I think inventors (called Engineers these days) invent things.
Scientific Method
From Wikipedia (Basically what I said)
The scientific method involves careful
observation coupled with rigorous
skepticism, because
cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the
observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating a
hypothesis through
inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results.
From Britannica (Basically what I said)
More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a
scientific hypothesis.
From Standford University (Basically what I said)
Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories
From Merriam Webster Dictionary (Basically what I said)
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
From Berkeley (Agrees that what I said is commonly constituted as scientific method, agrees that the core logic is correct, but considers it an oversimplification, which is valid.)
Though many useful points are embodied in this method, it can easily be misinterpreted as linear and “cookbook”: pull a problem off the shelf, throw in an
observation, mix in a few questions, sprinkle on a
hypothesis, put the whole mixture into a 350°
experiment — and
voila, 50 minutes later you’ll be pulling a conclusion out of the oven!
The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is oversimplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science:
testing ideas with
evidence.
Live Science (Basically what I said)
scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable,
empirical evidence in an experiment related to a
hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a
scientific theory.
These 6 entry are the only ones that I looked at, and they all agreed with what I said (basically). Therefore it would seem that my understanding of scientific method is more inline with the general understanding than yours, unless you can prove otherwise.
If I am confusing scientific method with philosophy, then apparently (as you potentially pointed out) so does a significant portion of the scientific world. If that is the case, it does then make one wonder who's definition is incorrect (can we agree that a definition of something is the way in which that something is normally used - if my definition of scientific method is the way that it is normally used, then is that not the definition. As such if you use the term differently, then you should define how you are using (and you probably should acknowledge that you are using it out of it's normal context).
(signs). 
