Are all branches of science subject to the scientific method?

Answer 1

No it's more accurate to say no branch of Science 100 subject to the scientific method.
All science follows rules of the scientific method, but all science is based on theoricl paths until they meet the cretia which proves them correct .
Every major breakthough was conceived though theory, and went on to become fact though a combination of usage and experiment.
Theory can go for years (just as Einstien's Relatively) treated by all and thought by most to be fact decided by the scientific method is being derobed every year.

www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y2_22860.htm The crux of Einstein's theory of relativity -- that E = mc 2
-- is under challenge,
following evidence that the speed of light might be slowing down. ..".

Answer 2

Yes, definitely. If you can't use the scientific method, it isn't science.

But the scientific method is more subtle than many people understand. It is usually taught in K-12 as "make an hypothesis, do an experiment, see if the hypothesis is confirmed or rejected." There are three ways that this is not a strong enough statement of the scientific method:

1) An "experiment" is not always possible. Instead, you have to be willing to settle for just "observation". Scientists make observations. The observations might be under controlled circumstances, but often it's not entirely possible to create the controlled circumstances in a laboratory.

2) The "confirmed or denied" is a weak way to express the possible outcomes of an observation. A confirmation of an hypothesis is often not very helpful, whereas a rejection is very helpful. The reason is that a single positive observation doesn't tell you whether you might see a negative observation the next time you look. Your hypothesis might still be wrong. However, a single negative observation is generally overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong.

3) In some cases you can't get observations that are definitively positive or negative. You're looking for effects that can only be described with probabilities, and you have to use statistical methods. In cases like this, you have to make a lot of observations, do a statistical analysis, and your final result is effectively just one observation. This is often the case in medicine, where researchers do one study, publish the result, and add a disclaimer that more studies are necessary.

Answer 3

Yes, but "Christian Science" is not a branch of science and therefor not subject to the scientific method.

Answer 4

suposedly but it is difficult to perform repeatable processes on things out of history so evolution in the strictest sense is not really the result of using the scientific method it is more of a theory about history.

Answer 5

I doubt meteorology counts - or they are so bad at it, that they have learned nothing in 200 years

Ground hogs have the same accuracy as weathermen

Answer 6

yes

Answer 7

Yup.

Answer 8

Pretty much, yeah.