[Phys-L] Re: ID and string theory

[jlu at HEP.ANL.GOV (Jack Uretsky)]

Hi all-
        The question, as phrased, makes no sense because "string theory"
is a process of investigation, it is not, in its present form, a statement
about nature.
        The short answer to Larry's question is, "Yes, what string
theorists are doing to day is "science"."  A longer answer is an
invitation to familiarize yourself with what it is that string theorists
are doing.
                                        Regards,
                                                Jack


On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Larry Smith wrote:

> Despite some of the subsequent responses, my questions about string theory
> remain unanswered; they were genuine questions.  Please opine about whether
> string theory meets the (AAPT's or yours) definition of "science."
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> At 5:13 PM -0600 8/25/05, Larry Smith wrote:
> > At 11:08 AM -0600 8/24/05, Jim Green wrote:
> > > There is as much "evidence" to support ID as there is to support string
> > > theory and about an equal chance that anyone will devise a "scientific"
> > > test to "prove" either.
> >
> > The AAPT says science is "the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge
> > about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable
> > laws and theories."  Does string theory qualify?  More than ID?  Are ID and
> > string theory on the same par as far as the definition of science is
> > concerned?  Should we have a debate about teaching string theory in science
> > class?
> >
> > Larry

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
                General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
                just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley