Her post linked to in the original blog post makes a good point too: Even if your theory is consistent, it is only as valid as the assumed axioms. Consistency,

Her post linked to in the original blog post makes a good point too: Even if your theory is consistent, it is only as valid as the assumed axioms. Consistency, of course, is necessary in any correct theory of physics, but it is not sufficient and definitely does not make the theory "inevitable". Also, if the consistent axioms are underspecified, you get ambiguous and un-falsifiable theories. Her main target has often been multiverse theories (i.e. how would you define a measure over universes/how could you verify a probability distribution over universes). In her book "Lost in Math" a target of ire has also been supersymmetry, though she dislikes supersymmetry for another reason, namely the fact that it relies too much on justifications of "beauty" to survive all of its empirical short-comings. In her view, the fact that supersymmetry solves the hierarchy problem is more an aesthetic point (and therefore irrelevant), than a mathematical or logical necessity.