I ... have a poli sci degree, have done 'political science'.

I mock, or critique the field... from within it.

If it is to be an actual science... it needs to be more empirical, more falseifiable, needs to be amenable to self-correction, by weeding out the bullshit and replacing it with / re-orienting around... actual empiricism, disprovable concepts.

Part of the problem is as you say, that people mock things they disgree with or do not understand, and then look to even more dubious sources of 'knowledge' to inform themselves, who are often simply more charismatic or confident sounding.

... but a large part of why that happens, is that a lot of the methods that people who call themselves 'scientists' use... are not very scientific, and thus become little better than elitist dogmas that require a college degree to be initiated into.

Go look at how many ideological 'thought leaders', ideological talking heads for absurd poltical ideologies... have political science degrees, and use those to signal reasoned and educated authority behind their often dubious opinions, which they often present as simply fact.

I mock or critique the field broadly, because this is a broad and widespread problem.

Or, you can argue the entire term 'Political Science' is a misnomer.

One generally first achieves an Arts degree, not a Science degree, in 'Political Science'... because there is generally little emphasis on math or the mechanics of empiricism.

I do very much think that the humanities are incredibly important fields of study.. but maybe we should not have a situation where we call people with most often Arts degrees 'Scientists'.