SM can be interpreted as either prescriptive procedure "supposedly" regulating / guiding scientific practice or (in the case of philosophers studying science) a general descriptive account of what science "supposedly" does. "Supposedly" is applicable from the standpoint of contrarian scientists of the past like Percy Bridgman (physicist) or Peter Medawar (biologist) contending that there either was no opinion to declare about "scientific method" or that such was not in effect (in the sense of a universal template as opposed to specific, contingent instances of work). This particular statement of Bridgman, if taken literally, would essentially be declaring that SM is ineffable, that there can be no verbal account of the "doing": "Scientific method is what working scientists do, not what other people or even they themselves may say about it." (Also undermines itself, since Bridgman is a scientist saying something about SM.) An evaluation of accuracy can pertain to the perception of SM as a descriptive account. But again, "true / false" values usually aren't applicable to invented schemes of rules like basketball or chess (there is not anything existing / active before their introduction which they are representing, explaining, predicting, etc). Thus such assessments do not follow with respect to SM as a prescriptive procedure, set of techniques, etc. One might revise or alter whatever a particular generation, region, scholar or authority has established SM to be on the grounds that the change or outright replacement would improve science. But that simply emphasizes the "duh" in regard to products of intellectual activity which prescribe / regulate a domain or practice (as in being the preconditions for operation or the a priori setup / framework which makes _X_ possible). They're vulnerable to the same territory of processes, reasoning, arguments, criticisms, customs, disagreements, motives, rhetoric, fallacies, controversies, rivalries, approaches to organizing, creativity, etc which generated them in the first place. That's not to say that sometimes there are abstract human artifacts or principles which can be deemed immutable or absolute with regard to a greater system that they reside in, because they are key or vital to the very functioning or survival of the system. But outside of the latter they may be incompatible, less relevant / sacred, or be completely foreign or functionless in the context of those other devised constructs, practices, domains. There may also be concepts which are judged necessary or fundamental in all of the latter (outright universals).