From “String Theory and General Methodology; a Reciprocal Evaluation” by Lars-Goran Johansson & Keizo Matsubara (October 10, 2011):
String theory has been the dominating research field in theoretical physics during the last decades. Despite the considerable time elapse, no new testable predictions have been derived by string theorists and it is understandable that doubts have been voiced. Some people have argued that it is time to give up since testability is wanting. But the majority has not been convinced and they continue to believe that string theory is the right way to go. This situation is interesting for philosophy of science since it highlights several of our central issues. In this paper we will discuss string theory from a number of diffrent perspectives in general methodology. We will also relate the realism/antirealism debate to the current status of string theory. Our goal is two-fold; both to take a look at string theory from philosophical perspectives and to use string theory as a test case for some philosophical issues.
Maybe keep it in view, but look elsewhere:
For a new programme to become progressive there need to be risk takers that choose to work with a programme with dim prospects. To start a new research programme or early on join a new research programme is a high risk strategy. You will be hailed as a genius if you succeed and forgotten or seen as a crackpot if you fail, just as the risk taking entrepreneur that tries something new might become very rich or fail miserably. In both cases predictions are highly uncertain.
ID types think the same about Darwinism. It just has to be true, and if it isn’t, science is kaput. But it isn’t true, and science isn’t kaput either.