I see a huge segment of people here under the mistaken belief that the "Scientific Method" is some foolproof evidentiary method. It's not. It has holes.

First of all ... it doesn't come from where you think it does. SM is a method of epistemology that requires measurable characteristics to record hopefully predictable results - thus supporting a conclusion. This theory of epistemology was examined long before the Renaissance by vedic scholars in the Indus valley.

Second, those scholars pointed out its' shortcomings thousands of years ago. The SM itself requires an objective position and a measurable trait or characteristic. Those of us from the engineering world know exactly what this means. You insert a test instrument directly into the event to be measured. Thus the observation must be independent of the event from an objective position and it must be measuring something we can measure. Potentiometers always must be cognizant of the resistance they add while being inside the event they measure. We have to be able to account for our presence to deduce its' own influence over the total measure. That's simple physics. Plus it has to be within our instruments' abilities to measure. This isn't always the case either. Why do you think we must make these massive colliders? Some traits are beyond simple measure.

Plus ... the SM requires some rudimentary knowledge of the process or some theory to be evaluated. This means there are always some points of speculation before the SM can even take place. That's how the Scientific Method works. You don't start right off with the "scientific proof" step.

Thus, if you think that requiring all things to meet the SM is a foolproof method you are wrong. And not seeing this limit is a problem because it causes many to be delusional. Make sure to recognize.