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
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 97:
Line 97: + +
→The falsfiability section makes no sense: reply to AlanN
::::Well I looked in the history and there was a link straight to the audio interview and you can listen to him say it, I would add the source back in but I'm visually impaired and I've already called my son in twice today to do captchas for me. I really don't think Kaku meant the robust comment to be a positive thing. --[[User:AlanN|AlanN]] 18:01, 26 June 2009 (EDT)--[[User:AlanN|AlanN]] 18:01, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Well I looked in the history and there was a link straight to the audio interview and you can listen to him say it, I would add the source back in but I'm visually impaired and I've already called my son in twice today to do captchas for me. I really don't think Kaku meant the robust comment to be a positive thing. --[[User:AlanN|AlanN]] 18:01, 26 June 2009 (EDT)--[[User:AlanN|AlanN]] 18:01, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Saying something is "too robust" is not a positive thing??? It's certainly not a harsh criticism; perhaps it could be some kind of backhanded compliment. I don't think it's a complaint about the lack of [[falsifiability]] of string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 26 June 2009 (EDT)