I think the way the scientific method is generally presented does not really accurately represent how science is really done. It's true that there are many sci

I think the way the scientific method is generally presented does not really accurately represent how science is really done. It's true that there are many scientists who more or less follow the scientific method to the letter. But I think it's more common that scientists individually don't follow the scientific method terribly closely. It's only scientists collectively that follow the scientific method. One scientist might come up with a hypothesis, never test it, but nevertheless believe it devoutly. But science progresses because other scientists are sceptical and test the hypothesis. It's in the first scientist's self-interest that the hypothesis is proven true, but it's generally more in other scientists' self-interest to prove the hypothesis false. Some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century closed their eyes to overwhelming evidence that their pet hypothesis was wrong. One of the classic examples was Geoffrey Burbidge (known best for showing that the heavy elements were created in stars and released into the universe in supernovae) who believed until the day he died that quasars were galactic objects.