Generating hypotheses by itself is not science; it's really not even amateur philosophy, just day dreaming. Anything you can't test is just speculation, not science; without the scientific method, what is science but speculation? More practically, how does pulling something out of our rear that MIGHT be true (but unverifiable) advance anything? If that qualifies as science angels and aliens are sound scientific hypotheses. When you speculate on speculation, yes, most of your hypotheses will be wrong: That's the problem.

He's no longer claiming confidence alone, but certainty, emphatically and repeatedly. That it was a pre-existing certainty only underscores the reservations that creates in me. Remember, I'm no longer saying exotic dark matter isn't very probably valid, just that it's still too soon to treat it as the slam dunk Dr. Carroll does. It's clear he'd already come to that conclusion and is only citing supporting evidence as it becomes available; that he has the education and awareness to find it doesn't make it more credible.

It's called, "the scientific method", and involves hypotheses one can test, not simply throwing out an idea not fundamentally contradicted by current evidence and hoping someone some day finds a way to test it that ultimately validates it. That's a lot bigger and less certain area than pure science; let's say there's a God, and based on that hypothesis let's say He created man in His image: Having established those things we can say all SORTS of things on the basis of them. None of them would be science though.