> For many years (maybe still) String Theory is not testable. You keep repeating this, but it's incorrect in the context we're discussing. > Yet you are tryin

> For many years (maybe still) String Theory is not testable. You keep repeating this, but it's incorrect in the context we're discussing. > Yet you are trying to say String Theory has some extra quality that is convincing enough to allow us to assume that in the future it might be testable No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm pointing out that string theory was designed from the beginning to make the same predictions as existing theories, and it generally did so, with some caveats. In that sense, it was testable from very early on - you could use it to make predictions, and test those predictions. Peter Woit acknowledges this in the article you linked, writing: > "simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as “beautiful”, disagree with experiment for some basic reasons." The fact that the theory is capable of disagreeing with experiment means that it is testable. The theory might be wrong, as in Woit's example, but it's testable. The whole point of a testable theory in this context is that you can use test to determine when or where the theory is wrong. When Woit says the theory is untestable, he's using the word in a different sense, which he describes in the article. But that is not the same sense in which IIT is untestable. IIT is untestable because there are not tests that can be used to determine when or where the theory is wrong, as there are with string theory. That's why it's pseudoscience. > To toss it out at such an early stage is just as invalid, based on opinion not anything scientific. IIT is 20 years old at this point, hardly "such an early stage".