I would like to point out that scientists are considered brilliant successful and important in ways that are not comparable for thinkers outside the realm of science.
No one doubts that Einstein, Richard Feynman, Dirac or Albert Sabin were brilliant men who made important contributions to society. I can make a list of dozens of scientists who fit that category.
It would be impossible to create a list of even 5 thnkers outside of the sciences who made comparable contributions to knowledge. We all know of Freud and many people know of Max Weber. The list gets very difficult after that point.
Part of the fact is that we have Nobel prizes in the sciences. But that is not the reason we know the names of the great scientists going back centuries while the non-science categories tend to be empty.
I think the reason maybe that science has been built on a public image that science is testable and based on predictions. The public doesn't know the term 'falsifiable'. While this view of science is a myth (think global warming) it is widespread and suggests levels of concreteness to scientific theory that are not warranted. Science may also get the benefit of our genuinely successful technology.
The more important point is that there is often a recognition of scientific contributions even though the contributions are not understood as in the case of Feynman or Dirac.
This is of note to me because I have made contributions to the future society that can be seen in my 15 original ideas but there is no earthly way I can be recognized now for the unique contribution of these ideas.
Even the creation of the world's first global currency will not warrant appreciation because few people conceive of how such an invention can even work... but it does.
There may be other reasons why science is more able to throw up prominent figures. Certainly the fact that many of the people in science are required to know math, which is held in awe by many people, may also contribute to the respect that scientists get.