Edward, I would think that all questions such as this are best answered by looking at potential evolutionary payoffs: a reasoned scientific approach would have contributed little to the imperatives of staying alive and reproducing, at least in a primitive environment (i.e. throughout most of mankind's history on Earth.) Emotionality on the other hand would have immediate benefits in a number of survival situations.

Perhaps that's the reason why most experience difficulties with math, and why math is still not deemed an attractive subject at school - as witnessed by poor enrollment figures everywhere, and by the wider public's reading habits, whereby shoddily written, inane bodice rippers à la Shades of Grey shoot up best seller lists, but thrilling popular science books on math - Shing Tung Yau's, Julian Havil's , etc., hardly make a blip.

This may slowly change however as math and rationality seem to become the keys to our continued survival. Either that, or said continued survival may not happen.

Some parts of scientific method such as asking questions and experimenting would have been useful for survival and I don't think human culture (tools, religion, cooking) would have happened without some experimentation and scientific method. We also tend to want to repeat things to make sure they work, which is also a huge part of scientific method.

As H Chris Ransford, above, says maths and rationality would have been important in human survival.

I also think that human scientific method is how it is because it is the most natural way for humans to process information and work logically. If there was another, more natural way of doing things, I think most scientists would adopt it.

Seems like short-term decisions like what type of food to eat could be made by scientific method, but think for many people TV advertising and sensationalism govern the decision. Perhaps in this complex culture, though, those that chose the scientific method will live longer, e.g. have less chance of diabetes or obesity health issues. However, I'm not sure if that will make any difference from an evolutionary standpoint, since both can reproduce.

Scientific method of course is specific to humans but is not natural, it is cultural, and it appeared specifically at certain historical moments of certain cultures. Animals can make certain intelligent decisions, but this is not by scientific method and these decisions are driven by affectivity in order to ensure short-term answers for survival. And generally speaking humans do not make intelligent decisions by scientific methods, but mainly emotionally, and truth is the last thing to care about. Just look at politicians, sometimes they may show high intelligence in their decisions, but these decisions may be sustained only by skillful lies and are often criminal.

A great and generous scientist like Linus Pauling was believing that the scientific method could influence little by little also the human decisions and even politics, but unfortunately he was wrong. By the contrary to the scientific method, the present human society shows very little interest for the correct thinking, verification, self-correction, etc.

About influence of scientific method on genetic mutations: of course there is none, as mutations are purely random and not influenced by environment; on the other hand survival of the fittest mutation by natural selection takes much longer time than the human history (which is cultural, and not natural) of no more than 10.000 years (excluding pre-history).

At its core, the scientific method is asking a question based on some observation you made, positing a possible answer, and then testing out that possible answer (your hypothesis). As practicing scientists we take it to an extreme level, focusing on statistics and peer-review, but at its heart, the scientific method is something that all people and probably most animals use every day, instinctively. The lion cub observes a porcupine, wonders if it's edible, and then tests that hypothesis of edibility. If her experiment falsifies her hypothesis (a mouthful of porcupine quills probably will!) she has her answer, and probably won't need to repeat the experiment. But that's the scientific method in action. I think it is as inherent to living creatures as is the ability to learn: not every species has it, but it's far more common than we might think, from our typical anthropocentric viewpoint. This ability to posit and answer questions would most certainly confer an evolutionary advantage to the actor.

Edward -

The "What about other animals?" caught my attention, and reading through the other answers first, I think that Aliza came closest to what I was thinking. You do see the basics of experimentation by other animals. A lot if it had to be accidental at first, like a large bird dropping a clam on a rock to open it, or just having fun, like a parrot or similar bird I saw had taught itself to use a peanut shell as a bucket from which it drank. But other primates use tools, and some examples of basic elements of scientific methodology have to be found in large numbers in other animals.

Perhaps the disappointment we feel is that humans have learned something about 'perfecting' the scientific method, yet often seem to avoid it. However, I think that many use it more than they realize. Someone who didn't want to take high school algebra may claim for the rest of their lives that they "never used it," without being fully conscious of the many thousands of subtle uses of logic they made that may have been inspired by abilities they honed in that experience with algebra. However, you could say this is more related to the Ancient Greek Philosophy of logic, which fell short of full science or they would possible have gone beyond the 'four elements.' But it is something and it gave modern science a start.

However, it is true that there is a great deal of interference with science in modern society. I heard or read that in North Carolina, the legislature decided that climate change was not to be considered in official documents, due to its inconvenience, so in effect it was outlawed. At one point the US Bureau of the Census, trying to avoid undercounting minorities, was criticized by Congress, at least one member going so far as to say that "sampling" was some kind of magic, not to be trusted. As a statistician, I was very embarrassed for the US. I've seen office politics that I had to struggle with and often lose against while trying to take the most clearly correct actions. The foolishness, irrationality, and too often selfish and hateful nature of humans can sometimes drown rational and socially progressive views, which you would think would contradict the evolutionary progress that was part of the inquiry Edward made. But perhaps we are just overreacting when we see it that way. Perhaps when we see irrational behavior (or otherwise disappointing behavior that I realize I mixed in here) we weigh that too heavily, and do not give enough credit to the scientific nature that is present in humans and other animals. It isn't perfect, but it's there.

Jim