Certainly. It's been well known at least since Kuhn[1] that the scientific method is an idealization, not what scientists actually do. The paper cites that 75%

Certainly. It's been well known at least since Kuhn[1] that the scientific method is an idealization, not what scientists actually do. The paper cites that 75% of studies did qualify as "scientific method", but that's a byproduct of the paper-writing process. You're expected to present your science as if you did it that way, but it almost never actually does. When your first gels came out all wonky, you didn't declare that you'd disproven electrophoresis. You assumed you did it wrong, and you didn't even mention it in the paper. The scientific method is a fig leaf, used to try to work around the Demarcation Problem. We prefer that to Epistemological Anarchy, which is philosophically better grounded but utterly unworkable in practice. It's good to have an understanding of that, and to gradually improve it. But we're going to keep teaching the "scientific method" to high schoolers, just as we continue to teach them Newtonian gravity, and I don't expect that to ever change. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...