The wikipedia one is ok, but really most of that is stuffed into my #1 and it treats the "forming and testing a hypothesis" part too superficially. What did I write that makes you think the two are in conflict?
I wrote:
"figure out what situations naturally arise or that can be devised that produce consistent, stable phenomenon."
This is the same as figuring out the "reproducible manner".
I don't think you understood what I took issue with in your post.
You said:
> Passing peer review is something used as a substitute for reproducibility
And what I'm saying is "No, it's not". Reproducibility of the results is the most important aspect of the scientific method, otherwise, as I said above: "what's the point really? We would resort to trust or belief in one's sayings."
Oh. I never said that was a good thing. Institutionalized peer review as its done today is a relatively new thing, introduced post-WWII. Ie, that statement was descriptive, not normative.
I wrote:
"figure out what situations naturally arise or that can be devised that produce consistent, stable phenomenon."
This is the same as figuring out the "reproducible manner".