I have a good idea of what the scientific method is, but I use a definition I formulated myself, that is broader than the definition of scientific method that only imply a process used for collective learning and a necessary peer review, and I want to know if in the literature there are views similar to mine or not, and why. I also want to know if this definition is considered the best to obtain all kind of knowledge (besides some parts of epistemology itself like this definition, since we need them to come up with the scientific method itself in the first place) by some accredited philosophers.
With this broad definition of scientific method you can arrive to a priori knowledge thanks to pure math and the truths derived using only solipsism, and you can arrive to refined guesses that you can't know if they are knowledge or not thanks to empirical facts verified by only you or by many people. But the guesses are still the best thing you have and they are directionally correct. More facts = better and more people = better. The guesses constitute models about the world and simple observations, although I claim that everything can have a mathematical model. The facts can be both inside yourself (subjective truth) that constitute exhaustive evidence, and outside.