I love this thread. Thank you for the thoughtful comments, guys.
My input: the scientific method is good to advance science incrementally (or, as Ernest Rutherford once said, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting"). To get a breakthrough that advances science by leaps and bounds, you need something else. (At least to start).
Of course there is. There's just a conspiracy by editors of the world's most prestigious media companies, grammarians, and librarians that prevented "co-conspirators" from being used. :)
My input: the scientific method is good to advance science incrementally (or, as Ernest Rutherford once said, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting"). To get a breakthrough that advances science by leaps and bounds, you need something else. (At least to start).