>> If you replace "string theory" by "Einstein's relativity"
>> (both SR & GR) you attain a very good equivalent set
>> of believers, where most of the objections and concerns
>> put on the former can be very well applied to the latter.
> 
> No, on the contrary, there is considerable difference.
> 
> String theory is not even really a theory, it's more than a hunch. It
> has yet to produce a unique prediction that sets it apart from other
> theories. (And in fact, the only predictions that it's been able to
> make are also made by non-string theories.) Naturally, there has been
> no experimental test of any unique prediction from string theory.
> 
> On the other hand, SR and GR have made a whole lot of unique
> predictions that set them apart from other theories. And a good number
> of them have been put to experimental test, with the results being in
> agreement with SR and GR.
> 
> This, you see, is how science is done.
> 
> PD

Yes, I already know about SR & GR predictions:

1. SR predicts the twin paradox, which means that 
   SR kills itself.
2. GR predicts black holes, which means that
   GR kills itself, because of its equations break 
   down in the BH's singularity.
3. GR predicts dark matter, which means that
   GR kills itself, because dark matter will never 
   be found.
4. GR predicts gravitational waves, which means that
   GR kills itself, because gravitational waves will
   never be found.
5. GR predicts dark energy, which means that
   GR kills itself, because dark energy is nonsense.

  "GR needs epicycles in order to survive"

Is that how science is done?