This is something I came across about ten years ago that might shed some light on the scientific method.
Six rules of evidential reasoning.
James Lett, Assoc. Professor of Anthropology
Ft. Pierce, Florida, U.S.A.
It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.
Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.
(See any Logic textbook for the definition of "sound argument"
Any argument offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive -- that is all of the available evidence must be considered.
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.
If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
1)the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant;
2)extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and,
3)evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim.
When going the way of science, avoid this trap: counting, measuring or weighing everything.
Something else too: know that despite science's objectivity, you will decide some things subjectively. For instance, how beauty differs from terror. A lightning strike miles away may be beautiful. A lightning strike nearby is terror.