First of all, there is no such thing as the scientific method.
Have you lived in a cave since your formative years?
The scientific method is very well described and followed. It follows this precise set of steps:
1. Make REAL world observations of particular events or of particular data sets.
2. Postulated hypotheses that may account for the data
3. Make predications with your hypothesis for what should be supported in the data set
4. Make predications about how the hypothesis can be falsified - hint: It's even more important to predict what your hypothesis can't do than what it can - i.e. scientific hypotheses MUST be falsifiable or they are NFG!
5. Look for multi-buttressing REAL WORLD data that supports the hypothesis and check that nothing falsifies it - with point no. 3 in the affirmative and point no. 4 in the negative, move ever more confidently to the more powerful 'theory' instead of 'hypothesis' whilst all the time being prepared to either modify or totally ditch the hypothesis in the light of new evidence.
The 5 point sequence above is THE scientific method and has been for over the past two hundred years plus of science investigation. To say that (quote) "There is no such thing as the scientific method" is to demonstrate that you (somehow) avoided quality science investigative work at school and college level - presumably you did live in a cave of some sort!!
To put a practical example of the scientific method lets apply it to the Theory of Evolution (ToE):
1. The observation is made in the natural world that all the species of plants, animals, fungi etc are arranged in a Linnaean 'family tree'. How does this come about?
2. The hypothesis is that organisms derive from earlier common ancestors by the process of random mutation plus natural selection.
3. Positive predications will be that organisms will share inherited traits, and this will be evident in the fossil record, DNA profiles, population demography - to name a few relevant fields.
4. The clincher - falsifiability - the hypothesis predicts that if organisms evolve from earlier forms then there will be no sudden jumping backwards of later-developed animals into earlier eras - to quote JBS Haldane "No fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.
Also, there will be no 'jumping' of adapted features from lines into other lines that didn't evolve them independently - i.e. the correctly wired cephalopods eyes (with optic connections coming into the back of the retina and not obscuring the photoreceptors) won't suddenly ‘jump’ into late-vertebrate developed eyes which are 'incorrectly' wired and have the optic nerve filaments entering the photoreceptors from the front which obscures and reduces photosensitivity. If either of the two examples above were shown to happen this would immediately blow the hypothesis out of the water!
5. Over the past 150 years and over millions of observations and experiments point no. 3 remains in the affirmative and point no. 4 (falsifiablitlity) has NEVER been demonstrated. Therefore the hypothesis of the ToE moves confidently to the stronger Theory of the ToE.
THIS is the scientific method in action. To say it doesn’t exist is to be utterly ignorant of the way in which science is conducted. You should hang your head in shame - or at least get some basic science books and start reading....
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.