>>2544>as long as you don't state as fact things that have no evidence
Science isn't entirely made up of facts. Gravity isn't a "fact". Nearly everything in science is capable of being disproven. >string theory try to simplify the laws we already know into a consistent theory.
Adding 10+ dimensions to make something work mathematically doesn't seem like simplifying to me. Quantum physics is "harder" than theoretical physics and there's a lot less reason to be skeptical of the existence of subatomic particles than strings. >That depends on why you are creating a term "real science".
I'm asking what other people think. If you don't think there's a correct answer, that's an answer in itself. >>2545
Lots of science only became applicable far after being conceived(Charles Babbage). Does it only become real science after that point? Psychology can be applied and astrology can too(fortune telling or something).