Empiricism is the only justification of scientific method
"Observation", the first step, relies on the pure belief that we can observe(in wider sense, i.e. with technology too eventually) everything which can in some way affect us, we just think its like this because in other case we are shit out of luck, this narrows down the field of appicability of scientific method only to things we can "observe"
"Make a hypothesis", next step, is supposed to work just because it does evidently work, theres absolutely nothing which guarantees every thing we observe have a logical hypothesis which closely describes that phenomena, again we just think its like this because then we are shit out of luck, this narrows applicability of scientific method only to things which we can observe and which we can be described with classical logic
"Experiment", the third step, relies on the belief that just like all logical analysis, you can separate a subsystem out of a system and make it work under specific conditions which simulate what one thinks is the necessity for the subsystem to work, it is again just a belief, quantum mechanics under a pilot wave interpretation are a direct opposition to this, i.e. inseparability of part of the universe from the rest of the universe, or how anything which will attemot to verify the conditions of the world behind event horizon will be unable to pass those verifications or disprovals back outside said horizon, we are already kinda shit out of luck with this, we are now in the subgroup of observable logically-mappable physically permissible phenomena
"Confirmation", the last step(of pure classical method), takes all the bad things above and plunge them into hardcore philosophy of "what is confirmation?", things like sigma sound good and all but its nothing but purely anthropogenic definition, we just decided that sigma 5 is good enough because its a real big number from our point of view, so we kinda roll with it
