Books on scientific method are, at best, just descriptions of what scientists do. At worst, they are just philosophers' wet dreams. Scientists in general never consult philosophers about what they should be doing.
Science does not seek truth. It seeks knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge is always incomplete and tentative. Knowledge has the attributes of utility and degrees of confidence, but never has certainty and logical perfection.
So your argument is that the Scientific Method (used by every scientist in the last 2000 years) is nothing more than a "wet dream". No wonder you can't come up with a working theory of evolution. Once again, I think you will find yourself in the minority on this issue.
Science does not seek truth. It seeks knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge is always incomplete and tentative. Knowledge has the attributes of utility and degrees of confidence, but never has certainty and logical perfection.
I disagree with this statement on several levels; if the knowledge science is seeking after is the truth then science is certainly looking for that which is true. Additionally, if science is seeking after knowledge that is not truthful science will most likely fail in the endeavor. In either case, this makes your assertion mostly false. If the knowledged gained is complete then by definition your second statement is false. I agree that knowledge has utility and degree (including the full spectrum from zero to complete). However, knowledge that is certain (ie my hair is brown) is complete. Logical perfection; you will have to define that one. I would only argue that logical reasoning and deduction (cause and effect) are key prinicipals of the Scientific Method.
Back to the point, any chance on seeing a theory of evolution?
W.K.