Listen to the proceedings of this conference to hear a high school teacher

who is now under the impression that due to string theory "we may have to come

up with new standards of what it means to say we know something in science".

A course at MIT on "String Theory for Undergraduates":

As far as I can tell from the course materials, the fact that the theory doesn't work

is one of many things not taught in this course.

This is the third year of this program, which last year concentrated more on cosmology.

It now seems that this program to indoctrinate graduate students in string theory will be an

annual event at the Institute in Princeton.

A list of the "Big" questions in M-theory:

Here's a bigger one: if you don't know the fundamental degrees of freedom of your

theory, the dynamical laws governing them, or what the observables of the theory are,

shouldn't you at least put the term "theory" in quotes?

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

And some people call string theory a cult. Can't imagine why.

Actually, maybe I can .

Superstring Theory":

Two brothers manage to publish several papers of complete gibberish about quantum gravity/

beginning of universe/string theory in five refereed journals, a couple of them very well

known. Three of the papers are essentially identical. The response of the theoretical physics

community: "What, me worry?"

The "Discretuum" and anthropic arguments:

During the past couple years many string theorists have completely given

up on the idea that string theory can ever predict anything. While not

abandoning string theory, they now pursue "anthropic" explanations of physics.

For an example, see this recent video of a talk by Susskind. The first question

after his talk is something like "doesn't this just show that string theory is a failure

and we should look for a different theory?". He responds by first hyperventilating,

then trying to explain why a theory that predicts nothing is a good thing.