Also, after using the word “bitter” twice in such a comment, I would suggest looking up the word “irony”.

In the future I will be deleting such comments on threads where they are off topic.

I hope you are consistent in making this statement. String theorists have blocked me from discussions of alternatives while at the Open University in 1997 (Dr Bob Lambourne used stringy stuff to dismiss the factual proof, under the false impression that Popper had disproved the existence of factual proofs in science).

In fact, the laws of buoyancy aren’t falsifiable: they are based on empirical facts and logic by Archimedes. Popper simply ignores non-falsifiable science.

The use of vacuous speculation like strings to “discredit alternatives” is what is pointless. You can falsify string theory by proving that the gravity mechanism – which makes non-ad hoc predictions which tally with observations – doesn’t rely on strings. Put it like this, since a proved non-string mechanism accounts for 100% of gravity, strings aren’t involved.

However, the string people control arxiv and the minds of everyone who wants to hold their job in academia. They are bitter, and pathetic. Arxiv administrators in email with me in 2002 told me to get my own internet site. That shows what level of interest there is in science there. None. They are just bitter and silly.

There is more than way to skin a cat, oh and there is more than one way to propel flight, cars or trains, maglev possibly my favourite for the latter (for now), and there are many ways to produce energy, large for industrial use + metropolis, smaller alternatives for certain greener rural needs or desert areas.

But yes milk is good, but not for all
Milk is bad, well only for certain people or Vegan beliefs

Meat is good, well for most carnivours.
Meat is necessary, nope, not for vegetarians or vegans

Beer has good qualities, unless you abuse
Wine has good qualities, nless you abuse

Not eating pork, will not save you from cardiac problems
Smoking will aggravate cardio-thoraxic problems.

But I was being more specific, where some break thru is hailed as a miracle with muchfanfare, but the negative results are kept quiet for commercial reasons. Or miracle drugs are promised that are not so miraculous and given a ridiculous price tag to recoup the investment on all the other tens of failed drugs and research. This is not ‘good’ science, unless you call marketing and economy science. But as we know econometrix and economic & political sciences are not precise sciences, in that they can be ‘false’ truths upheld by inertia, vested interests, shareholders profits or if necessary armies of lawyers, and when necessary as with other resources Oil, gas, land or other interests by the military abroad & the ‘police’ at home.

Yep inevitable all research and funding, especially big league is dependant on political will & government, whether NASA, space exploration, colliders, Boeing, Airbus, bullet trains, nuclear power, large hydro electric damns or wave power (estuaries, deltas, river mouths) because of the scale of the project. Private enterprise just plays an administrative role to bankroll projects. Incidentally despite allusions to the contrary the pharmaceutical industry and medical research is wholly dependant on state funding, it is just that private companies syphon as much away to pay bonuses and pie in the sky dividends (smoke + mirrors) to make them attractive to investors and pension funds. Whereas a lot of that money could actually be better spent on personal care of patients. But that is more costly and time consuming and not as profitable, as precribing some magic bullet or pill. Talk about gold dust or added value. Something that costs less than 10 cents per pill to make can be prescribed for $14,000 a year and you don’t even have to sugar coat it.

WOW! Am I missing something?

So who have you seen in “opposition to strings/loops,” and what have you gained from their reactions?

Susskind and Smolin? Maybe, Gell-Mann and Feynman in another forum?

So one may seek to create these “relationships,” in the true spirit of dialogue?

Very interesting perspective. I am reminded of an analogy from art and architecture where the use of “negative space” is part of the artistic value of an object.

On the issue of results of various clinical trials of drugs, supplements, other alternative treatments or life style, it is very important to understand what is considered statistically significant in order to identify negative and/or positive results. This is a tricky business and the myriad of seemingly contradictory studies. (coffee is good/bad for you) (vitamins are good/no effect) (alcohol is good for your heart/bad for your liver/might be good for your prostate) etc. are often difficult to decipher for laypeople not to mention the doctors who should be making recommendations to their patients.

Elliot

I vaguely remember enjoying a cartoon duo named Null & Void. I wish I could remember their special powers, but I recall thinking they were cool. After a fair bit of Googling, I think I must be recalling a pair of friends (not villians, I hope!) in the TV cartoon Inspector Gadget. I don’t know how the brain works, but I’m sure that storage area could have better used. *sigh*

One does not continuosly report on the failures of heart surgery, one waits till there is a “success”. First heart transplant patient survivor is hailed and aired with much fanfare, and if the patient dies the next day, he is swept under the carpet and replaced with a ‘live’ patient. Desperate people can be duped into trying anything. But to secure government funding and attract or appeal to the vanity of the well “endowed” who can make you rich & famous, you need to make (enhance) the probabilities and odds of a good prognostic.

That is the continuing story of the organ transplant industry. They show you their survivors as their success story, the deceased are not mentioned. Well they would have died anyway, no? well maybe. But in that case the survivors too may have survived without the transplant, no?

If the walls of Transplant clinics were filled with photos of deceased patients, would they get as much funding or as many clients and paying customers? If the walls of transplant centres were filled with photos of some of the butchery and carnage, would they have got so many to put their life in their hands?

If the walls of the plastic surgery clinics were covered with photos of those patients butchered by plastic surgery it would turn the stomachs of, and turn away prospective patients with more cash or hope than sense.

If the pharmaceutical industry filled its reception walls and glossy magazines with photos of the real tests or results of lab experiments on animals and photos of thelidomide children, they would get less volunteers or human guinea pigs, thus being unable to meet the legal requirements to market their drugs as “safe” or proven.

Incidentally ever read the disclaimers on pharmaceutical products: “If it doesn’t kill you, it may cure you” and if it doesn’t kill you or cure you, here TRY THIS ONE!