The scientific method is the foundation of science, but yet now it seems to be placing limitations on the advancement of science. It used to be easy to apply the scientific method. You could easily observe and measure the neccesary interactions and matter you needed for your experment, but as time has progressed it has become harder and harder to do that. That coupled with hesenbergs uncertainty principle and the ever increasing need to observe smaller and smaller things has lead to a state where direct observation of matter and interactions has become in many cases impossible. We must therotically guess a prediction and then test itout and most of the time we must use indirect means to see if it is true. But as string theory is being worked on, it has become obvious that the old scientific method might be unable to prove or disprove its validity. So should we just consider string theory a philisophy because the scientific method cant verify it or should we try to devise a new scientific method which allows for it to be verifed?

"Observe" is not to be construed as direct observation - any measurement counts.

 

But in the end, you have to test it. If you can't disprove its validity, how do you know it's right?

I think there needs to be an "At present" added into your post, who knows what the future will bring, I think string theory is definately a more tangible theory, than say... theism.... I don't think it will ever be possible to test for the existence of God, however a test for the existence of strings may be possible one day.... I think some predictions made about strings and blackholes may allow for a test, first we need to travel out of our solar system, second we need to find a black hole ...... I think maybe its a hypothesis thats way ahead of its time, I don't think we should trash it yet: NB this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6211

... But as string theory is being worked on, it has become obvious that the old scientific method might be unable to prove or disprove its validity. So should we just consider string theory a philisophy because the scientific method cant verify it or should we try to devise a new scientific method which allows for it to be verifed?

 

I think it's probably a bad idea to tinker with the criteria of what is science just to make life easier for string theorists. The search for string-related theories is a large, well-funded operation producing over a thousand papers a year, but it is still a small segment of physics or the scientific enterprise as a whole.

 

I am not sure that string theorizing (there still is no finished, testable theory) is so terribly important in the overall scheme of things or the longterm development of science. There are alternative approaches to explaining the parameters of the Standard Model being worked on, and one or more alternatives, possibly less grand in scope, may become testable in the near term.

The Scientific method is PERFECT! (for now). it was never claimed from the get go that it wouldn`t require the odd "Update" every now and then, but the basic principals unpon which they`re based are as close to finding ANY truth as we currently understand it, it`s certainly a set of rules that I adhere to where possible

If the results are totally unobservable, it would make the results scientifically useless anyway.

 

Scientific method is just fine how it is.