String theory

I would like to simply affirm a few parts of my argument that my opponent has chosen to criticize. Here is what my opponent said: >>You claim that string theory is an approach "that could, in time, be quite helpful in understanding the way the universe works." If you think that proposing tiny curled up dimensions, particles without mass, and vibrating strings that can never be detected will lead us to understanding how the universe works, you are sadly mistaken. You admit that it is not verifiable as of yet, but those last three words are misleading. String theory is not verifiable PERIOD. There is no point in time in which it will ever be verifiable. The idea has been constructed in such a way as to ensure that it can never be verified nor falsified.<< String theory is not verifiable as of yet because it doesn't make any predictions as of yet because, as has been stated, it is not complete. In time, it will become more well-defined, and then it will be more testable. It's ludicrous to expect an incomplete hypothesis to make valid predictions about reality. String theory is good because it unifies the universe, and is one of the only approaches from which we can actually explain the fundamental forces. If we ever seek to understand these forces, we must fully explore every lead, and right now, string theory's the name of the game for explaining _why and how_ all these fundamental forces exist. My opponent said: >>But a particle with dimensionality and zero mass is INCONSISTENT with reality.<< It's inconsistent with reality as you understand it. I'm not saying you lack an understanding of reality in general, but don't act like you understand exactly how everything works, especially on a quantum level, where most of the science we currently have breaks down. My opponent said: >>Calabi-Yau geometry is six-dimensional geometry, and although there are not six spatial dimensions (unless you believe in string theory) it is still a valid branch of mathematics. You can perform calculations on geometrical figures that cannot be seen or even pictured. For example, I can calculate that a 27-sided polygon will have exactly 4,500 degrees. I have never seen a 27-sided polygon, and I cannot begin to picture one. But using the simple formula of (N-2)*180 degrees, I have performed a valid calculation to arrive at a true answer. This may seem like I am going way off on a tangent, but I only included this paragraph to show that in what follows, my attacks are only on string theory itself and not on Calabi-Yau geometry.<< The only really meaty part of this is your example, which has absolutely nothing to do with 6-d. A 27-sided polygon would be a 2-dimensional object. I can draw one for you if you want. Also, you have no reasons to think that there cannot be 6 spacial dimensions. String theory is not the only possible answer to 6 dimensions. I personally would think that string theory is in fact science. It is a hypothesis in the formative stages, before testing is possible. Regardless, we're not debating whether it's science. Your stance in this debate is that against "string theory." The topic is not "String theory is science." Therefore, it is worthless to criticize its scientific credentials, since this is of no importance. You've admitted that it is the only game in town which seeks to explain gravity at a quantum level. I simply cannot be against the only lead we have in areas like this. I am in favor of string theory, and will only abandon it when and if something better comes around.