I think you’re close, but you’re going to have to get used to the differences in terminology. The heart of the problem is the word “method” – you’re used to it having a universal precise meaning, but that’s really not true: it is defined quite differently from language to language.
I actually think Scala’s usage of the word “method” is somewhat more common. LISP’s usage reflects the fact that LISP came to OO quite late (IIRC, I didn’t hit OO in LISP until at least the third dialect I learned), and sort of adapted the terminology to fit LISP’s somewhat idiosyncratic version of OO. In LISP, methods are just functions, whereas in most languages that evolved from the Java world, they’re a different category altogether.
Anyway, while I get where you’re thinking when you say:
you’re going to find that most people disagree with this characterization. Moreover, I believe it doesn’t really reflect reality – the fact is, methods are a fundamental concept of the JVM. Indeed, I think the reality is that methods are the underlying concept, and functions are implemented on top of methods with various shenanigans, but I’m not an expert on the subject. As I understand it, Scala goes to quite a bit of work to synthesize anonymous function objects in a world that isn’t really designed for them.
And yes, that’s exactly backwards from what you’re used to. Welcome to the JVM, which came to FP very late, and very reluctantly, with Scala and other such languages dragging it there kicking and screaming…