I think an analogy to alchemy is very apt in this situation. Prior to the scientific revolution alchemy was always practiced in secrecy. Techniques for finding

I think an analogy to alchemy is very apt in this situation. Prior to the scientific revolution alchemy was always practiced in secrecy. Techniques for finding out about the world were guild secrets and hidden away. Many early scientists would almost certainly have been classified as alchemists in their own times. With the advent of the scientific revolution (which in part necessitated a political change) the 'methods' of the alchemists could now be openly discussed and tested in public. How to measure or name something became a matter of open debate and experimentation, and the rest is history. Gathering "intelligence" is no different than making any other measurement about the world, economists do it all the time. Right now intelligence agencies are operating in the alchemist mode, hoarding their methods and hiding them from view to protect themselves, in this case form inquisitions that might be led by various governments if they discovered how poorly vetted and reviewed some of these data collection techniques really were ("How do you know that eating this herb will make me better?" "Well..."). I think the argument made by Steele is spot on in the sense that as our world is now monstrously complex, we MUST subject our data gathering methodology to rigorous and public review or we will flounder. Not only that but if we take the analogy to alchemy seriously then perhaps we will see a revolution not unlike the one witnessed around about the latter half of the 1600s. tl;dr Current intelligence agencies are alchemists and what we need more of is science.