/sci/ - Science & Math

It does explain everything.

>>5565255
however it is not testable yet

> Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten, Juan Maldacena, and on and on and on

>>5565256
Irrelevant. It has explanatory power. Macroevolution isn't testable either. For a theory to be accepted it doesn't need to be testable. All it needs is to be the most plausible explanation that's consistent with all the existing observations.

>>5565262

>Macroevolution is not testable

Your ignorance is showing.

>>5565263

say that on red-dit and watch your karma disappear into naught.

Quantum gravity exists in nature. Considering how nearly every single natural phenomenon so far has had a mathematical model describing how it works (i.e., physics), you'd have to have a pretty damn good reason to expect no mathematical model to exist for QG. Currently, ST is one of the most realistic QG models out there.

Also, that pic is dumb.

>>5565268
Either you haven't even finished middle school or you're trolling. Which one is it? Which global rule are you violating? Number 2 or number 3?

>>5565251
>OP's pic
lel

>x^2 + 1 = 0
>Calculations don't add up?
>Add a new "imaginery" number!
>Congratulations, now you're doing math like a mathematician.

>>5565262
Macroevolution isn't a thing. There's just evolution. To suppose that macro- and micro- evolution are separable first requires a justifiable way to differentiate species. But you can't. Evolution is just evolution, biologists specialize in the study of different scales, but its the same process with no natural division between macro and micro.

>>5565270

>He doesn't know that microevolution and macroevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

>He doesn't understand that if you can prove microevolution is true, then macroevolution must also be true.

>He doesn't know we have observed many instances of speciation.

>>5565278
Full fucking retard. Thanks for showing us that you can't into basic epistemology of science.

>>5565279
That doesn't change the fact that evolution on large scales is not testable. The lineage of dinosaurs cannot be tested but is only an explanatory model directly inferred from the observations.

No. It is a toy theory of quantum gravity popular not because it has any experimental evidence behind it, but because quantum mechanical calculations about its two-dimensional string worldsheets are relatively easy to do.

>>5565286
>That doesn't change the fact that evolution on large scales is not testable

this doesn't change the fact that "large scales" is intentionally ambiguous and as such untestable.

this doesn't change the fact that you're retarded.

this doesn't change the fact that god didn't create the universe.

>>5565286
>That doesn't change the fact that evolution on large scales is not testable

this doesn't change the fact that "large scales" is intentionally ambiguous and as such untestable.

this doesn't change the fact that you're retarded.

this doesn't change the fact that god didn't create animalkind out of clay.

>>5565286

>Drop house mouse on island.
>Observe rapid speciation

You've just tested and observed the theory of macroevolution.

Or does observable speciation not meet the requirements for testing macroevolution to you?

Do you only consider macroevolution testable if we observe a dinosaur evolve into a bird?

lel

>>5565304
>>5565307
I'm not talking about god or cretionism. I'm an atheist. I'm merely correcting your epic failure at scientific epistemology. Evolution on large time scales is "only" a plausible explanation. It is not testable. It is the prime example of a theory that is accepted due to it being consistent, plausible and explanatory but without being testable.

>>5565304
>Do you only consider macroevolution testable if we observe a dinosaur evolve into a bird?

That's a claim evolutionary theory. This claim is not testable. It is rationally inferred from observations and it is accepted because of its plausibility. But there's no way to test it.

>>5565320

You can easily test it. Your implying the large timescales required to observe macroevolution are not testable. However, it is, assuming you carried out an experiment with an equally large timescale.

Speciation is macroevolution. We have observed and carried out experiments resulting in speciation. Thus we have experimental evidence that macroevolution is a real thing, it is not simply inferred.

You do not need one animal to evolve into another to observe macroevolution, and prove that it is true.

Stay pleb.

>>5565315

>bioinformatics and gene sequencing as such did not in fact prove that evolution did happen.

>evolution was just the label applied to the phenomenon observed, which does not make evolution that phenomenon.

>>5565332
>You can easily test it.
How? Name one test.

>>5565336
>>bioinformatics and gene sequencing as such did not in fact prove that evolution did happen.
Of course not. They are not the "proofs" of evolution but rather the methods by which we construct the theory of evolution and its explanatory models. Evolution itself is the underlying assumption.

>>5565347

let me put it this way


>human observance and spectroscopy as such did not in fact prove that 210nm light was green.

>green was just the label applied to the phenomenon observed, which does not make that specific color green.

