The techniques of the scientific method are universally valid; they're not contingent on a specific culture. If civilization was wiped today and we had to start from scratch, we would discover the same methods to ascertain natural laws and apply them to our purposes.

Different scientific communities have different methods. The scientific method as practiced by physicists isn't the same method we use in computer systems research and it isn't the same method they use in medical research. And this isn't because these different fields have different deviations from the One True Method -- it's because different subjects require different methods to prevent error.

• In computer systems and physics, data is typically collected by machines. We therefore aren't worried about observer bias or placebo effects, and we don't usually worry about blinding things from experimenters.
• With computer systems, everything is reasonably deterministic and so statistical error isn't a major concern. Also, any effect that's big enough to be interesting is likely to be far larger than statistical noise -- it's not an interesting paper unless you got a factor of two improvement or something like that.
• In physics, it's routine to circulate preprints before a peer-reviewed paper. This doesn't happen much in computer science.
• In physics and CS, a purely theoretical argument without data can be taken seriously, and often people will trust theory more than experiment. My impression is that people don't have nearly the same sort of confidence in theory in biological or social science.

I think talking about The scientific method is mostly an oversimplification. I don't hear professional scientists using that category when talking amongst themselves about their work. I hear much more about the particular publication and review norms of individual fields.