Is String Theory Really a Scientific Theory?

vk38 writes, "The New Yorker is running a story on whether String Theory is really a scientific theory or just an abstract exercise in math designed to churn out papers and Ph.Ds for the established academics. The article reviews two current books, by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, laying out the case against string theory." From the article: "Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet... not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far — just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing... String theory has always had a few vocal skeptics... Sheldon Glashow, who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened string theory to a 'new version of medieval theology,' and campaigned to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He failed.)"

Comments

Re:Neither Proved Nor Disproved

[BytePusher]

I'd like to also mention that this is the same paper that invented a drama (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/ 21/1442239) between several notable mathematicians. It seems the "New Yorker" is in the business of making news, not reporting it, ala "The Onion," but they seem to take themselves more seriously.

Re:If it's not testable it isn't science.

[Colin Smith]

Philosophy is a word used in the english language. Defined in and by encyclopedia and dictionaries. Feel free to point to an authorative source which disputes the definitions I have highlighted.

Your other answers are mental masturbation, I've already pointed out that I'm right and you're wrong. Now go away.