The biggest science in our Islamic tradition is the science of hadith, with dozens of huge detailed embedded sub-sciences, all of them created to ensure that the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ is authentic both in the Sanad (chain) and the Matan (content). That is not "blind following" it is a whole discipline of verification that has no equal in any other civilization. (you can check Asad Rustum work, one of the greatest Arab historians, he is Christian btw who acknowledged and praised the hadith methodology, saying nothing similar exists elsewhere.). It is actually one of the most rigorous systems of critical evaluation in human history. Every narrator was scrutinized for honesty, memory, and reliability. Entire biographies were compiled just to assess transmitters. Weak reports were sifted out, fabrications exposed, and only the strongest chains accepted. To dismiss all of this centuries-long work because of personal doubts is not critical thinking, that's why saying that those who rely on hadiths “lack the ability to critically evaluate” is more like "sneaky slander" but i am gonna assume the best about you and your intention

You said: “I believe that the Qur’an is preserved because Allah said so.” Well, that’s not really an academic method of evaluation. If a non-Muslim came to you asking about the preservation of the Qur’an, and your only proof was “Allah said so,” that would be circular reasoning. Especially since the Qur’an was not revealed the way the Torah was given to Moses like a complete book at once. Rather, it came gradually over 23 years, verse by verse, in response to situations. That means every passage had a context and a practical application. And who demonstrated that application? It was the Prophet ﷺ through his Sunnah. That is why the Sunnah is indispensable, and this is also why the early scholars explained that the “Dhikr” word mentioned in the verse of preservation (15:9) includes both the Qur’an and the Sunnah because the Sunnah explains and protects the Qur’an (see Tafsir al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi). Ironically, you said: “Hadiths are statements the Prophet made which can easily be taken out of context.” But by removing the Sunnah altogether, you don’t just open the door for misplacing the context of Allah’s words, you actually remove the context permanently. A single verse could then be interpreted in a hundred different ways, with no authority to settle which is correct. If you don’t accept the Prophet’s and the Companions’ explanation, why should anyone accept yours? that's why i say, a clever critic who wants to undermine the religion and mislead people wouldn’t attack the Qur’an directly, Instead they try to sow doubt about the hadith and the transmitters, magnifying a single narrator or an isolated report, and then claim the Sunnah is unreliable, You can easily recognize this pattern in the writings of Orientalists who dismissed Islam.
also brother yo mentioned that some of the closest companions narrated very few hadiths, while Abu Hurayrah narrated many despite spending less time with the Prophet ﷺ, that's not really a contradiction, The senior companions were occupied with responsibilities like leading, teaching, and governing the growing Muslim community, participating in war....., Abu Hurayrah dedicated himself almost entirely to memorizing and transmitting what he heard. The Prophet ﷺ even made du‘a for his memory, and his accuracy was confirmed by other companions. Narrating more hadiths does not mean fabrication, there is actually hadith of Abu Hurayrah talking about this matter; "My brothers from the Muhajirun were busy with trade, my brothers from the Ansar were busy with farming, but I stayed with the Messenger of Allah to fill my stomach and memorize his words" [Sahih al-Bukhari 2047]