>String theory wishes are you a string theorist? are you sure that you understand the claims made by string theory and how falsifiable they are? conversely >

>String theory wishes are you a string theorist? are you sure that you understand the claims made by string theory and how falsifiable they are? conversely >fine print couldn't be drawn up and I'm 99% sure... where does your 99% surety derive from? As someone trained both in mathematical physics and DL, i'm here to burst your bubble: the falsifiability of both disciplines is exacty the same because they're both premised on knowledged derived of models with an astronomical number of free parameters. just to be clear: i'm not poopooing LLN here, i.e. the models themselves are fine, i'm talking about absurd meta-claims (like ops about generating language) derived of observing many such models.