If you mean Hume's skepticism toward causation, then all I can say is that, as with all things Hume, he is highly overrated. The presuppositions that his arguments rest on aren't even accepted by most people who, to steal from Stroud, bow reverentially at his feet. For instance, most who pay homage to Hume do not accept his severe restrictions vis-a-vis causality in the realm of perception. But it is precisely this crude imagist theory of perception that Hume grounds his arguments against the knowledge of causation in.

(Which is not to dismiss your point about their being a kind of savagery and philosophical philistinism among scientists. This was certainly Feyerabend's view.)