[craftsman]

I do understand your point here. But, as the article points out, the very thing in question here is: are we going to determine science funding solely by politics, or are there measurable, objective ways of determining where to allocate funding? If the underlying science is not testable, falsifiable, then we really are in the realm of politics and taste. One might almost say, religion.

[jordanpg]

I'll speak up for one "religious" viewpoint: it is plausible that a breakthrough in theoretical physics could lead to a technological revolution in ways we can't even imagine. Warp drives, teleporters, etc.

If we accept this premise and consider this a sensible card to play, in the spectrum of physics resource allocation (say <5%), then these theorists need to start somewhere. Physics beyond the standard model is fertile ground, as is dark matter and friends. (not-so?) Friendly competition for these marginal portions of physics funding might be a good thing.

Aside: It borders on the surreal to me that these ideas need to be taken to the public to secure funding. The amount of abstraction between popular accounts of modern physics and the math itself is profound. The language used to talk about these theories begins to sound like fairy tales.