The most important bit:

"It seems to be very hard to get some people to understand that the number of “tests of string theory” is not “very few” but zero, for the simple reason that there are no predictions of string theory, generic or otherwise."

What's the counterargument to that, then? I'm curious!

I think the other comment puts it well. String theory is a model builder or a model factory. Models are testable, factories should be viewed from the point of view of the user. Physics theorists are the users here, some think the testable models it puts forth are rubbish, others think it puts forth good models. Would you say Math itself is rubbish because it allows for such models to exist? I don't think so. I think string theory (as a model factory) might be the best tool for finding minimal elegant testable theories that satisfy known constraints, after all isn't that what science, especially Physics is really doing?

If the string theory framework has yet to come up with a verified model nearly 40 years later, is it really that good of a framework?

The problem is that it's produced _many_ verified models that could work with all of known physics. The problem is coming up with a test that distinguishes them somehow.

It hasn't produced any model that reproduces the confirmed predictions of the Standard Model, so no, I don't think your claim there is true.

This might be interesting to you:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22559/how-does-s...

What that says is that String Theory can predict anything, therefore it can predict the Standard Model. This is not a good look for a "theory".

That's what I'm trying to get across, its not a good "theory" its a model factory. Forget the "theory" in string theory, its not predictive yet, but it will be once we have established the parameters of our low energy world well enough. What it does do, is define what a theory of everything probably looks like and that helps theorists agree on what proper measurements even look like.

If it allows one to predict anything, then it is totally useless. It doesn't help theorists do anything but extract $$$ from gullible funding agencies.

The notion that "it will be once we have established the parameters of our low energy world well enough" is not supported by any evidence, unless you are saying "once we have given it the correct theory to imitate, it will imitate it correctly". A sheet of paper could do that, though.

creating models that work with all known physics without predicting new phenomena that can be tested seems very similar to what we did with epicycles.

i.e. it is just creating a complicated system to "curve fit" known data.

Epicycles created a consistent framework in which to produce repeated measurements and observe anomalies. It was an agreement that this was the basis on which observations would be compared, which turned out to be encompassing of the minimal correct theory. I think that is how to view string theory.

The difference is Pareto efficiency on the (time,quality) axes. Circles and then epicycles were the best model ever known until superseded later by ellipses. String Theory is not the "latest and greatest" , it's latest and less good than it's predecessor, making it useless as physics.

How many testable models has the model factory produced?

zero.

> Would you say Math itself is rubbish because it allows for such models to exist?

If Math had only ever produced such models? Yes, yes I would. And I think so would you, and most other people.

It's like saying that calculus makes no testable predictions. If you don't choose your parameters, it's not a physical theory.

Calculus is math. Math is about logic and relationships. Math isn't based on empirical observations and it doesn't predict or isn't necessarily related to real phenomena. Math isn't an empirical science.

Are you saying string theory is pure math?

If not, then the comparison doesn't make sense.

Calculus makes all kinds of testable predictions. They're called "theorems".

A more recent post of his that specifically mentions the SciAm article:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11690

I don't understand why string theory gets singled out for this. It is a theory of ultra high energy physics. No theory of ultra high energy physics is testable with current technology, or any foreseeable technology. At best we make inferences from natural experiments, and that is equally true of any alternative to string theory.

String theory is the theory that gets popular exposure, and (by and large) string theory has heavily dominated the high energy physics community. While the criticism may be more general than just string theory, it's the one that's going to be targeted the most.

People seem to take the lesson that string theory is specifically flawed, and we should study some other theory instead. It's really an argument that we shouldn't study any ultra high energy domain at all. I disagree but it would be a more productive discussion than the flawed idea that string theory is uniquely untestable.

We criticize bad things people do before bad things people aren't doing.

Woit responded to this article today:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11690