No, it has failed every testable prediction it's made

>>5565381
>>human observance and spectroscopy as such did not in fact prove that 210nm light was green.
"Green" is the label we gave to that wave length. You got it the wrong way round.

What's the problem in op's picture? 1+1+1= 3

>>5565385

exactly, and evolution is the label we gave to the phenomenon that is exhibited in nature which is that over a certain line of ancestry, mutations happen and macroevolution takes place. It has been proven empirically that humans are related to fungi and chloroplasts. It has been demonstrated that ancestors share more genetic makeup with both, therefore the logical assumption that evolution happens seems sound and is generally accepted as "evolution."

you fucken retarded piece of shit.

Michio Kaku dedicated his life to it

>>5565278

Why even recognize them as separate things. The only people who push that perspective are xtians who try to claim one is true but not the other.

>>5565419
Since you're literally retarded, I'll explain it once again for you in very simple terms.

1. I did not deny the huge amounts of evidence for evolution.
2. In science nothing is "proven". Theories in science are accepted, when they are plausible explanations that are consistent with all existing observations.
3. You completely missed the point of discussion, which was testability and not evidence.

>>5565262
>All it needs is to be the most plausible explanation that's consistent with all the existing observations.

>mfw astrology explains everything that ever happened to me
>when one horoscope doesn't work, I just pick another until I find something that fits
>Science!

>>5565446
They are misleading terms. Some people use "macroevolution" to refer to speciation, others use it to refer to evolution on large time scales. The former can of course happen on lab experiment scales and is therefore observable. As a direct result of microevolution here a distinction is not necessary. The latter interpretation on the other hand is very important because it denotes an epistemologically different approach, i.e. the impossibility of testability. When talking about evolutionary processes on large time scales all we can do is construct explanations from the given observations. We can however never test these explanations. This is the exact same scenario we have with string theory: a theory that was constructed to consistently explain observations but that cannot be tested. Hence when OP dismissed string theory for lack of testability he has to dismiss parts of evolutionary theory as well.

>>5565468
Is astrology plausible? Is it consistent with existing observations? Nope.

Astrology is actually the example why the other posters outdated Popper crap definition doesn't work.

>muh testability
>if testable then science
>astroloyg is testable
>therefore astrology science
>hurrrrrrrrrrr

Popper and his testability requirement have been proven wrong several times. How about you stop living 60 years in the past?

Why is it called a theory when it can't be tested to produce the same result?

>>5565484
>Is astrology plausible? Is it consistent with existing observations?

Yes it is, in the manner that I described. Just like String Theory.

believe in and have faith in God, with evidence: not scientific

believe in and have faith in an infinite number of finely tuned multiverses, without any evidence whatsoever: scientific

>>5565494
What does astrology explain?

Since you're obviously more familiar with pseudoscience than with real science, I'd love to hear an honest answer.

>>5565332
so, by using intelligently designed experiments, you have disproven intelligent design

bravo, sir, bravo

>>5565469
This is just much more arbitrary. There is no clear definition on what a large time scale is. There is no clear point to draw the line.

Trying to construct explanations for given observations is something that can only be done in retrospect, but it's the same for "microevolution" in small time scales. It's just natural selection, to imply otherwise would imply that evolution is intelligently directed.

I know it's going to sound like I'm repeating myself, but due to the subtleties I feel the need to be clear. It's not scientific to say "because X then Y will evolve in this way", it is scientific to say "we can speculate that Y evolved this way because X". This is true regardless of whether you're talking about "micro" or "macro" evolution and therefore there is no valid distinction between the two. They should just be called evolution.

>>5565469
>We can however never test these explanations.

Precambrian rabbits

>>5565501
>What does astrology explain?

Events in your life. Ever read a horoscope?

>>5565506

Are you retarded?

>>5565508
1. This is not a test. Such an observation would have to be made by pure coincidence.
2. This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
3. The "precambrian rabbit" wouldn't prove anything. It would only require us to implement some changes in our phylogenetic tree.

>>5565514
He isn't, but you are. If you can't see that he was joking, you must suffer from some severe disability.

>>5565510
>Ever read a horoscope?

No, I'll leave pseudoscience to people like you. I for one prefer to read science books.

>>5565519

>I WAS JUST PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED!

>>5565517

>This is not a test.

It is a test of our current evolutionary model. It would prove that our understanding of animal evolution is wrong. You can't can't just do a few shifts here and there and make the problem go away (unlike String Theory)

>>5565524
>It is a test
No, it isn't. Do you not know what a test is? Hypothetical coincidences are not tests. That's like saying "a magical demon appears" is a test. Please learn how the scientific method works.

>You can't can't just do a few shifts here and there and make the problem go away
Yes, we can. That's exactly how evolutionary biology works. When a new species is discovered and its DNA is analyzed, we have to make minor changes to the phylogenetic models to account for the new obervation. This has been done literally thousands of times. Did you seriously not even take a high school biology class? You seem to be more ignorant of evolution than any creationist.

>>5565527

Well, why are you discussion astrology without knowing anything about it? Note that I'm not defending it as an actual science here, I'm just comparing it to string theory.

>>5565528
We know you werent' pretending.

>>5565537
If you seriously think that's a valid comparison, you are clearly to uneducated to talk about the topic.

>>5565538

>That's like saying "a magical demon appears" is a test

Why not? If you have a model that predicts that if you do x, a magical demon will appear (or not), than it's a test

>When a new species is discovered

I'm not talking about new species, I'm talking about discovering rabbit fossils in the Precambrian, hundreds of millions of years before the appearance of modern mammals.

>>5565554

How is it invalid?

>>5565557
>If you have a model that predicts that if you do x, a magical demon will appear (or not), than it's a test
Show me a model that predicts a precambrian rabbit.

>I'm talking about discovering rabbit fossils in the Precambrian
Yes, I know. And still the only consequence would be the need to partially remodel the phylogenetic tree.

>>5565593

It this the best you can do?

>>5565573
>Show me a model that predicts a precambrian rabbit.

There isn't one. That's the point. The current evolutionary model predicts the absence of a Precambrian rabbit. It is unexplainable in such model. Like I said, you can't just "remodel the phylogenetic tree", because the underlying model won't explain it anymore.

>>5565566
honk honk honk massive tard alert

>>5565592
>There isn't one.
Then the hypothetical observation you named is by your own definition not a test. Please take a class on biology. Read your posts is really painful.

>It is unexplainable in such model.
That's why we would have to make a few changes to our model. That's how science works. Science can change its theories upon new observations. Science isn't a dogma and science isn't a religion.

>Like I said, you can't just "remodel the phylogenetic tree"
We can. We did it thousands of times in the past.

>because the underlying model won't explain it anymore.
What underlying model? The phylogenetic tree is the model. The only underlying thing are direct observational data. Adding new data generates a partially changed model. Please read up on how phylogenetic trees are constructed. Wait .... better don't do it. It would require some math and alogirthmic thinking, two things which you as a middle schooler clearly wouldn't yet understand.

>>5565251
More like:
>Our observations don't meet our expectations.
>Let's revise our expectations.
>Let's further investigate to see if our expectations are true.

In other words, fucking science.

>>5565605
*algorithmic

Fuck, reading your posts has already damaged my brain.

>>5565538
it is if a magical demon appears

don't be so close minded

>>5565573
remodel.

is that what you call it when you've been wrong all the time, but are too chicken to admit it?

>>5565605
science is not a religion

unfortunately, science disappeared about 20 years ago, and was replaced with what you think is science. it is not. it is scientism; the faith that someday mankind will know everything.

welcome to your new religion

>>5565614
more than your assburgers has already?

>>5565645
>>5565649
>>5565651
>>5565654

>>5565595
Not the other guy, but please stop being such a douchebag.
Your posts so far have been completeley worthless in this thread.

>>5565718

>no one can offer any counter-argument
>name calling instead

Yup, worthless

So OP give us your explanation for the shenanigans between GR and QM?

>>5565651

wow someone else who gets it.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure this phenomena was caused by the science channel raising a lot of kids, and the proliferation of science fiction that has absolutely no science to it. Everyone simply expects the universe to be so kind as to have loopholes aplenty so everything accommodates our short lifespan.

The singularity is the central dogma of the religious structure surrounding layman science. It is nothing more than the same promises made by religion, eternal life and peace on earth, but with different prophets. A guy named kurzweil who wants you to only drink alkaline water and take homeopathic supplements so you know the singularity must be scientific.

It is also a result of the internet making everyone feel smart by feeding them just enough information to make them feel smart while insulating them in their own little in groups "get out of here troll, you're off topic!" no one wants to have their comfort zone breached.

But obviously i'm wrong. Obviously the youtube and facebook generation will be the one that trumps the space race of the 60's. If they ever care about anything besides themselves.

>>5565756

>mfw my bait makes people write crap like this

>>5565763

>troll tries to change the discussion instead of examining his beliefs

Way to prove the thesis.

