Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 89:
Line 89: + +
→The falsfiability section makes no sense: reply
"String theory proponent Michio Kaku replies to this glaring defect by stating that string theory may be "too robust" because it is not falsifiable, an obvious non sequitur. " I don't understand this. In the parlance of physics robust is the opposite of falsifiable, so its not so much a response to the glaring defect as pointing it out. and why is there no reference for this quote? --[[User:Alaskan|Alaskan]] 20:31, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
"String theory proponent Michio Kaku replies to this glaring defect by stating that string theory may be "too robust" because it is not falsifiable, an obvious non sequitur. " I don't understand this. In the parlance of physics robust is the opposite of falsifiable, so its not so much a response to the glaring defect as pointing it out. and why is there no reference for this quote? --[[User:Alaskan|Alaskan]] 20:31, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
:No, I don't think you've gotten the complete meaning of [[falsifiability]], although I agree a reference would be welcome to the Kaku claim so we can all read it in its full glory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 24 June 2009 (EDT)e