Thanks for taking the time to respond!
For one — science is a highly creative enterprise — so the comparison to design thinking is completely warranted.
I think what you’re taking issue with is that, perhaps, I didn’t distinguish between the scientific method and the enterprise of science itself.
As you rightly stated when referencing peer review and repetition, science is far more than just a method of enquiry. Its social nature is necessary for its success and this shouldn’t be understated.
In this piece, I was trying to bring attention to why design thinking is such a successful process. The reason for it is because of the reasons you just listed: it’s empirical, it comes up with falsifiable statements to be tested, and it’s iterative.
I’d be hesitant to say that the rules of science are written in Popper’s and Kuhn’s work. While they both undoubtedly made substantial contributions to the philosophy of science, our understanding and conception of science is without a doubt still evolving. The fact that we don’t have a legitimate definition of pseudoscience (in the philosophy of science, that it) is evidence enough of that (see: the demarcation problem).
To be so steadfast in one’s beliefs — even something as successful as the enterprise of science — is rather unscientific.