>>5565756
neo-luddite detected

The internet your using to post you're retarded religionfag propaganda is actually technology and the result of science. How does that make you feel? Will you destroy your computer now before going back to preaching creationism in your redneck village?

>>5565773

>vitriolic name calling

>no reflection

Just like when you try to tell your dad there's no god.

Have you no self respect?

>>5565785
>2013
>believing in a sky fairy

How does it feel to have no brain?

>>5565793

So because i believe that science has been co-opted by people who do not understand what they are talking about and take advantage of other people who don't know what they're talking about but want hope for the future, i must be some god loving christian?

This is what i mean. You can't even begin a reasonable dialogue. Are you even capable of examining your own beliefs? Or do you just demand it of others?

Nope. You just classify me as some villain of some story that you're used to, and mindlessly move on to something you like.

Way to prove the thesis.

>>5565805

>So because i believe that science has been co-opted by people who do not understand what they are talking about and take advantage of other people who don't know what they're talking about but want hope for the future, i must be some god loving christian?

If it quacks like a duck...

>>5565809

What does that even mean? How does pointing out how human nature's desire for hope for the future has caused people to lose perspective on science?

Can you stop demonstrating why all human progress has stopped because no one can hold a civil dialogue on this wondrous sum of human knowledge that is the internet?

>>5565805
>durrrrrrffff hurrrrrrffff science corrupt
>athiesm is belief huuuuuuurrrrrrrr

Are you seriously that retarded? Fuck off, christfag. Your kind shouldn't be allowed to exist.

>>5565812

Hey kid. What does dawkins say about self-reflection?

Does he say to just ignore everything that you don't immediately like? Or does he say to look hard and deep and examine every bit of what you believe?

All of this trolling is only proving my point.

>>5565820

You are delusional. Progress hasn't stopped. You agreed with a creationist troll post. Why shouldn't we think that you're some sort of religionfag?

>>5565827
>believes that a bearded sky wizard created the universe gave humans souls because an ancient book of shepherds' hallucinations says so
>calls scientists close-minded

Don't you religiontards see how ridiculous you are?

>>5565731
Yes, they are worthless, shallow an nonsensical.

>>5565839

>creationist troll post

What does this mean and what evidence do you have to support that claim? Do you have any form of argument at your disposal besides ad hominem?

Quit spouting dawkins. You're doing a great disservice to his philosophy.

>Progress hasn't stopped.

Moon base where? Oh right. Gotta use the tantalum and lithium on fancy electric cars and phones so you can always be checking your facebook to see how important you are while live recording every facet of your life from your google glasses.

I'm sure in all of that we'll find the time to fix the world's problems and explore space.

Just like this guy.

>>5565854

That's namecalling as well.

Be specific.

>>5565843

>assumes for the sake of an easy argument that his opponent is religious

Ad hominem. Is this all you are capable of?

I am not religious. It's why i don't believe in the singularity. I can tell when my heartstrings are being pulled.

>>5565856
What are you even doing on /sci/, if you hate technology and science?

>>5565262
It requires faith. It's a religion not a science.

>>5565858
Everything.
Your whole post-qeue (for the lack of a better word) has been nonsensical, just so you can be a douche.
There is not a single thing to point out that was worth posting.

>>5565856

>What does this mean and what evidence do you have to support that claim? D

I wrote it.

>>5565865
The singularity is scientific fact, you close-minded retard.

>>5565856

>Moon base where?

Hurr durr my arbitrary measurements of progress are the only ones that count

>>5565868

I don't hate technology and science. I hate what it has done to the human ability to think.

Just look at the poorly aimed vitriol i have been inflicted with since posting a contrary view. Not one person has asked me to eludidate. Not one has asked me to clarify. You post a contrary view, you get demonized and attacked until the status quo is restored.

You tell me how that doesn't sound like a religion. You tell me how that is supposed to make society better, when nobody ever has to reflect on their beliefs in the presence of a contrary opinion. When nobody has to think, they can just chime into their choir on their own In-group on the internet.

What a glorious dawn awaits.

>>5565875

>There is not a single thing to point out that was worth posting.

Not him, but the same applies to your posts.

>>5565875

Yet you cannot contain your vitriol at having your opinion challenged.

Your inability to argue cogently shows the harm the internet has done to you.

ITT: One gigantic faggot that feeds off other people telling him how wrong and stupid his "argumentation" is, while spouting crap like "bla bla ad hominem bla bla namecalling bla bla".
I really wish people like you wouldn't have access to the internet.

>>5565885

As opposed to yours, which obviously count.

And you don't post.

