I was listening to an In Our Time
program on Scientific Method and was fascinated to be reminded that each area of "science" tends to develop its own version of the scientific method. At best we can try to focus on phenomena that are repeatable and try to explain them, but even here there will be areas of science such as evolutionary biology and geology that focus more on explaining evidence than conducting falsifiable experiments.
Where we have phenomena that are just too complex to be repeatable perhaps we are coming to areas where science cannot help us ?
The history of science also worryingly appears to show science to be as bound to tradition and blind to alternatives as many other areas of human activity, we can infer that science today is equally as restricted.
Finally there is no area of science where evidence is not open to interpretation. All scientific fields have varying theories to explain phenomena - I would suggest that there is no area of "science" where all scientists agree on the same theory, science is always bound in controversy.
One other point. Maybe those on the "borders" of science such as Rupert Sheldrake really are getting a raw deal and "science" is just as dogmatic about its assumptions as other philosophical schools have been when they achieve political and organisational power - see for example this encounter with Dawkins and Sheldrake.
So really, how much power should we give science when forming an overall philosophy of life ?