Rhett Allain, a physicist at Southeastern Louisiana University, thinks that the scientific method--or how it is commonly taught--is flawed:
The problem is that this scientific method does not encompass all of science. In short, science can be done this way but it doesn’t have to be.
Allain then provides several examples of less systematic scientific research, such as the accidental discovery of penicillin.
As an alternative to the scientific method, Allain sketches out a different approach, illustrated above. He explains:
How about instead of memorizing these science steps, lets focus on the nature of science instead. There are a lot of key elements, but I think I could boil it down to this: make models of stuff. Really, that is what we do in science. We try to make equations or conceptual ideas or computer programs that can agree with real life and predict future events in real life. That is science.
Link -via Glenn Reynolds
your still making a hypothesis still testing against it.. still analyzing the result (I would hope though that step is missing)
The scientific method isn't necessarily the method of discovery, but it is the way to demonstrate to others that something has been discovered. Play, thinking, considering, etc. aren't repeatable and demonstrable and so aren't good for verification.
The Scientific Method isn't flawed. The Eureka Moments like penicillin just mean that the steps can occur in different orders. You can discover something during an experiment that you didn't realize you'd set up. You still need to research why, analyze your data, etc.
Allain's arrows may as well be replaced with a sign that reads "Meanwhile, in a lab in another part of town..."
(And the fact that he's from Louisiana and one of the questions is "I wonder if..." makes me think the one labelled "Hey y'all! Watch this!" is missing. I'm from the south, I can make these jokes. And I give you permission as well.)
It's all good to have ideas, but you can't have groundbreaking theories that change the way the world works and the people on the world see their role in it change without the backbone of knowledge that's produced by the scientific method.
Maybe it's stodgy, but if you're not an experimentalist, there still is a spot for you in the scientific discourse... but if we didn't have all of those experiments and documented observations backing it up, nothing we say would hold any weight against whatever trippy dreamstate someone else might be coming at the problem from - we have actual data on our side.
Basically, the Scientific Method is probably the most important innovation of the last thousand years. It's the thing that's allowed us all of this wonder, and promises even more wonder in the future, because everything that comes out of it and remains standing is basically true, and we can build technologies that use it. At least until one of those amazing insights comes along like Einstein and twists the whole thing and warps our preconceptions.
Einstein's thought wouldn't have been revolutionary if 1) Newton and many many scientists hadn't been working under a different model that seemed to work wonderfully, that was created by using the scientific method, and 2) The scientific method hadn't been used to verify his intuitions.
Vive La Scientific Method.
He does have a point though, as memorizing the steps probably doesn't really do much good. Maybe it works well for students that don't have an intuition about such things or limited exposure, that it is one of those things you need to learn the rules before you can understand when to break them. But that could probably be all wrapped up together, instead of just making you memorize the steps in grade school... and then letting you figure out the practical world is different if you ever end up in an undergraduate science program. I do think I would have a few words with teachers that spent too much time on the formality of my science fair projects in grade school instead of substance, although formality is a lot easier to teach ( and I would have plenty to say to those teaching too much formality of how to cite works...).
There are times that some of that formality shines through. Astronomers and particle physicists that have their data before they do tests or look for patterns know better than to just fish for patterns or results until they find something, as they will likely do the statistics incorrectly and by luck find something that is not actually significant. So they split the data up, play around with only part of it until they think they found something, then use the rest of the data for a more formal test. That method is rather important and distinct from just messing around, and fits the more formal idea of needing a question first, and research into how to test it, etc.
At some point though, talking in extensive detail about the method itself starts to diverge from introductory science, and go down the route of philosophy of science. Not to say that makes it useless, quite the opposite, but there are volumes written on that topic and a lot of well laid out thoughts that get more into the meat of things without dwelling on what may be merely superficial.
My input: the scientific method is good to advance science incrementally (or, as Ernest Rutherford once said, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting"). To get a breakthrough that advances science by leaps and bounds, you need something else. (At least to start).