories were valid in the light of the evidence then available. The theoretical elements, however, were no more nor less true - in the sense of accurately describing reality - than any mythology the Egyptians or Babylonians might have used to explain the underlying forces that animate the motions of the stars.
Theories are discarded when they no longer serve, sure. But how is this pragmatic approach to understanding the universe, in any way exclusive to the post-enlightenment modern scientist? This process has been ongoing since at least the 6th century BC, when Pythagoras proposed that the earth was a globe. A realisation, incidentally, that sailors had already come to through the simplest observation; go to sea, and the contours of the globe become immediately apparent.
Yes, all theories will be tested until, inevitably, they are found to be inadequate to some purpose, at which point they will modified or discarded. Theories are insights, after all; they are not knowledge of how things are. There is no reason to suspect that the process by which they evolve, adapt, and eventually die, is now completed. History suggests that even theories as successful as Relativity and Quantum Theory will eventually reveal their limitations. In the words of quantum physicist David Bohm, "all theories are insights, which are neither true nor false but, rather, clear in some domains, and unclear when extended beyond those domains."
But I see you are a true believer. Science is the rock on which you have built your church. But even the rock beneath our feet - I'm paraphrasing physicist Carlo Rovelli here - is just a temporary convergence of phenomena, an unfolding event in the river of time. Eventually the ground on which we stand will be swept away by those currents that carry the universe along, the very currents that are equally elusive to science, philosophy, and religion. If we are to understand the world and our place in it - and who knows whether that ambition is realistic or not? - it's a cert we won't do it by relying exclusively on science - however we choose to define science.
Incidentally, wouldn't the whole point of science also include developing new technologies? That seems to be as a true a measure of utility as it is possible to imagine. In which case I ask, was the ploughshare any less revolutionary a technology than the iPhone?
I'm not motivated by any desire to dismiss scientific achievement, understanding or enquiry, btw. What I take issue with, the discussion of which appears to be the theme of this thread, is the dismissal of the wisdom, insight and achievements of ancient cultures; are we supposed to assume that we moderns, and our understanding of the world, are innately superior, wiser, or clearer sighted than those people who first put the oxen to the plough, the cattle to the milk pail, and the wool to the loom? Do we really dismiss as superstitious fools with nothing of any value to teach us, the people who knew, by looking at the stars, when to plant maize, when wheat or beans, and how to navigate the seas? The ancestors who gave us language, and literature, and yes mythology and legend, are worthy of our respect, I think. So too are those few surviving cultures which still have a tenuous link with the wisdom of the ancients.