The assumption that there is such a thing as “THE scientific method” is widespread, both within science and in the public’s understanding of science. It represents a view of science that places hypothesis testing at the center of the scientific enterprise and sees observations as irrevocable benchmarks for evaluating theories.

In my talk, I argue that the prevalence of the ‘myth’ that there is such a thing as ‘THE scientific method’ can foster distrust in science for two reasons: First, it makes science vulnerable to external attacks when research does not conform to these standards. Second, treating hypothesis testing as the gold standard of scientific practice can lead scientists to overlook alternative scientific reasoning strategies, such as mechanistic understanding. When this occurs in situations where urgent answers are required from science, it can further erode public trust in science.