What this article fails to take into account is the underlying politics at play here. You might think of all places, that science would be "politics free" but it's not. Far, <i>far</i> from it.<p>For example, people working on string theory and people working on say, quantum loop gravity are somewhat at odds with one another. String theory may not see the QLG people as a direct threat but the QLG people <i>certainly</i> sees string theory as competition. Now you may wonder, "In competition for what?" and the answer to that is a bit more obvious: Funding (money for research and their very own paychecks) and attention from their peers/media/press/etc. These people's very livelihoods are at stake.<p>If QLG was proven wrong tomorrow, it's not like the people who were doing that for the last 15 years can just jump into another field. There's plenty of incentive for "hostile science" as I like to call it. There have been some well-known physicists who have written entire books bashing their competition for this purpose (See: Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong", which incidentally, is chuck full of so many inaccuracies someone else wrote a book disputing his book...)<p>So when I see articles like these, I like to check out who the author is. Do they have a reason to write this piece? In this case, it's Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser. Both are coincidentally astrophysicists at very respected universities. I wonder what they're working on?<p>It appears Marcelo Gleiser, one of the authors, just published an anti-String theory book which claims that "We don't need a Theory of Everything".