I’m not sure I understand your thesis. Are you claiming that the scientific method is unique, that science is unique, that Blachowicz’s descriptions of Kepler’s and Galileo’s works are incomplete, or that poetry is not a science? (The latter addresses an assertion Blachowicz never seems to make.)

As for methodology, you seem to be saying that the scientific method is unique because it is revisionist: old paradigms are tested and replaced by new paradigms that do a better job. Blachowicz seems to say that the scientific method is not unique because several endeavors are revisionist: old paradigms are tested and replaced by new paradigms that do a better job.

So what’s the difference?

The way I see it, *science* is unique because it applies this revisionist methodology to a (typically) quantitative description of the natural world around us, where better paradigms/theories lead to more accurate predictions. These other endeavors, while employing similar methods, simply have different goals, and are thus not science.