I think the other comment puts it well. String theory is a model builder or a model factory. Models are testable, factories should be viewed from the point of view of the user. Physics theorists are the users here, some think the testable models it puts forth are rubbish, others think it puts forth good models. Would you say Math itself is rubbish because it allows for such models to exist? I don't think so. I think string theory (as a model factory) might be the best tool for finding minimal elegant testable theories that satisfy known constraints, after all isn't that what science, especially Physics is really doing?

If the string theory framework has yet to come up with a verified model nearly 40 years later, is it really that good of a framework?

The problem is that it's produced _many_ verified models that could work with all of known physics. The problem is coming up with a test that distinguishes them somehow.

It hasn't produced any model that reproduces the confirmed predictions of the Standard Model, so no, I don't think your claim there is true.

This might be interesting to you:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22559/how-does-s...

What that says is that String Theory can predict anything, therefore it can predict the Standard Model. This is not a good look for a "theory".

That's what I'm trying to get across, its not a good "theory" its a model factory. Forget the "theory" in string theory, its not predictive yet, but it will be once we have established the parameters of our low energy world well enough. What it does do, is define what a theory of everything probably looks like and that helps theorists agree on what proper measurements even look like.

If it allows one to predict anything, then it is totally useless. It doesn't help theorists do anything but extract $$$ from gullible funding agencies.

The notion that "it will be once we have established the parameters of our low energy world well enough" is not supported by any evidence, unless you are saying "once we have given it the correct theory to imitate, it will imitate it correctly". A sheet of paper could do that, though.

creating models that work with all known physics without predicting new phenomena that can be tested seems very similar to what we did with epicycles.

i.e. it is just creating a complicated system to "curve fit" known data.

Epicycles created a consistent framework in which to produce repeated measurements and observe anomalies. It was an agreement that this was the basis on which observations would be compared, which turned out to be encompassing of the minimal correct theory. I think that is how to view string theory.

The difference is Pareto efficiency on the (time,quality) axes. Circles and then epicycles were the best model ever known until superseded later by ellipses. String Theory is not the "latest and greatest" , it's latest and less good than it's predecessor, making it useless as physics.

How many testable models has the model factory produced?

zero.

> Would you say Math itself is rubbish because it allows for such models to exist?

If Math had only ever produced such models? Yes, yes I would. And I think so would you, and most other people.

It's like saying that calculus makes no testable predictions. If you don't choose your parameters, it's not a physical theory.

Calculus is math. Math is about logic and relationships. Math isn't based on empirical observations and it doesn't predict or isn't necessarily related to real phenomena. Math isn't an empirical science.

Are you saying string theory is pure math?

If not, then the comparison doesn't make sense.

Calculus makes all kinds of testable predictions. They're called "theorems".