The Anthropic Principle states that the fundamental physics of the universe must allow the possibility of conscious life in the universe - as that is an observable fact.
It's often qualified as pseudo-science. The pseudo qualifier is pejorative. Yet it certainly sets bounds on what the fundamental constants of physics must lie in - if we take the machinary of the Standard Model as fixed but the constnts variable.
Is it falsifiable which is Poppers criterion for a scientific theory. If not, then what actually is its philosophical status if it lies outside the realm of falsifiable theories? Can it still count as scientific and objective as physics proper - as it has a direct bearing on the parameters that the standard model can take?
As evidence that the Anthopic Principle is taken seriously in science with as Schellekin notes 'palpable reluctance' the following quote may help:
From the abstract of Schellekens paper Life at the interface of Particle Physics & String Theory, an Invited contribution to Reviews of Modern Physics
Meanwhile there has been increasing evidence that the seemingly ideal candidate for answering these questions, String Theory, gives an answer few people initially expected: a huge "landscape" of possibilities, that can be realized in a multiverse and populated by eternal inflation. At the interface of "bottom-up" and "top-down" physics, a discussion of anthropic arguments becomes unavoidable.
and then in the main body of the text
ANTHROPIC LANDSCAPES The idea that our own existence might bias our observations has never been popular in modern science, but especially during the last forty years a number of intriguing facts have led scientists from several areas of particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology in that direction, often with palpable reluctance. Examples are Dirac's large number hypothesis in astrophysics (Carr and Rees, 1979; Carter, 1974), chaotic inflation (Linde, 1986b), quantum cosmology (Vilenkin, 1986), the cosmological constant (Barrow and Tipler, 1986; Davies and Unwin, 1981;Weinberg, 1987), the weak scale in the Standard Model(Agrawal et al., 1998b), quark and lepton masses in the Standard Model (Hogan, 2000), the Standard Model in string theory (Schellekens, 1998) and the cosmological constant in string theory (Bousso and Polchinski, 2000;Susskind, 2003).
he also says
The rest of this section does not depend on the details of the string landscape, except that at one point we will assume discreteness. However, the existence of some kind of landscape in some fundamental theory is a prerequisite. Without that, all anthropic arguments lose there scientific credibility
This is probably a little more negative than it should be, as it sounds as though if the Anthropic Principle would be of no interest & vacuous if a possible mechanism hadn't been identified. after it is undeniable that the Anthopic argument was made well before the advent of String Theory. That the landscape in string theory offers a mechanism makes the argument concrete & scientific, but by the same token one should then assert that the argument was of philosophical interest before this possibility announced itself.