What do you believe that 'the scientific method' is? How would you describe it? My own experience (I'm a twister, schemer and ranter, so take it for what it's worth) is that the phrase usually refers to some vaguely described version of hypothico-deductivism: Generate a hypothesis, then test it. The thing is, a lot of scientific work doesn't fit very easily into that model. There are expeditions that survey and catalog the species living in a particular habitat. There's the current search for extra-solar planets. There's geological surveys. There's the Mars rovers, looking around and sampling things, There's the creation and application of taxonomic schemes in order to classify all the new data. Even if we choose to only consider cases that do fit more comfortably into the hypothetico-deductive hypothesis-testing scheme, we still haven't said anything about where scientific hypotheses come from in the first place. We still haven't considered the myriad of ways that hypotheses might be tested. We haven't given thought to the logical problems that arise, such as the problem of induction. In other words, the H-D scheme doesn't seem to even address most of what it is that scientists spend their time doing. Nor does it provide a clear demarcation between what is and isn't science. I assume that I have clean socks in my drawer. (My hypothesis.) I'm not sure, so I open the drawer and look. Yep, there's the socks. (My test.) If we loosten the H-D model to the point it can embrace all of the hypothesis generation and testing methods that scientists really employ in their work, then it doesn't look a whole lot different from and doesn't appear to be discontinuous with non-scientific common-sense.