Philosophers of science and social critics will sometimes talk about the scientific method, and argue about whether there actually is a scientific method or not. The definitions and arguments often lose sight of the big picture and instead focus on details: is the scientific method positive or negative, is it this or that, blah or gha? Often the debate boils down to whether specific tactics used by scientists is a strategy or not - the debate is stylistically like this: "Is a forest a pine tree?" with the yes side pointing out pine trees in a forest - "yes!", and the no side pointing out you can have a forest without a pine tree - "no!". Others chime in with, "No, a forest is - in fact - an oak tree". The debate confuses the basics. Of course a pine tree is not a forest. You can have a forest full of pine trees, or with no pine trees, and even if you have a pine forest you have a lot of other things in it that make up the forest. A forest is a forest. A tree is a tree. Specific trees are often a significant part of a forest. A forest is not a tree. "Proving" that this is so does not prove there is no forest, but simply that you have wasted your time and are confused.
The scientific method is simple: ask questions of reality, and honestly listen to the answer. We often couch this in overly clinical and un-illuminating terms - e.g. "hypothesis" (question) - which makes it sound like the method is limited to scientists, instead of being the fundamental approach to life one should take. How can you argue against asking questions coupled with honestly listening? This is simple, but not easy - it is hard to craft good questions (you have to come in with a lot of background information often and keep a fresh perspective), to realize when you accidentally ask the wrong question (good scientists pick up on this, and thus find new aspects of reality, poor scientists will minimize how the answer does not fit within their current understanding behind what they thought they asked - if you have ever programmed a computer you know that one often mean one thing but say another, if you ever had a real discussion with someone you find the same), and to honestly take in what you learn: it is hard to admit you were wrong, you wasted your time, your precious idea is not interesting or significant, etc.
The scientific method is a strategy, much of the bickering about the scientific method is merely linguistic confusion and confuses the tactical level with strategy. The tactics are important, but are not "the" scientific method, and should not - and are not - used in every situation. But the overriding strategy is both simple and consistent: ask questions. listen. honestly.
The scientific method is a general approach to life, one that is difficult yet is simple. You can learn it, and it will help you. In your particular field of work or hobbies or interests you can learn more specific tactics that are optimized for that aspect of reality, and gain a lot from your efforts in learning the tactics. Like many things that are simple the scientific method is subtle and allows you to hone your skills while confronting life. The scientific method is a lifestyle, a code of life to force you to grow and engage reality. The samurai had their code, scientists have theirs. Our master is reality, Truth - with a capital T. In the short term this code brings a lot of difficulty and pain - in the long run it brings great joy and beauty and improves you vastly.
The particular tactics are often related to objective reality, but the strategy is equally powerful when applied to subjective and social reality, and in fact if you do not apply it there you are short changing yourself and not living the scientific way.
A true scientist is simply someone in awe of the beauty of reality, and is so taken by the beauty that they ask questions and listen to learn more and more subtle, amazing, and mind blowing truths. Anyone can do this, and everyone who does will gain, enormously. You can either simply believe what you believe now, e.g. assume your limited experiences and biases are accurate reflections of the world and stay stuck in your limited current situation, or you can go out and explore and engage the crazy amazing thing we call life and get blown away every single day out just how insanely beautiful things are. Which approach do you think will work out better?