Or elucidate.

Because then you would have to think and not just parrot a meme in a knee-jerk reaction.

>>5565891
There is nothing to argue.
You make up shit and say "disprove it !".

>>5565879

>a prediction from an alkaline swilling charlatan is a scientific fact and nothing can prevent the gospel of kurzweil

Yeah. It's not a religion at all. My bad.

>>5565893

Do you acknowledge that your metric is arbitrary or not?

>>5565892

>i wish i never had my opinions challenged ever. That's not what the internet is for.

Yet another person proves the thesis.

>>5565886
>You tell me how that is supposed to make society better,

You tell me how religion is supposed to make society better? LMFAO

>>5565898

If i do, then the statement "we are progressing" is equally moot.

So yeah. Now that topic is addressed and dealt with. Shall we go onto the fact that the singularity just happens to promise all the same things as the majority of organized religions and how that's just a tad fishy?

>>5565897
Isn't it past bed time for edgy teenagers like you? Just shut up, adults are talking.

>>5565895

>lol ur wrong
>why?
>because ur wrong

Disproving made up shit is often fairly easy, ask any actual skeptic.

>>5565899
Except for, you know, you don't actually challenge opinions.
You just make up arbitrary shit. People in this thread keep laughing at your incompetence.

>>5565907
You want shit explained that you can fucking google.
You obviously however don't understand it.

>>5565901

Believing in myths like that is one way not to.

Really man. Fuck christianity and religion, but you really need to examine your facts.

>>5565904

I don't want to discuss singularity, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, in fact, now that you've admitted that you have no argument to show that the scientific progress has stopped, I don't have anything to discuss with you.

>>5565908

Oh. So because you demonize me, i'm wrong?

Great arguing there. Totally dodged having to think. Hey, that guy is wrong because he likes hitler! Ad Hominem all around!

>>5565905
Because you talk and think like an adult.

Well, these days i guess you do. Kids never grew up.

>>5565909

>lol ur wrong
>why?
>because ur wrong
>that's lame
>lol google it!

>>5565912

When did i ever clearly state that scientific progress has "stopped"?

Cite the paragraph that you created this notion from.

>>5565917

So the
>moon base where
part wasn't you trying to dispute the idea that progress has stopped using an arbitrary metric?

Because string theory is the best and only theory that currently explains quantum gravity. This in itself makes it very interesting, and until we find another good candidate for quantum gravity, well..

>>5565914
>Ad Hominem
Spouting like a true sheep.
Nobody here takes you even serious anymore, just leave.

>>5565915
For the love of Thor, then please, please tell me what you can't find via searching on your own ?
What is so hard to understand for you that you have to act the way you do ?

>>5565927

Except it doesn't actually explain anything, because it isn't testable.

>>5565924

That was me addressing a claim which was raised and yeah, i did use an arbitrary metric.

I never said it stopped. I said that we have so many distractions now that nobody cares enough to go to school for it.

>>5565929

Sheep? Holy fucking lol, people still use that term seriously?

Oh, and that's still ad hominem. But keep taking the high road. I must be such a terrible christian.

>>5565936
>ad hominem
Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro.

>>5565936
>I never said it stopped. I said that we have so many distractions now that nobody cares enough to go to school for it.

So what are all those STEM students doing, then?

>>5565936
HAHA
You are fucking comedy gold.

>>5565936
Is this wigga serious ?

Stop feeding the troll.

>>5565940

Ah, now, if you had to ascribe one overall quality to STEM majors, would it be their stunning social skills and litany of friends?

Or do they just happen to be disconnected from the internet narcissism?

>>5565962
>Ah, now, if you had to ascribe one overall quality to STEM majors,

This might be shocking to you, but STEM majors are a very diverse group of people and the stereotypes you see on TV do not apply to everybody.

>>5565970

I don't watch TV. I know STEM majors.

Maybe a small data set, but i've never seen any sufficient evidence to the contrary.

>>5565979

Contrary to what? That they are a diverse group of people?

Why are you guys discussing with Teacup? Don't you see he's mentally ill?

>>5565985

That while they are a diverse group of people the majority are loners and social outcasts.

What evidence can you cite that demonstrates otherwise?

>>5565991

If you hate christians so much then stop sounding like one.

>>5565993

>What evidence can you cite that demonstrates otherwise?

Well, apparently I know a larger group of STEM majors than you do.

>>5565995
Take your meds.

>>5565934
You're the one who can't provide an argument to refute >>5565468


This whole time you've just been acting like an intellectually-handicapped child who is incapable of employing logic or reasoning and so wins his arguments using name-calling.

