That sounds like a call for science to become something more like poetry. So why continue to call it 'science'? Science has to conform to observation and to experimental evidence, simply by its nature. Up until the 19'th century, science was largely conducted by amateurs. University programs in the sciences didn't exist. I think that scientific amateurism worked at that time, in part because science was simpler then and easier to learn. I guess that amateurs are still making important contributions in some areas of science. Amateur astronomers and naturalists do good work. There are lots of amateur geologists around. The problem today is that subjects like particle physics or genomics have become so incredibly complex that only a handful of specialists are fully up to speed on cutting-edge developments. It's increasingly difficult for amateurs to acquire the background necessary to make their own contributions, without years of post-graduate study. So to some extent science is evolving into kind of a priesthood, whose authority the general public is supposed to trust largely on faith. Of course that faith is buttressed by the magic that scientists can perform (advances in medicine and engineering). I think that this growing disconnect between the people and science might become a significant problem in years to come.