If they do not use the scientific method, then their conclusions aren't just wrong. Their conclusions are not science.
I think science is a little bit more than just the scientific method. Take a look at the scientific revolution that occurred in the 1600s. You have two competing methods--a strictly empirical, and deductive (favored by Britain); the other (favored by France) was more inductive, and less stringent on empirical grounding.
The result? A method that is grounded in empirical observations and tends to be inductive.
by deductive, you need to see every case to make a statement
inductive, is, because 4 birds are black, all are black.
(just in case I screwed up the meanings of the two up above, and yes, these are very simple definitions.)
If anything, science is methodological naturalism. In other words, mums the word about the supernatural, and the natural world is the focus. As soon as you start positing the supernatural as an explanation, it isn't science. However, that does not mean that science says the supernatural does not exist (for those of you who love to confuse ontological and methodological naturalism). To me, that's what science is, at the heart (brain?).
"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC
Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.