[BroJoeK]

from the article: "If you want to rise to the level of a scientific theory, you have to make a testable -- and hence, falsifiable or validatable -- predictions.
Even a physical state that arises as a consequence of an established theory, such as the multiverse, isn't a scientific theory until we have a way to confirm or refute it; it's only a hypothesis, even if it's a good hypothesis.
What's interesting about string theory is that when it was first proposed, it was called the string hypothesis, as it was recognized this idea hadn't yet risen to the status of a full-fledged theory."

AdmSmith: "I think that the article is unfair in the sense that string theory actually is a very big family of different variants of string theories, and we do not yet know how to reduce it to just a few theories and test them.
But it is for sure science."

FredZarguna: "It also goes a bit too far.
String Theory is based on earlier ideas, which most certainly were science...
and it actually does make some falsifiable predictions, which, although they appear at energies we will probably never reach in terrestrial labs, might have consequences we can falsify or verify in other ways."

Moonman62: "As to those who so easily dismiss the hard work done by scientists and theoreticians, I think it makes them feel somehow superior."

Hulka: "I am not a scientist, but did stay in a cheap Holiday Inn Express last night. . .with a cheap hooker. . .JUST kidding. . .as far as you know. . ."

Ah, riiiiight.

What is or is not science -- modern science, natural science -- is a matter of definitions and assumptions.
By definition:

1. If an idea is a natural explanation for natural processes, and if proposed by recognized scientists, then it qualifies as "science".
   Clearly string ideas reach this low bar.

2. If said idea can be scientifically tested and falsified or confirmed, then it qualifies as a "hypothesis".
   String ideas are not testable today, though it is sometimes claimed they might be testable in some distant future, or we might find evidence confirming predictions... etc.
   This puts string ideas on the borderline between "science" and "hypotheses".
   IOW, if we call it a "hypothesis", then it must be qualified as "weak hypothesis".

3. If said hypothesis has been tested and confirmed, then it qualifies as a "theory".
   Theories can be confirmed weakly or strongly, and very strongly confirmed theories may even be reclassified as "facts".
   One example of "theory becomes fact" might be Earth's shape and rotation around the Sun.
   Weakly confirmed theories (i.e., AGW) can be the subject of endless, often heated debates extending far beyond the realms of natural-science.
   String ideas are in no sense confirmed or falsified, and so do not qualify as "theory".

So, what should we call it?
Yes, it does qualify as "string science", but that term "science" in today's world implies a far greater sense of certitude than the ideas merit.
So, in the past I've suggested "string speculations", which perhaps does not give those ideas enough credit.

So, I'm left with the term used throughout here: "string ideas".
Not yet good enough for "hypothesis" and in no way, shape or form "theory".

[Hulka]

What would you call the ancient Greeks concept of atoms?

They had no way to measure it, test it, whatever. . .was it a theory?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The question of what counts as a scientific theory falls in the realm of the philosophy of science. It is not a question that can be answered by science or scientists.

It is a matter of definitions and epistemological and ontological considerations.

Most scientists are not very good philosophers. Lots of scientists are even antagonistic toward philosophy. It seems counterintuitive, but scientists are probably among the last people you would want to ask with regard to questions at the boundaries of scientific investigation.

The article is baloney because they bring up the theory of falsifiability which was dismissed back in the early 20th century.

It used to be that good scientists were also steeped in philosophy and were also pretty damned good philosophers. This is not the case today, unfortunately.

It also seems that science journalists are also not particularly adept at philosophy either.