I agree that “frequentists do it wrong so often” is more because science is done by humans than due to any flaw in frequentist techniques. I also share your expectation that increased popularity of Bayesian techniques with more moving parts is likely to lead to more, not less, motivated selective use.
Another important reason is that basic frequentist statistics is quite complicated and non-intuitive for the vast majority of even highly educated and mathematically literate people (engineers for example). Bayesian statistics is dramatically simpler and more intuitive on the basic level.
A practitioner who knows basic Bayesian statistics can easily invent new models and know how to solve them conceptually (though often not practically). A practitioner who knows basic frequentist statistics can not.
Another important reason is that basic frequentist statistics is quite complicated and non-intuitive for the vast majority of even highly educated and mathematically literate people (engineers for example). Bayesian statistics is dramatically simpler and more intuitive on the basic level.
A practitioner who knows basic Bayesian statistics can easily invent new models and know how to solve them conceptually (though often not practically). A practitioner who knows basic frequentist statistics can not.