Question About the Scientific Method

[ThePinsir]

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?

[Mister Agenda]

It's a hypothesis. It's an important step in science, but not the goal. It has to be tested, and until it is, it will never grow up to be part of a robust theory.

[Jackalope]

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?

In addition to what Mister Agenda had to say...

It is not mature science - not to the point of being award the pedigree of a scientific theory.

M-theory falls under the purview of theoretical physics - where "theory" means something quite a bit different than "scientific theory".

I wouldn't consider it pseudo-science - rather an interesting, currently untestable hypothesis. Absent the coherent mathematics behind it, I'd call it woo / pseudo-science.

[Chas]

If the maths work, then the hypothesis is not impossible.

It the maths don't, fuhgeddaboutit.

[Tobie]

If it's un-testable then I wouldn't call it an hypothesis, since it's beginning to get into the realm of Russell's teapot. A theory would need some way of testing it, and preferably a set of expected results that can be tested against.

[Clueless Morgan]

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"?

Are you stipulating that it can't be tested EVER, or that the test has simply not been invented yet, or we lack the technology needed to test it and must wait until that technology is invented?

If it can be tested but the test or technology hasn't yet been invented, I would say it is science, but it's currently an untested hypothesis.

If it can't be tested EVER, then I wouldn't call it science, I would call it religion.

Seriously, though, if it's not falsifiable, then to me it's not science.

[ThePinsir]

If it's un-testable then I wouldn't call it an hypothesis, since it's beginning to get into the realm of Russell's teapot. A theory would need some way of testing it, and preferably a set of expected results that can be tested against.

Would this also apply to the widely-believed Star-Gas-Star model? We obviously can't test the origin or stars, and I don't think we've ever observed a star being born (have we?). Same with the origin of planets - it would take probably a billion or so years to watch space debris coalesce under its own gravity to form planets; we can't very well perform controlled laboratory experiments on it either.

So is our current model of the formation of solar systems also "not even a hypothesis"? I am so confused

[Heywood]

Would this also apply to the widely-believed Star-Gas-Star model? We obviously can't test the origin or stars, and I don't think we've ever observed a star being born (have we?). Same with the origin of planets - it would take probably a billion or so years to watch space debris coalesce under its own gravity to form planets; we can't very well perform controlled laboratory experiments on it either.

So is our current model of the formation of solar systems also "not even a hypothesis"? I am so confused

We observe all the different stages of star formation. We also can create simulations in computers programmed only with laws of physics which produce results that support the theory.

[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.

[ThePinsir]

Would this also apply to the widely-believed Star-Gas-Star model? We obviously can't test the origin or stars, and I don't think we've ever observed a star being born (have we?). Same with the origin of planets - it would take probably a billion or so years to watch space debris coalesce under its own gravity to form planets; we can't very well perform controlled laboratory experiments on it either.

So is our current model of the formation of solar systems also "not even a hypothesis"? I am so confused

We observe all the different stages of star formation. We also can create simulations in computers programmed only with laws of physics which produce results that support the theory.

Ok, stars are good then

What about planet formation? Any ideas on how that's observed?