Should our theoretical physics remain immune to our wordly attacks? They will not we postulate! They will not!
How do we postulate from the negation of a should statement? Is there even a place for a should statement within the communities of contemporary philosophy? Should implies ought, and ought implies ethics, ethics imply morality and morality is non-scientific?
To be or not is no longer the question. Would our...? Could our...? Should our...? Those are the questions that TRUMP the new generation. Being is self-evident.
Let's clarify the presupposition. String theory is susceptible to criticism. Nothing new here. At what point do we recognize and acknowledge that this is a strength of the theory?