What do you mean no scientific method?
I'll repeat:
“Around the middle of the 20th century, the Scientific Method was offered as a template for teachers to emulate for the activity of scientists (National Society for the Study of Education, 1947). It was composed of anywhere from five to seven steps (e.g., making observations, defining the problem, constructing hypotheses, experimenting, compiling results, drawing conclusions). Despite criticism beginning as early as the 1960s, this oversimplified view of science has proven disconcertingly durable and continues to be used in classroom today”
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41(5), 481-512.
“One of the most widely held misconceptions about science is the existence of the scientific method. The modern origins of this misconception may be traced to Francis Bacon’s
Novum Organum (1620/1996), in which the inductive method was propounded to guarantee ‘‘certain’’ knowledge. Since the 17th century, inductivism and
several other epistemological stances that aimed to achieve the same end (although in those latter stances the criterion of certainty was either replaced with notions of high probability or abandoned altogether)
have been debunked, such as Bayesianism,
falsificationism, and hypothetico-deductivism (Gillies, 1993).
Nonetheless, some of those stances, especially inductivism and falsificationism, are still widely popularized in science textbooks and even explicitly taught in classrooms. The myth of the scientific method is regularly manifested in the belief that there is a recipelike stepwise procedure that all scientists follow when they do science. This notion was explicitly debunked: There is no single scientific method that would guarantee the development of infallible knowledge (AAAS, 1993; Bauer, 1994; Feyerabend, 1993; NRC, 1996; Shapin, 1996).” (emphases added)
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ nature of science
. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
"The model of ‘scientific method’ that probably reflects many people’s understanding is one of scientific knowledge being ‘proved’ through experiments...That is, the ‘experimental method’ offers a way of uncovering true knowledge of the world, providing that we plan our experiments logically, and carefully collect sufficient data. In this way, our rational faculty is applied to empirical evidence to prove (or otherwise) scientific hypotheses.
This is a gross simplification, and misrepresentation, of how science actually occurs, but unfortunately it has probably been encouraged by the impoverished image of the nature of science commonly reflected in school science." (emphasis added)
Taber, K. S. (2009).
Progressing Science Education: Constructing the Scientific Research Programme into the Contingent Nature of Learning Science (
Science & Technology Education Library Vol. 37). Springer.
"a focus on practices (in the plural
) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science—a single “scientific method”—or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science. In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods" (emphasis added)
Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012).
A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. National Research Council’s Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
There is no scientific method in the set that there is no linear sequence, no set of steps, and no procedure that accurately describes even a simplistic model of scientific inquiry. The Scientific Method as such is a myth:
“Myth of 'The Scientific Method’
This myth is often manifested in the belief that there is a recipe-like stepwise procedure that typifies all scientific practice. This notion is erroneous: there is no single ‘‘Scientific Method’’ that would guarantee the development of infallible knowledge. Scientists do observe, compare, measure, test, speculate, hypothesize, debate, create ideas and conceptual tools, and construct theories and explanations. However, there is no single sequence of (practical, conceptual, or logical) activities that will unerringly lead them to valid claims, let alone ‘‘certain’’ knowledge”
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
45(7), 835-855.
“A key myth...is a belief in a universal scientific method. As with many myths, those who hold to it are startled when they discover its inaccuracy; those who know it is a myth are surprised by its persistence in textbooks, curricula, and lesson plans. I've seen teachers become visibly shaken when they learn the scientific method is a myth. I've also heard aspirants to a teacher education program say they studied the scientific method in preparation for their application interviews. Somehow the myth of the scientific method lives on and not only within the realm of the science classroom. The persisting mythology of a scientific method is viewed as a problem within educational research (Rowbottom & Aiston, 2006) as well as for those who teach science.”
Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry.
Journal of Science Teacher Education,
18(4), 461-467.
What's amazing is that the criticisms of this presentation of a single method of "steps" (e.g., formulate hypothesis, develop a way to test it, try to prove it wrong, if confirmed it becomes "theory") are almost as old as the notion itself:
“Nothing could be more stultifying, and, perhaps more important, nothing is further from the procedure of the scientist “than a rigorous tabular progression through the supposed ‘steps’ of the scientific method, with perhaps the further requirement that the student not only memorize but follow this sequence in his attempt to understand natural phenomena"
Harvard Committee. (1945).
General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
If you don't defend strange ideas.. we just ignore
I've already cited many dozen sources (actually hundreds in this thread alone), and this apart from my own writings and summaries. These may be "strange ideas" to you, but I have been a researcher for years and a consultant in research methods for almost as long (and, just to be clear, I mean research in the sciences, not academia more generally). Research simply isn't the product of The Scientific Method, which is a created myth intended to be a simplified model of our process that was recognized as an abject failure many decades ago, not long after it was invented.