http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html

 

maybe a more concise and accurate review of Susskind's anthropic string theory landscape thinking was given by Nobel physicist David Gross

 

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=321

 

----quote from Woit's 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."

----endquote---

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 [bernard] Carr. "In a sense he's correct, because things like faith and beauty are becoming a component of the discussion."

 

I totally agree. I've always thought this whole thing shared too many qualities with I.D.