Scientifically speaking or not, is, ...:
"Scientifically speaking" is strongly related to proven by justification through at least one (or all) of our five senses.
Or, "scientifically speaking" is strongly related to proven by justification through perceiving that has relation with the activation of the left side of our brain.
Where "non scientifically speaking" must be related to proven by justification through perceiving that has relation with the activation of the right side of our brain.
But if somehow, someday, spirituality is dominating our everyday life mostly or with frequency of the use of spirituality closer to the frequency of the use of our five senses, then "scientifically speaking" is strongly related to proven by justification through perceiving that has relation with the activation of the left and right sides of our brain.
Whichever is more clear or more solid on our understanding, may be considered as defining "scientifically speaking" within correct boundary.
Despite about agreement on the basics of scientific method, but different side of both sides of our brain, or differentiation on the use of our five senses or beyond these (if further we explore and agree of these existences ...) has its own way to justify whether there is consistency at acceptance level or not.
Whether we consider scientific method generally known at current time as valid justification, but actually, if through the use of our five senses or beyond these (if further we explore and agree of these existences ...) we can find the consistency at acceptance level that can be used to advance our controls on ourselves or environment with consistency, then we already widen our scientific method.
Besides, putting scientific method (generally know at current time) still lack of consistency from time to time. For example: through our eyes, something may be considered has consistency but by justification through additional sense (experimenting, touching, etc) or through perceiving something even closer, maybe we will see inconsistency (perceiving the moon from the earth and visiting the moon will give different and wider understanding about the moon).
Meaning, all scientific method, spiritual method or any kind of possible methods, eventually must be focused on the result, whether there is consistency or not to the specific level (acceptance tolerance, in any means).
The points are:
Based on how to provide scientific method, may be traced back to different roots which maybe related to the activation of the left side of our brain (five senses) or may be traced back to different roots which maybe related to the activation of the right side of our brain (beyond five senses). We may be found different ways to make logical reasoning. We have to be open minded.
Based on how to provide valid justification, then for any kind of methods for valid justification, eventually must provide clear consistency at the acceptance level (acceptance tolerance, just like commonly used on measurement).There is no better method for valid justification, there is only proper justification because we can perceive consistency that can be used properly.
According to this, then there is nothing special with scientific method (or any kind of methods) if it fails to provide usefulness from consistencies, and vice versa (maybe considered as valid).