The March 2014 issue of Physics Today has an article by Lee Smolin in which he argues that natural laws must change over time. As examples of such theories, he gives Penrose's CCC and his own cosmological natural selection (CNS): http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0612185 My understanding was that CNS had already been falsified in 2010 by the discovery of a 2-solar-mass pulsar: http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5788 But in the Physics Today article, Smolin says that CNS makes predictions and that, "The two main predictions, first published in 1992, have survived despite several chances to falsify them since. One of those is actually easy to state: The upper mass limit of neutron stars is at most two solar masses." The footnotes are:  L. Smolin, Class Quantum Grav 9, 173 (1992); The Life of the Cosmos, Oxford U Press, New York (1997)  L. Smolin, http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2632 ; http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2926 . The two arxiv papers are from 2012 and 2008, respectively. Their abstracts don't mention anything about empirical tests of the theory. I searched the text of the 2012 paper for the word "neutron," and found only one mention of neutron stars, which is in a reference to this 1997 paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712189 ; since it's from 1997, it's from before the discovery of the 2-solar-mass pulsar. What's up here? Did Smolin move the goalposts? Did he decide that the 2-solar-mass limit was fuzzy rather than sharp? Was the mass of this neutron star found to be a mistake? Are the error bars on its mass too big to allow it to falsify CNS? The article also describes Penrose's CCC as alive and kicking, whereas in fact I think it's clearly been dead for several years.