From the Woit blog: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/ The only physicist quoted who recognizes that the Landscape is pseudo-science is David Gross. “It’s impossible to disprove” he says, and notes that because we can’t falsify the idea it’s not science. He sees the origin of this nonsense in string theorist’s inability to predict anything despite huge efforts over more than 20 years: “‘People in string theory are very frustrated, as am I, by our inability to be more predictive after all these years,’ he says. But that’s no excuse for using such ‘bizarre science’, he warns. ‘It is a dangerous business.’” I continue to find it shocking that the many journalists who have been writing stories like this don’t seem to be able to locate any leading particle theorist other than Gross willing to publicly say that this is just not science. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/full/439010a.html [Broken] It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: "It's impossible to disprove." Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn't science. Or at least, it isn't science in any conventional sense of the word. "I think Gross sees this as science taking on some of the traits of religion," says Carr. "In a sense he's correct, because things like faith and beauty are becoming a component of the discussion." Gross believes that the emergence of multiple universes in science has its origins in theorists' 20-year struggle to explain the finely tuned numbers of the cosmos. "People in string theory are very frustrated, as am I, by our inability to be more predictive after all these years," he says. But that's no excuse for using such "bizarre science", he warns. "It is a dangerous business. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/full/439010a.html [Broken] Should pseudo science have its own prominent forum at a place called "physics forums?" Furthermore, if a pseudo sicence forum exists, should only pseudo sience that conforms to the pseudo-science of well-funded pseudo scienetists be discussed. Should not all pseudo science be welcomed? Do large NSF grants absolve one of having to do real physics? And even better yet, if we are going to have forums devoted to bizarre, dangerous, pseudo science, should we not have a forum devoted to new physical theories that are based in logic and reason, in truth and beauty, in physics? Thanks!!!