Beyond Science

There are many ways people try to divine the "truth" from the world. This will open a can of worms but the scientific method seems to take the cake in the dishing out of accurate facts. What I'm interested in briefly talking about though is what the dichotomy between acceptable methods before science, and then after it's actualisation were, and inevitably how that may reflect on the future. It can be argued that the elements of what would eventually become the scientific method existed prior to their collection and labelling as a whole as science. Apart though, the array of philosophies weren't nearly as effective as they are used in tandem (falsifiability, empiricism, objectivity, etc.). Nobody anticipated the future existence of the scientific method. There wasn't a person saying, "wouldn't it be great if we had science, and this is how it should work". It's creation in itself was a process spanning many years and careers. Now comes the thought experiment. Is science as good a method as we can get? Or could a superior system yet be in the making? Ironically it will probably be science itself that leads us to it. I invite any readers to throw down some ideas in the comment section on ways that you think could improve any piece of the scientific method, or perhaps augment it to improve any of it's aspects. In this case we are all just speculating and no better off than my hypothetical dreamer from earlier on. But I find it fascinating to imagine the possibility of something just as revolutionary as the scientific method was in it's time, happening again in the future, and how it would expand the horizons on the limits of knowledge and what is knowable. This discussion is also in no way meant to knock science in anyway. I have the utmost respect for it and all of the amazing knowledge and advancement it has brought humanity. I realise I haven't added much to the conversation. This is an area I haven't really explored. I'm more looking to incite brainstorming, or even just spark an interesting idea.