On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:36:00 GMT, Ivar Rosquist <IRosquist@irq.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:15:39 -0800, galathaea wrote: > >>> As of 9pm Tuesday (pdt) Motl's Wiki page has been purged of the >>> paragraph in question. I only know about all this stuff from what I read >>> on the Web ... but would Harvard fire a physicist for antics on Amazon? >> >> i am sure you already are aware >> that people with the mathematical skill >> and physical understanding >> of lubos' level >> often have strong visual obssessions > > Whatever his mathematical skills, in his replies to the criticisms of >string theory brought up by Woit and Smolin, Motl came across as an >opinionated individual, apparently able to conduct ad hominem attacks and >little else - that way providing support for the most lurid claims by both >authors on the character of the string theory community.
String "theory" doesn't seem to be verifiable or falsifiable, it's not really 'science' at all. It might represent the first try at an entirely new way of thinking about the universe that eventually LEADS to something that can be verified or perhaps innovations in instrumentation will make it possible to observe higher-dimensional processes that confirm the theory but, as is, well ....
Do those who condemn string theory deserve to be bad-mouthed ? Do those who advocate string theory deserve to be bad-mouthed ? The answer to both is "it depends".