The crisis in physics is not only about physics

For many people that have followed fundamental physics it has become more and apparent that string theory, with its variations, is a dead end.

The problem isn’t that no ones has managed to experimentally validate the theory. The problem is that string theory has failed to even make predictions that even in theory could be experimentally tested.

Edit: since I’m getting downvoted, is there anything factually wrong with what I have written?

Although I am only in physics by degree and not by practice, I think this is "physics as expected."

Old measurements do not change. Over bog standard Newtonian physics, special relativity provides additional decimals in the form of significant figures and mostly in particular circumstances. For plotting the trajectory of a large rock at comparably low speeds, Newton's equations work rather well on Earth, once you take air resistance into account. Even if another theory supplants special relativity for the extreme situations, old ballistic tables will still work.

Each advance will have smaller and smaller corrections to the experimental values, in narrower edge cases, even if the mathematics of the newer theory looks completely different. This in turn means that discarding an old theory in favor of a new one by experimental confirmation of what was unexpected in the old system must only come either in the more extreme values (more Telsa to a magnetic field, for example) or with greater precision and accuracy via more elaborate and finely-calibrated equipment. Both are expensive, requiring more time and more work.

I believe she is right in that we are certainly on course for some very time-consuming and expensive science. However, I do not see an easy way out of it, nor should we, I believe, expect one. Flip open a CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; many of the basic values have been long-known. We have added a few more numbers to the right of the decimal in many cases, but that is it. Two hundred years ago, a single person with a modest budget could discover new physics and chemistry. A hundred years ago, a handful of collaborators with some backing could advance these most basic of sciences. By only fifty years back, we are looking at budgets in the millions and teams of scientists working in harness.

It may simply be out of reach to disassemble a galaxy to build a collider large enough to test some theories and at that juncture, one might well consider physics "close enough to done." A mote of dust is always going to fall on some surface no matter how often you polish and buff. At some point you have to stop fussing and enjoy your furniture.

Yes, it is handy to look for the cases where we can find a way to test our hypotheses for under a million dollars, in no more than a few years. We will run out of those, too.

This is "unsexy" to many. The ratcheting noose of entropy in a closed system, which we can only try to run away from at pedestrian sub-light speeds is, bluntly put, a drag.

“Knowledge is power. France is bacon” is a personal favorite.

Yeah, I am not sure about that. To keep up with pace and statistical rigorousness medicine would have to be disturbingly and outrageously unethical. It also deals with more complex issues.

To me it's bound to work on less reliable data.

I'm new to the field. I'd appreciate some links to past rebuttals that you've done because I also want to learn about the discourse and politics surrounding the field. I think that understanding all of those things is quite important, and could benefit me greatly. Thanks.