In article , "Jeff Utz" writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve Harris"
writes:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joe Bugeja" writes:

When Einstein raised relativity, it was not all
immediately testable, that
came later.

The requirement is for "testable in principle", not
"immediately
testable". Of course, it helps if at least some parts of
it are
readily testable. But not necessarily all of it.


It's an interesting question how "testable in principle"
needs to be in practice. Is a theory "scientific" even if
only testable by making a superconducting accelerator that
loops around the entire equator of the planet? How much of
string theory is science, in Popper's sense?

I would say that the question here is primarily not about "scientific"
but about "theory". You know, we've been over this topic before, how
the usage of the term "theory" in science differs from this in layman
language (which is why we get all these posts harping on "but this is
not proven, this is just a theory":-)).

So, it is usually understood (though rarely spelled out) in science
that in order to call something "theory" it should have at least some
empirical support. Thus I would say that it is premature to call
string theory a "scientific theory".

Why? It has lots of support, including emperical support.

Not at the moment. It may be enticing and elegant, but there is no
empirical support currently available, and it'll take quite a while
before we reach the regions of physical parameter space where we can
get such support.

How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven.

Correction. No scientific theory is proven, nor can it be.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"