The creativity in science does not come from the verification stage, but from the stage where you figure out how to attack a problem and formulate theories.

Yes but in the end you know if your right or wrong. Could you tell that Edgar Varèse was wrong when he composed atonal music ?

The "end" of science isn't the verification stage either. If you're wrong, you use that to refine your theories and research strategy, using creativity, and continue testing.

You hear artists say things like "This work isn't done yet, something is missing", as if that's some kind of exceptional state for the artist, yet they never actually complete it. Do legitimate scientists say that? I wouldn't think so, since continuous refinement the default state of science.

I didn't use the right expression. I wanted to say that with science, there's an objective way to assess the validity of a method.

So it takes less creativity to advance in an objective field?

I didn't say that. Art and science require a different kind of creativity, and it's irrelevant to compare them.

And I don't think that the only thing needed to be an artist is an "attitude".

I play a bit of music, I suck, but I do play, and I can absolutely tell you I KNOW when it's wrong. Not just out of tune but WRONG. And as the grand parent poster pointed out, the creativity in science isn't in the verification part.

You should listen to some atonal music. It may sound wrong but it's because of our culture (western music is based on scales, atonal music is not).