>>5566041
>astrology

>>>/x/

>>5566057

You don't understand the point that was made in that post at all, do you?

>>5566066
What? Shitposting is a "point" now?

>>5566078

How is it shitposting? Funny how nobody can explain what is wrong with it even after 100 posts.

>>5566083
Why would be bother explaining anything to you?

If you were serious, you demonstrated that you wouldn't understand any explanation because your intellectual capacities are on the level of a toddler.
If you were trolling, there's no point in responding seriously.

Thus the only appropriate response consists of laughing and making fun of you.

>>5566097

And the cycle repeats

>>5565907

>>5566108
Step up your game. Never go full retard. You went full retard. Why are you not using your tripcode btw?

>>5565658
thank you for pointing out four stellar posts. i owe you one.

>>5565886
"settled science" = religious tenet

and the funny thing is, it's a Mommy Earth pseudo-religion that these kids think is new. It's not. It's as old as the earth. About 6,000 years old, to be precise.

>>5565927
Hop from one inane idea to the other, with no concern whatsoever for the underlying truth.

So wise, this generation. So thoughtful. Just bandwagon the latest atheist pap and pretend it isn't always wrong.

lulz

>>5565995
How does one go about hating people who devote their lives to loving God and everyone else?

What do you know about string theory, OP? Are you just a pseudo-intellectual high schooler who watched Kaku on youtube? Or do you know any of the math involved in string theory?

>>5566171
you make them hate you and want to murder you, forgetting the whole point of their religion in the process by proposing conflicting views.

What is an orbifold and why do we need it?

>>5566167
What? This is just stupid ad hominem and doesn't at all answer the claim, which is that string theory is worth study since it is the best we've got, at present. Show me a better alternative, and I'll be very, very happy. And that really is the main point. String theory is pretty darn cool and seems very mathematically and physically rich, and we haven't got anything better. Loop quantum gravity is horribly ugly and has a lot less results than string theory, and can't at the moment even be shown to have the correct limit, and other approaches are in similar bad shape. And none of them has a fraction of the cool results that string theory has given us, like AdS/CFT, t-duality, all of the "different" string theories turning out to be the same thing, namely M-theory, various internal consistency checks that "miraculously" work out, etc.

>>5566292
Its the space created by modding out a manifold or variety by a group action that isn't free. The resulting space will not be a manifold, since it'll have "kinks" coming from the fixpoints of the group action. Orbifolds can be used as a compacification space, when one wants to break certain symmetries (like supersymmetries, mostly), and this is useful when trying to create a viable phenomenological model out of string theory.

>>5565320
you can test it on a genetic level

>>5566305
What's the difference between this and a coset space?

string theory == pseudoscience

>>5566449
A coset space is a group modded by another group. An orbifold is a manifold modded by a group.

Also, this thread is fucking terrible and you should all feel bad.

>>5566449
The definitions.

>>5565251
Assuming you are lacking an acquaintance with Physics, there is an entire website dedicated to this question: http://whystringtheory.com/

But I think the fact that string theory is able to qualitatively describe and predict every observation we have done - and there are literally trillions of these - with just a single input parameter, the fact that it is directly implied by the mathematical structure of the standard model, the fact that there are no alternatives, the fact that there is inevitably quantization of gravity + unification of all matter/force fields, and the fact that the theory cannot be deformed/modified without spoiling its consistency are some of the "leading" reasons to be convinced that it is "probably true".

>>5565468
This is just breathtakingly incorrect. I see that you must believe this comment is intelligent but it is not necessarily so. You are creating a false analogy - you cannot compare cutting-edge physics with vague pseudo-science that boasts order-of-magnitude errors and pseudo-philosophical babbling.

Are there any other serious laymen misconceptions ITT or is it simply a gang of quasi-religious, psychiatrically ill bigots spewing incoherent and illogical crackpot proclamations about string theory?

>>5566305
Good answer, although it should also be mentioned that these "kinks" are not to be taken as singularities, divergences, or any other kinds of physical inconsistencies. They may be treated smoothly using dual descriptions.

>>5566449
To add to >>5567692, an orbifold really does not really require the notion of a manifold, just a "generalized smooth space"- at least this is how it is defined in the context of string theory, in Joe's textbook for example. Generally the group will act with finite stabilizers also.

>>5567731
What sort of thing are you thinking of when talking about a 'generalized smooth space'? What's the definition of that?

>>5567817
http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generalized+smooth+space