Yazata I agree with you about the so-called scientific method. We were never really taught this, or not under that name. We WERE taught to record our observations in a methodical fashion in practical work. And by implication we were invited to think what theory could account for our observations. But that is about it. Like you, I suspect, I cringe when I see "The Scientific Method" capitalised, as if to imply that the way scientists approach a problem is somehow via a special reasoning technique. There is, it seems to me, a basic reasoning process in science involving a feedback loop between observation and hypothesis, but I don't think there is any rule or guide as to which comes first or how one leads to the other. I think it is also worth noting that creativity is important in the process. Hypotheses can spring from wild leaps of the imagination, or even dreams (for example, Kekulé's idea for the benzene ring). And there is a general principle of scepticism, that is to say reliance on repeatable evidence in order to get a measure of objectivity. And there is an inbuilt limitation to seeking natural causes, rather than supernatural ones. Really I think that is all there is to it.