As Johannes Koelman put it, in his Falsifiability And The Integrity Of Physics article:  Science is what scientist do. And the scientific method is the method scientists follow.

He goes on to say:

The scientific method is not about testability or falsifiability per se. It is about trying hard to falsify. Nothing more, nothing less. Truth is to be found in those ideas that survive despite the multitude of attempts to falsify them.

While Johannes is correct, I wish to flesh out what a (scientific) Theory is, and how such relate to the Scientific Method ("the method scientist follow").

All too often the "scientific method" is taught in schools as some kind of "recipe" that "scientists" simply "follow".  It's actually far more complicated or involved than that, especially since science is typically quite a collaborative work involving many participants doing diverse things.  (The interested reader is encouraged to check out Understanding Science: how science really works.)

However, at an overview level, the Scientific Method is ultimately about testing multiple competing hypotheses (often from competing Theories) to see which hold up best against observational and experimental evidence (Nature "Herself" being the only [scientific] Authority concerning "Her" nature).  The scientific method is about working to find the weaknesses in any and all viable hypotheses/theories, even to the point of testing all we think we are already sure of.

OK.  So scientific Theories are there to be "bashed about" by observational and experimental evidence trying to find their weaknesses, but they do much more for Science.

The more, viable, alternative theories the better:  They provide guidance in our searches for what experiments/observations hold the greatest promise in invalidating one or more such theories.  (Even when we have no viable alternatives, we still look for potential invalidating experimental tests.  Unfortunately, without viable alternatives, such is a bit like "shooting in the dark":  You may always get lucky, but the likelihood of hitting something appropriate is low.)

And what makes an alternative viable?  Must it agree with some "authority"?  Must it agree with some "scientific consensus"?  No!  Such would hardly be considered "alternatives".  Would they?

Viable simply means that it is:

  1. totally self-consistent (devoid of internal-inconsistencies and self-contradictions);
  2. that it is able to successfully match the results of all applicable observations and experiments that have already been done (so called prostdictions); and
  3. that it is able to make definite, testable predictions for new experiments/observations to be subsequently attempted.

Now, this certainly doesn't cover everything—for instance, there is still the very important feature of reproducibility, though that applies more to the experimental/observational side of the Scientific Method.  However, I do hope this helps put Theories in the appropriate perspective, with ragard to the selfsame Scientific Method.

David