Is String Theory Scientific?

Among the various April Fool’s things on the web, the most subtle one I’ve found is by the people at James Madison University, who are advertising an April 1 event discussing the question of Is String Theory Scientific?

Part of the joke surely is Betteridge’s Law or Hinchcliffe’s Rule, which assure us that that answer to the question is “No”.

Update: Among today’s other April Fool’s efforts, Kyle Cranmer updates an oldie but goodie, supersplit supersymmetry.

Update: Another April 1 effort, this one an essay on the multiverse by Robert Lawrence Kuhn. Kuhn claims that the majority of cosmologists disagree with George Ellis about the problems with the multiverse, and that Andrei Linde (with Steve Weinberg agreeing with him) represents the consensus viewpoint. Very funny.

: INTO THE MULTIVERSE: God’s Voice in String Theory is labeled March 31, but surely it too is an April 1 effort.

This entry was posted in Multiverse Mania, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Is String Theory Scientific?

  1. Peter Woit says:

    Hi Davide,
    You seem to have missed my update…

  2. Narad says:

    JMU did miss an opportunity to site the event in “upstairs room 500” rather than a real meeting venue, although that would play better if there weren’t an actual fifth floor (the ballroom).

  3. anon says:

    The whole YouTube channel that you linked to in your third update looks like an April 1 effort…

  4. Jim Akerlund says:

    It looks like the third update is a serious thing, not in the vane of April Fool’s. There is a certain group that does lots of pingbacks to this blog that will be interested in this, if they don’t already know about it. The video looks like a new morph of Intelligent Design into Intelligent String Theory. A quote from the video; “Evolution itself, I’m not down with…”, occurs at the 23:09 point.

  5. John Baez says:

    I reported a new convex polyhedron with regular faces.

    I also reported a proof that there’s a Turing machine that computes uncomputable functions. But this is actually true, once you insert the fine print (which I have not done here).

Comments are closed.