I think a better way to state this is: If you're not going where the evidence leads then you are not a scientist. Too often we're using the wrong words, and that further complicates an always complex process (i.e., human communication). Other words that are also often misused are: leader and journalist.
But this isn't how science works. A 'scientist' who ignores evidence because they don't want something to be true isn't a good scientist, and doesn't act at all like a real life one would. If clear evidence for Bigfoot or Nessie or whatever else was found, it'd become a normal part of science. If we suddenly saw religious style miracles occur in plain sight with no other possible explanation, the idea of a miracle would become a scientific concept that we'd try and study. And in the worlds of say, the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars or Ghostbusters or the Legend of Zelda or whatever other franchise with things that don't exist in real life, those elements would be scientific in their universes too, with their scientists and academics studying them and their literature treating them like everyday things.
But yeah, despite certain fiction tropes and complaints from certain corners, science is about what the evidence says, not about some hard nosed disdain for anything not seen as 'logical'.