>
> No you didn't. I was comparing directly. After all, what are we after,
> here? What system do we propose to get at (or near) truth faster and
> better than science? Metaphor?
Why does there have to be a specific system or method? All you're doing is transferring absolutist expectations from figures of authority to authoritative processes. But the need for authority and absolute certitude remains.
I would argue that science does not proceed by a specific system or method. Yes, I know, I know that there's the sacrosanct scientific method: hypothesis, experiment, data, correlation, peer review, corroboration; wash, rinse, repeat. But the only reason why this feels "authoritative" is because it corresponds to the assembly line, which is our mythic figure for hard-nosed progress.
But to argue that it is by following this method that discoveries and progress are made in science is to simply ignore the actual history of science. Science also proceeds by curiosity, intuition, imagination, dreams, etc. The scientific method is the currently acceptable white wash for all that, but the other aspect of invention, discovery, and working through exists nevertheless and without it, there would be no science.
Joanna