The scientific method is alive and well, according to that same article you linked above these are the steps in 'doing science' following 'a scientific method' (of which there are many, but they all share the same basic characteristics):

   1. Define the question

   2. Gather information and resources (observe)

   3. Form hypothesis

   4. Perform experiment and collect data

   5. Analyze data

   6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

   7. Publish results

   8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

So, even though because of the majority of fields and scope of problems we can not use a single methodology to give us all our knowledge (that would be so convienient) we have come up with a series of steps that if you adhere to them will give you meaningful results.

Yes this is my point. Is there a "The Hacking Method?" I believe not. There may be lists such as "7 good habits of best hackers" but not a Biblical commandment defining a method to be the true computer programming.

The idea of an absolute sacrosanct Scientific Method is contrary to what scientific research is about. It defines science to be an academic method.

So, assume that I have my personal system of doing research. I don't define the problem. I don't form formal hypotheses; I don't perform experiments (formal academic exercises) instead I use trial and error; I take frequent stratetegic naps to develop my ideas; I analyze the idea any way I like; I don't publish my results; instead I note my results meticulously on my lab books. I don't care anything about academic rules and ignore academics and their science fetish.... instead I make discoveries. I ignore the paperwork, and career considerations. . . I make discoveries. You recognize Edison's method. Are you saying that what I am doing is not science because I did not follow your step by step "scientific method?"

The scientific method is an attempt to brand academic physics as science and the rest as stamp collecting. This marketing gimmick actually has been working. People associate academic physics with science.

If you just make discoveries, it's not science, no. If you communicate them widely in a way that makes your discoveries replicable by anyone of sufficient training and interest, then yes, it is science. It's just a word! Its meaning is a combination of discovery, openness, and total honesty. As long as you're more or less doing those things ... you're more or less doing science.