The scientific method is a very interesting thing. Despite the fact it is given the definite article there are in fact other scientific methods that are very rarely talked about. It may be an attempt at dishonesty, since all other methods are almost unanimously deemed inferior, why bother even mentioning them. Just pretend there’s only one and don’t confuse people. But I think learning about past inferiority is important for projecting future success and so learning at least the basics of these methods is necessary. Since this is closer to scientific philosophy referring to it as epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge seems more appropriative. The meditative method of understanding involves simply internalising information and seeing what conclusion can be arrived at through logic. We see this idea creep in on maths and theoretical physics where experiments are rare and so long as the equation follows through it is considered valid knowledge gained. The anarchic method is almost the opposite where information is gained simply be doing. If I do X to Y while Z is true this happens, and so long as all those things are true again then the thing will happen again. Astronomy has this most blatantly with observations. Knowledge can be gained about star and planet locations without and experiment being performed as what experiment is required to know of something position. The anarchic method, however, lacks true predictive ability but is certain of what is happening now while the meditative method can give predictions but it is in question whether the mathematical model even represents anything to begin with. It is important in science to keep focus but not to stick so dogmatically to a method that it leads mindless action.
Until the light shines, goodnight.