[jgeada]

I know it is the standard nomenclature, but I object to it being called string theory, as it is at best a hypothesis, if not even just philosophical speculation with more math.

It can make no predictions, it is not falsifiable, it meets none of the constraints that allow something to be science.

[lo_zamoyski]

> just philosophical speculation with more math

Speaking of nomenclature, this is not a good characterization of what philosophy is, if your intention is to reduce philosophy to what you seem to have in mind for “philosophical speculation”. Metaphysical theory thoroughly supported by argument (hylomorphic dualism, theory of act and potency) is actually stronger than mere empirical science. Empirically testable predictions do not transcend reasoned argument as observation is interpreted though the body of propositions of prior theory and enters into scientific argument as argument.

[behringer]

I think string theory is so pupular is exactly because it can make predictions that classical particle theory cannot.

[vlovich123]

Are you sure? I thought that was why it had largely fallen out of favor. The predictions it makes are not testable.

[whynotkeithberg]

String theory is basically just noodles on the wall these days trying to find what sticks. mostly without basis and 99.9% of it falls off eventually as it's not backed by anything of substance.