Question About the Scientific Method

[Alex K]

If an idea or theory has really good, elegant math to support it, everything makes perfect sense and lines up logically, but can't be tested, is it still "science"?

I read an article yesterday about inflation/multiverse ideas. Since we can't test it, at least yet, even though it's not "woo", is it technically pseudo-science? Can it be taken seriously?

I've asked myself this question many times since I'm involved in the string theory community a bit, though I'm not one myself. My current attitude is that by exploring possible mathematical models which can describe observed physics, but are hard to directly test, we gain knowledge, because it gives us an idea what would be the minimal consistent models which for example describe particle physics and quantum gravity. In absence of direct experimental tests, this is the best hints we can get about what physics awaits us near the planck scale. Such speculation is therefore a legitimate part of science, but one should always be aware of its status which is less than a properly tested theory like the standard model.