Why String Theory Is Not Science (forbes.com)

StartsWithABang writes: Earlier this month, a conference was held devoted to the question of whether untestable scientific ideas like string theory and the multiverse are actually science or not. While many opinions were stated and no one changed their mind, the answer is apparent: unless you're willing to change the definition of science to include "this thing that isn't science," then no, string theory is not science. It's a theory in the sense of a mathematical theory — like set theory, group theory or number theory — but it isn't yet a scientific theory. Of course, it could become science, but that would require that it actually do the things a scientific theory does: make testable predictions that can be validated or falsified.

Comments

Climatology

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's like Climatology?

Re:Only if you Exclude Technological Limits

[Anonymous Coward]

But, more seriously, ST has uselessness issues. In other words, what has it figured out?

It has figured out how to obtain grant money.

Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that this would apply to evolution too... it's a theory but not a scientific theory. It can not be proven or falsified. It's a good theory given the evidence that we see but it can never be proven because until we get time machines we can't actually go back and observe when life actually began. Even if science proves a mechanism that could possibly create life spontaneously from the raw materials, that doesn't mean that is exactly what happened. So it will always remain a theory.