The government of scientific thinking by a "precise set of rules" is a chimera, and is itself the result of poor scientific thinking. For if one reviews a history of the great achievements in science, it's easy to see that passion and imagination, as well as illusion and error, were important elements of the process just as much as reason and logic.
I agree completely, except at that point it is not science. The brilliant idea must first pass through the gauntlet of uninspired others, who methodically reproduce the innovation and discovery by a strict set of rules. The idea must have a logical progression and a proof. And they, the uninspired others, are what makes it science, not the genius who gets all the credit.
I might add that this also showcases a different theory of knowledge, based in creativity and inspiration, which produces the irreproducible result. It is just as valid as science for its purposes, and encompasses an even larger field of *study*, not science. Social studies, for example, can be very reputable and objective, but they are not sciences.