More on the reverse Sokal

[H. Curtiss Leung]

Nathan wrote:
> 
> The problem is that string theories are potentially verifiable by
> experiment, so they are not metaphysical is the most abstract sense.  They
> meet the basic structure of a scientific theory that is subject to
> falsification.  But the energy required for most obvious experimental proofs
> is so high that they are practically unverifiable.
> 

Is this really the case with string theory?  I know that there are 
conjectures in particle theory that would require enormous particle
accelerators, but have never heard that about string theoretic 
conjectures.

Regarding the relation between proof and experiment, the computer
scientist and mathematician Donald Knuth is supposed to have written 
this of a theoretical result of his: "Warning to the reader--I have only
proved the foregoing to be true, not tested it."
--
Curtiss, with volume I of Knuth sitting unopened on his shelf like a 
reproach