I disagree. I think the process you describe -- where the source of hypothesis or the mode of their generation, whether for instance prosaic or inspirational, doesn't really matter; and what does matter is how they pan out under examination, application and testing -- IS exactly scientific. That it is describes how science actually works.
(Note that I'm not saying something silly like one will be as successful in forming hypotheses by casting the I-Ching as by ruminations based in sound craft knowledge and broad familiarity with applicable data. Nor am I denying that there is obviously a filtering process whereby scientists use insight and instinct to decide which hypothesis are worth pursuing. I'm just saying that the origin of hypothesis is logically irrelevant to their validity.)
"Note that I'm not saying something silly like one will be as successful in forming hypotheses by casting the I-Ching as by ruminations based in sound craft knowledge and broad familiarity with applicable data. Nor am I denying that there is obviously a filtering process whereby scientists use insight and instinct to decide which hypothesis are worth pursuing. I'm just saying that the origin of hypothesis is logically irrelevant to their validity.)"
Well now, there's the rub... one man's "filtering process" becomes another man's personal biases...thus carrying the arguments concerning inspirational cognitive epistomology out of the realm of science and into the realm of speculative philosophy...
Psssst...danger! Here be dragons!