3 ms·
I wouldn't go that far - there's still utility to be had in generating the theories. What is a practical problem though, is that other less sexy fields of phys
by toufka 12y ago
I wouldn't go that far - there's still utility to be had in generating the theories.
What is a practical problem though, is that other less sexy fields of physics are losing funding to the string theorists. Give them their own discipline, their own pot of cash and let them figure out their theories - while simultaneously maintaining a separate pot of cash for those who work on the falsifiable parts of physics.
In other words, let it be a no-man's land, so long as it's boundaries are delineated and separate from the math, physics and philosophy that it came from. There's nothing wrong with designing a new discipline.
- hga 12y agoYeah, one of the other big issues that I've noted people in the field complaining about is how string theorists are indeed sucking up a disproportionate share of theoretical physics, but worse than that. Since their's is, from what I read, the US consensus on how to do that area of theoretical physics, in the usual group think fashion of funding organizations, other approaches find difficulty getting any respect, let alone funding. Anyway, the problem here of course is that they would never accept being relegated to a field that's not "physics", since capital P Physics has so much respectability, pretty much the most of anything. But since they're now openly trying to redefine scientific truth (as the FDA did to come up with its second hand smoke "science"), it's hard to see any option less severe than the one you propose.