It is my position that Progressives need to adopt the principles of the scientific method as their own ideals. It is these ideals, and the broader ideals of which they are a subset, the philosophical methods, which themselves embody progress. The growth of freedom is linked to ages where these methods gain influence.
There is some technical difficulty with adopting the ideals of the scientific method as general principles.
I'll describe two main difficulties.
One, the definition of the scientific method has many possible forms which tend to contradict one another. This I think is resolved by the compatibility of the results of applying the various definitions. That is, an objective rationalist definition emphasizing the validity of empirical demonstration may contradict in form another definition that offers a relativistic or skeptical definition focusing on the nature of theory, but so long as both definitions when followed generate knowledge compatible with "scientific produce" then they are compatible enough. Einstein used a method of "thought experiment"... in itself this was not a method well thought of, but he generated produce which could be tested, retested, and well fit into the other scientific methods. There is a scientific form in addition to the methods, and if knowledge can be fit to that form, mapped into that form, and reproduced by sibling versions of the "scientific method", all is well.
Different compatible definitions which suit different personality types is actually a solution allowing different people to cooperate in science in spite of coming from different philosophical perspectives. The "observe, hypothesize, and test" still works well as a base to use for the scientific form, and that is also a method general enough that it works in political philosophy.
So as for alternate statements of "the scientific method", we should merely want to enumerate all the definitions and approve them all unless they have some extra fatal flaw or significantly contradict the sibling methods.
Two, the other technical difficulty is the fact that science can and probably should have a narrow definition (as most scientists themselves maintain) which doesn't easily include human affairs. If science is only about quantifiables such as distance and time, how can we apply these principles to politics or our lives? And if we apply the method, can we really think we've applied it at all, since we are not using the narrow definitions involved? When we say we shall, politically, "observe, hypothesize, and test"... we do not mean exactly what the scientist means by "observe", et cetera.
The answer to this, I think, lies in those "broader ideals" of which the scientific method is a subset, namely the philosophical method. So my answer is that the scientific method is in fact narrow and the terms too specialized to apply directly by using their "natural language" meanings... but science's lessons can still be generalized by tracing back from "scientific methods" through to the broader methods of natural philosophy which originally led to the scientific method of Newton et al. This is the method of philosophical dialog.
The philosophical method is the method of open dialog. It is "open and honest dialog" in which there is a sharp distinction between the legitimate techniques of argument and the illegitimate. If the criteria for "legitimate" are not held in common then at least the difference is made clear, and joint conclusions are made conditional on the criteria.
Common criteria for judging progress and legitimate arguments should be found as a first step for a community taking part in an open dialog, for open dialog is by definition communal ("honest internal dialog" is maybe an analog for the introspective individual).
You will never compel a philosopher (or citizen) to adopt a criteria, but you can discover what criteria are shared by any pair or group, and this is a crucial first step in applying the ideals of the scientific method to culture and politics. Well known family of criteria are the basis for effective open dialog such as we see in the scientific community.
The latest philosophic and scientific era is ours to shepherd into the future. Such eras have passed before only to be followed by longer periods of what is the traditional dogmatic oppressive culture. It's the charge of progressive minded people to ensure this philosophic era lives on and becomes a long lived theme for the coming era.
To become that rather than just of a brief period of enlightenment. I think that goal is accessible but not to be taken for granted.
It is not the results of science and philosophy that are so important for progress, they represent only the current status of that progress... the real sign that progress is still in motion is seen in the widespread use of the habits, methodologies, and tools which are behind science and open community dialog.
In my opinion, the idea that adoption of these principles brings progress and freedoms is well demonstrated. These are the ideals we seek. Use of technology in war has blinded us to this. Cruelty in experimentation, other human phenomenon have hidden the underlying progressive nature of science and its open dialog. These problems are problems of man, the ideals of science do not support them, but instead erode them.
Those progressives suspicious of science due to their ludditism are a group with which I have great sympathy. Nonetheless you need to separate the dangerous or immoral application of knowledge from the value of knowledge itself, blame the actor and not knowledge itself. After all, ignorance can not be the solution.
So?