7 ms·

Very interesting!! Read also: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theor

• nickb 19y ago
  Lubos Motl's a string theorist. String theory is not really a science anymore... it's approaching religion: it's not falsifiable and you can "prove" anything using string theory... literally anything you want. I wouldn't trust his review of any opposing theory. You're better off reading what Lee Smolin or Peter Woit have to say. At least they're objective.
  • hhm 19y ago
    I don't know Lubos Motl, but I'm sure you can be a good scientist working in string theory; ie: trying to make it falsifiable. I'm sure if the argument is "Motl works in string theory => Motl is not a scientist", then it's not a valid argument.
    • hhm 19y ago
      But now I know better about the specific case of Motl: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/lubo-motl.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/lubo-motl.html
    • nickb 19y ago
      That's not what I said at all. Your second post is more in line with what I said. Lee Smolin was/is a string theorist too but at least he's objective and is not religious about ST like Motl and some others. This is a good link: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
      • hhm 19y ago
        I know about the case "not even wrong" and all that, and I agree. My point is: you can be a good string theorist, as well as you keep objective, as you say. I agree with that. Otherwise, we risk repeating the history: Schwartz was being believed to be nuts, until his team found some new interesting stuff. We don't know if that can happen again... Thanks a lot for the article, too.