Hm. Well, I'm not sure what you mean there - might be the same
   thing: My understanding is the lack of empirical evidence
   supporting certain more "far out" theories, some of which may
   never be provable through experiment. What kind of theories are
   they? Are they scientific theories? What kind? How do we
   describe them accurately in order to distinguish unverifiable
   theory from verifiable theory? I believe this is the intent.
   There was lack of philosophical basis behind this new type of
   scientific theory - the likely untestable ones - but it looks
   like they're working on it in order to salvage this new way of
   doing science from entering the religious/mythology/theology
   dept. == In short, at present, mathematically provable isn't a
   substitute for scientifically provable. It's currently more
   equatable to mythology supported by mathematical proofs. If it's
   going to be considered legitimate science, something has to
   change and it's likely naming "what kind of theory is this?"
   properly will do so, in order to distinguish it from throwing up
   a ball and catching it 100 times. = $ Lots of $ in this stuff.
   It's popular with the public. We LOVE alternate universes. How
   many TV Science shows, science promoters, the BBC, all involved
   in promoting Science utilizing the LEAST scientific of all the
   theories... engaging our imagination, getting people interested
   in Science, etc. But... ..it's not really Science. Not really.
   It's mathematics combined with fascinating ideas that we can't
   verify. The value in it is tremendous - LITERAL value. Money
   value. If they lose this part of Science as being called
   "Science", a lot goes away. People don't want to think of
   Science as trudging through swamps looking through microscopes
   at new bacteria. People don't want to think of stinky chemistry
   labs. We want the way-out-there stuff. That's why Philosophy
   enters in: it gives what Science is currently missing: a
   justification for a novel methodology. It's a justification the
   current philosophy of Science CAN'T do but with discussion, it
   will. ==   Well, I think what they're trying to do is the
   opposite: Focus on unfalsifiable claims and grant them validity
   by a novel wording of Theory that's philosophically justifiable.
   == Science was once Natural Philosophy. It has to return to its
   roots to get a redefinition so it can progress to another level
   of operation. === I got it bookmarked. I scanned the comments
   section to get a feel for it. Looks like it's got all the
   science popularizers and superstars all in one place. I call 'em
   the Science Bishops smile emoticon == Oh I know - their
   differences make them funny to watch. I've seen a few of them
   together before and the minutia they argue over is funny as
   hell. But they're generally same-page about the Bulk.. pun
   intended tongue emoticon == Oh I know - their differences make
   them funny to watch. I've seen a few of them together before and
   the minutia they argue over is funny as hell. But they're
   generally same-page about the Bulk.. pun intended tongue
   emoticon == I noticed increasing consistency on the Science
   channel about 3 years ago. It was like a weird convergence on
   certain things that before they would've separated on. I also
   noticed some commenters vanish from sight and others get more
   focus. [I remember when Krauss was just an occasional]. Anyway,
   after a while, I got tired of the same 11-12 faces so I stopped
   watching the channel. But I was obsessed with it for a few years
   before that. ==