While I do agree with Woit on the issue that Amanda Peet did make a misleading statement on the verification of string theory, I do not totally agree with Peter Woit on dismissing string theory solely on the falsifiability stance.
The falsifiability is now viewed as silly by Steven Weinberg (in his John Horgan interview on May 1, 2015); he said: “ First of all, this business of falsifiability is a silly criterion imposed on physical science by Karl Popper, who was looking for some way of discrediting Marxism and psychoanalysis.” Of course, falsifiability is not only wrong but is totally stupid. The Truth can never be falsified. I have argued on this long time ago. The most recent comments are http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/01/sean-carroll-edge-and-falsifiability.html?showComment=1391495471963#c4513550151511059382 , and
While the Popperianism was very successful for long time for weeding out the non-true models, every truth can always be verified (not falsified). Thus, instead of calling Poperianism is wrong and stupid, I must show a way to guarantee that truths can always be verified. I have showed a ‘Beauty-contest’ epistemology: that is, we can design a universe and enter it into a beauty-contest with the Nature universe.
This design is totally arbitrary, by arbitrarily choosing some axioms. If they don’t work out, we simply find a new set of axioms. Then this designed universe will enter into a beauty contest with the discovered universe, beginning with the derived nature constants, laws vs the discovered set. Then, it should generate some domains, such as, physics domain, math domain, life domain, consciousness domain, and they will be compared with the known universe.
In Amanda Peet’s examples of calculating the entropy of the black hole and the hologram are the first step of this beauty-contest methodology, and it must not be dismissed with the wrong idea of Popperianism. Again, I must not speak with hollow words. I have showed more examples of beauty-contest at,