Because the bill is due for cosmology’s free, non-falsifiable lunch.
At least, that is the impression one gets from Columbia mathematician Peter Woit’s comments Here:
Next week there will be a workshop in Munich with the title Why Trust a Theory? Reconsidering Scientific Methodology in Light of Modern Physics. It’s organized by Richard Dawid, to discuss his ideas about “non-empirical theory confirmation”, developed to defend string theory research against accusations that its failure to make any testable predictions about anything make it a failure as a research program.
I guess the idea of such a workshop is to bring together string theory proponents and critics to sort things out, but looking at the program and talk abstracts, this doesn’t look promising, with the central issues to be evaded, and speakers likely to just talk past each other. More.
Because if the funding is there, they can still get away with that.
See also: Astronomer Hugh Ross on degrees of certainty in science
Multiverse cosmology: Assuming that evidence still matters, what does it say?
and
In search of a road to reality
Follow UD News at Twitter!
When I was young and in college I studied engineering. The idea of a theory or hypothesis not having any observable proof was nonsensical to me. They are actually having a conference about why they can’t find evidence against the standard theory. The LHC experiments are being gone over with a fine toothed comb, so to speak. I do not see any chance whatsoever that any of their unfalsifiable constructs will ever have any evidence, but it will be claimed otherwise because these people are saying evidence isn’t necessary to prove their science, it only has to be elegant. My goodness atheism makes people stupid. They wouldn’t receive the truth so God sends them a lie. It’s sad that so many believe in such things.
String theory suffers from a lot of naive realism. A microscopic vibrating string is well, same like a vibrating macroscopic string. A tangible, and visual object. That is naive attachment to tangibility and visuality. The way to go is, obviously, creatio ex nihilo. The zero as the foundation of mathematics, mathematics ordered by zero, and mathematics as the theory of everything. Tangible? Visual? these are highly prejudiced concepts. Some things in the universe will have these tangible and visual aspects, other things not. Pure mathematics is an unprejudiced concept.