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.
The genius who gets the credit partakes as well in illusion and error. It remains to posterity to conveniently overlook these and to remold his achievements so that they form a suitable basis for modern dogma.
Case in point: Lavoisier. He himself stressed the principle of logical progression. In his preface to the ELEMENTS, he laments that "Imagination" can lead us into "deceiving ourselves" and notes that as a consequence, "... in the science of physics in general, man have often made suppostions instead of forming conclusions." He resolves to do better, stating, "We must trust to nothing but facts : These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot decieve."
Au contraire, mon frere! He goes on to advance several errors as fact: That acids contain a universal "acidic substance" and that heat is a substance.
Recognition of these sorts of imperfections only make his achievements all the more impressive, just as in the case of Galileo, who drew many wrong conclusions.