Is there a scientific method?

I claim that there is no such thing as a scientific method that is applicable for all fields of scientific research. Although some students learn about techniques used when following “the scientific method” at school, this specific sequence of steps is barely practiced by scientists in their everyday work. Scientists do science the way it is convenient for their research. Sociologist work differently than chemists yet both can work in a scientific way.

            Nevertheless, a scientist can work more or less scientifically. Repeated testing of hypotheses and building models to explain new phenomena, for example, are considered very scientific procedures. Whereas testing a hypothesis only one time and claiming that the results are beyond doubt is probably not the most scientific approach you could have. Sometimes the same experiment can result in varying outcomes. Repeated testing is, therefore, a tool to ensure that the conditions for the experiment are always constant and useful for confirmation of a claim.

as

            As long as a scientist is able to logically reason why he has done an experiment in a certain way, it can be argued that his method is scientific. In other words, there are as many diverse scientific methods in the world as there are scientists doing science. Debates about what exactly the scientific method should be are a dead end since it is impossible to find a set of techniques that is suitable for all the sciences.


Aaron's Edit:

I (claim) [W - ^maintain]* that there is no such thing as a scientific method that is applicable (for) [prep - ^to] all fields of scientific research. (Although some students learn about techniques used when following “the scientific method” at school, this specific sequence of steps is barely practiced by scientists in their everyday work. Scientists do science the way it is convenient for their research. Sociologist work differently than chemists yet both can work in a scientific way. ) [M,E,W+,WF - ^Although students are often taught that there is a discrete sequence of steps any scientist must follow in order to ensure that their work is legitimately "scientific," no scientist goes about their work checking these steps off on a checklist. Scientists do very different things, depending on the demands of their specific fields of study and the questions they try to answer. Sociologists and chemists, for example, have very different goals and methods, yet no one would question whether either group's work was genuinely scientific.]† 

            Nevertheless, a (scientist can work more or less scientifically.) [coh,E - ^scientist's work can indeed have varying degrees of scientific viability.]‡  (Repeated) [det - ^The repeated] testing of hypotheses and [det - ^the] building [prep - ^of] models to explain new phenomena (, for example, are considered very) [E;W+ - ^: these are recognized as legitimately] scientific procedures. (Whereas testing) [W - ^Meanwhile, testing] a hypothesis only one time and claiming that the results are beyond doubt is (probably not the most scientific approach you could have.)  [E,St - ^antithetical to scientific reasoning.]§ Sometimes the same experiment can result in varying outcomes. Repeated testing is, therefore, a tool to ensure that the conditions (for) [prep - ^of] the experiment are always (constant) [W - ^consistent] and useful for confirmation of a claim.

            As long as a scientist is able to logically reason why he has done an experiment in a certain way, it can be argued that his method is scientific. (In other words, there are as many diverse scientific methods in the world as there are scientists doing science.) [M-not necessarily true] Debates about what exactly the scientific method should be are a dead end since it is impossible to find a set of techniques that is suitable for all the sciences.

[* Be careful with the plurality of words that can roughly be translated into German as "behaupten," such as claim, aver, avow, attest, maintain, suggest, contest, contend, among others. These words have basically the same denotation, but they have very different connotations. Claim carries the connotation that one is convinced of the belief, but that one lacks evidence to support that belief. That doesn't fit well in this context. Aver and assert would also work here.

† I understand what you mean, but there is a problem of argumentation here. Namely, you say in the first paragraph that there is no set of steps that could be claimed to comprise the so-called scientific method, and then in the second paragraph you delineate just such a set of steps. So I've had to improve the coherency. 

‡ Note that the phrase more or less, like the phrase mehr oder weniger in German, cannot be used to mean "of varying degree." It means approximately, roughly, nearly, almost, close to, about, of the order of, etc.

§ Litotes is a useful rhetorical device. As the Wikipedia entry notes, "Litotes can be used to establish ethos, or credibility, by expressing modesty or downplaying one's accomplishments to gain the audience's favor." But in some cases—like this present one—credibility is better served by clearly, directly stating a fact or opinion.]