Just pointing out that you are not contradicting the scientific method or in any conflict. In fact, the way you arrived at divide and conquer is though the sci

Just pointing out that you are not contradicting the scientific method or in any conflict. In fact, the way you arrived at divide and conquer is though the scientific method. Tried and tested, it was better. The point is, the scientific method is just a tool. Where it is used is significant, as is preparing for it's use. Arriving at "divide and conquer" --> You want to apply the scientific method at the highest abstraction level possible first. You want to be as meta as possible, then work your way down. Dividing --> You're essentially preparing the code for easier consumption and by minimizing the problem surface first. Then when a problem is found, we are still guessing and testing. Except, most of the time the problem is so obvious it doesn't feel like guessing. Or it isn't. The mistake was already part of a known theory. Maybe it was of type "typo".