String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?

Didn't string theory predict that the cosmological constant would be negative or null, and so that the expansion of the universe would be have a negative acceleration or be constant ? And then when they found out in 1998 that it was actually accelerating, they just reworked out the theory and made it fit the new data.I mean, if I remember this correctly, this is pretty much the definition of an epic failed prediction ...

That is not exactly what I had in mind. I read that in an article, so it may be hard for me to find it on the internet.

Supposing my anecdote is true, then I think the problem is much deeper. Because string theory has been viewed as unfalsifiable for this very reason: it can adapt to anything. Even when it predicts something in a specific direction, and observation shows the opposite, and can still be reworked and twisted, and a little more branes here, and a little exra-dimension there, and pop there it goes string theory is not shown to be wrong. (this is carricatural of course)This is what annoyes many physicists in the community, and I remember reading a quote along the lines of:'' I don't like that they (speaking of string theorists) can just rework the theory at will. I don't like that they can explain everything and anything, and that they will never be wrong, I don't like ...''I couldn't say that this is anywhere near exact to the quote, but the general idea that stemed from it was this.Because if a theory can adapt to any situation (even two situation that are distinctly opposite), to any data, than I do not think we can legitimately call it science anymore.

I find a serious lack of Culture in this post. And also a clear condescension of philosophy.Just read the many quotes fro mthe greatest scientists to have lived, and you can see that they had a great understanding of philosophy. Just look at all those einstein quotes that everyone have in their signatures.Karl Popper has made maybe the single most important contribution to science as a whole in the 20th century, which came in the form of his book ''The logic of scientific discovery''.

Ok, so if I remember correctly, it was in an article that I read back at my parents house. I'm going there next weekend, so I'll bring it back with me so as to get the actual quotes.

I don't think I understand your post, but here it goes:Are you trying to justify string theory being unfalsifiable ?Because I mean, if that is the case, then the issue is settled. I haven't taken a stance on string-theory as of right now, but from what I see there are some problems with the debate in itself. Because proponents of it keep saying how awesome it is etc. and keep making doubters look stupid, and objectors even more stupid. (primarily saying ''you oppose it because you don't understand it'' implying therefore every single objector doesn't understand it,)I never proposed abandoning research on a philosophical basis (as you seem to by applying this stance on me, one that I never took), but what I don't understand is, if truly it is unfalsifiable, then why do M-Theory proponents act this way ? Doesn't it's unfalsifiability provide a legitimate reason to doubt it ? Here you seem to imply that it is falsifiable, making all my previous comment unecessary.Because I mean, you were trying to defend that it can adapt to anything, stating that this was the case because it can produce an infinitue of possible realities, which was expected because of the previous belief in some sort of a multiverse. Then this last sentence does becomes a contradiction, since if it can adapt to anything, then you will never be able to know if it is part of the nature of reality.And of course, you may consciously don't give a shit about reality, but I can say that incounsciously you value it. Because if I ask you: Why do you think it is necessary to understand the nature of reality ? You will recognize it as an important question, but will answer it on philosophical grounds (because it is a philosophical question)Same thing if I ask you why mathematics is only based on logical deductions of a set of axioms and not experimentation, or why I cannot posit a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, etc. etc.All very important questions, all philosophical. All will be answered with a philosophical answer. The modern scientist has lost this notion mainly because of the seperation of domains in our culture.