Regarding that link, in the "background essay": The first sentence misuses the word "revolutionary". The second sentence misuses the term "all aspects". The

Regarding that link, in the "background essay": The first sentence misuses the word "revolutionary". The second sentence misuses the term "all aspects". The third sentence misquotes the general position of string theorists (I think) by misusing the term "explanation". Either way, it's making a reductionist mistake. The fourth sentence (second paragraph) suggests that the biggest obstacle to acceptance of string theory is that it's weird, not whether it's true. This is false. If there was no case that string theory were true, then it's adherents would give it up, and it would never be able to gain acceptance. The fifth sentence misuses the word "detect". The sixth sentence (third paragraph), which I think was your point, is ... well let's see how they support it in the remaining sentences. The seventh sentence makes both inductivist and justificationist mistakes before the semi-colon. Then misuses the word "suggests" after the semi-colon. The eighth sentence restates the claim from the sixth. The ninth (last) sentence badly misuses the word "explains" and the term "scientifically valid". It's also terrible English.