To sum up: If string theory happens to be complete B.S., there is essentially no loss to society. If prevailing macro theory (New Keynesian models now, RBC in the 80s, etc.) is complete B.S., there might be no loss, but there might very well be a big loss. This is probably why the public gets a lot madder about macro debates than about high-energy physics debates.Noahpinion
Macro theory vs. string theory
Noah Smith | Assistant Professor of Finance, Stony Brook University
"If string theory happens to be complete B.S., there is essentially no loss to society."
ReplyDeleteFirst, it can't be "disproved" to a string theorist's satisfaction. It is infinitely flexible to survive just about anything. Even when the predictions it makes are completely wrong, the theorists claim it is a mere snag and that all will be well. Feynman thought is was all a bunch of unscientific mathematical posturing, and I think he's right.
Second, the mania around it has ensured that all other theories are essentially not publicly funded. So it in fact there is a significant scientific loss to society.
"If prevailing macro theory (New Keynesian models now, RBC in the 80s, etc.) is complete B.S., there might be no loss, but there might very well be a big loss."
First, it is total BS, no "might" about it. Second, these absurd "theories" have given intellectual justification to untold misery. So the loss is indeed "big".