----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Farmelant" <farmelantj at juno.com>
> >So in your judgement are string theories best regarded as
> >science or as metaphysics. given the apparent fact
> >that they do not seem to admit to experimental verification
> >or falsification?
>
> 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.
>
> So how to choose meta-theories like string theory or its alternatives in
the
> meantime. Some argue that mathematical beauty and the ability to verify
> further mathematical understandings of the theory is a form of proof. But
> it's not clear what is gained in such situations other than a pretty
theory.
> Which for some folks is enough.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
======================
If the social/financial costs of verifying string theory exceed the benefits to be gained to societies, then screw the physicists. The money is better spent studying human health, argicultural ecosystems, forest blights, atmospheric chemistry..the list goes on and on. C S Pierce wrote about the economics of scientific research a century ago and we've still got a bunch of rent-seeking scientists who play on the "man's place in the universe" quasi-theological search for the meaning of it all. Physics needs to be dethroned. This case with the French, along with the fraud at Bell labs is the perfect opportunity to shift the terms of the debate........
Ian