Your stated intent was Therefore you have cast some unspecified culprits as being rigid and dogmatic. The word "adherence" casts this as an anti-science claim. It's incorrect. What you want to be posting on a science site is your fear and loathing of the enemies of science so we can all express our solidarity with you rather than to take you to the carpet for conspiring with them. You haven't expounded on what appears to be a grudge about things "written in stone" but many a paleontologist and geologist, among others, will take you to task over that phrase. Again that's cast as a couched aspersion. You're presupposing that (whoever the suspects are) are people who are not already immaculately rigorous and therefore innocent of whatever you're charging them with. Credence is a fairly general and vague notion. For the most part, just about anything that passes muster in order to get published in a credentialed journal is assumed true until proven false. More interesting are the results that are repeatedly corroborated in similar studies. It's right about that time that this "rigidity" you're afraid of begins to set in. The rule is this: you can't reverse progress. It's an extremely rigid one, but certainly not harmful to the discovery of truth. So be careful what you're attacking. You don't want to cut your own nose off just to spite your face. You're entitled to your beliefs, but that doesn't change the world around you. People will still use the term "scientific method" without consideration for any anti-science "dogma" and "un-rigorous" "methods". First you must remove the splinters of cynicism from your own eye, so that you may see, to remove the stones of experience from mine.