Elementary school science class taught me a basis outline of “the scientific method”. I do not recall the specifics but what has stuck with me is the overall flow of: hypothesis, test, measure, and conclusion. Recently I was informed that “the scientific method” is incorrect. Not the method, but the idea that there is THE (or just one) scientific method. Different sciences have different methods.
For instance physics has a method that works for Newtonian physics but quantum physics is more theoretical than material. Biologist have the benefit of knowing the results of their hypothesis much quicker than geologists who have to have a different method while waiting eons for rocks to move. The sciences have methods that make sense in their field but might not make any sense in another field.
Of course, these different methods are neither better nor worse than one another. While these methods are different in their specifics, in a general sense these different methods are unified in their efforts to better understand the mysteries of the world.
These different methods also contribute to a humility among the most respected scientist. A zoologist does not over reach into the field of astronomy in order to correct or condemn. The zoologist knows there are limits to her field and her understanding and those same limits exist in the astronomist. Each field respects the methods of the other fields. There is no attempt to prove the superiority of one fields methods over another. Criticism comes from within the same field - chemists argue with chemists.
For as much as religion has to teach the sciences, I wonder if religion has something to learn from science.