Some Basic Superstring Theory, John Schwarz | Lecture 1 of 2 

Yes that basically sums up the first 6 chapters in his book, which is a good read, though I have only read the few chapters

No, it isn't.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/139/meta McGaugh, S., & Milgrom, M. (2013). Andromeda dwarfs in light of MOND. II. Testing prior predictions. The Astrophysical Journal, 775(2), 139.

David Brown No relevance for string theory.

darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/author/pkroupa/ According to McGaugh and Kroupa, in all the empirical tests they have studied, MOND's predictions are better, or as good, as dark matter particle theory satisfying Newtonian-Einsteinian dynamics. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2873/where-does-the-10500-estimate-for-the-number-of-stringy-vacua-come-from The implication is that string theory as presently understood is wrong for every possible stringy vacuum - simply because Newtonian-Einsteinian dynamics contradicts (non-relativistic) MOND. It is an unsolved problem as to what relativistic MOND theory is.

Experimentation is not really an acquisition of science or of the scientific method by itself. It is an old acquisition of mankind one of whose expressions was the creation of technology, the gadgets we have learnt to make. Science is an structure on top that at certain point has pretended to be the last expression of all what lies underneath.... for example for example all the pretentions of this mathematical gibberish with little connection with nature: Theory of everything.. ....on what kind of nasty drug are they? EGOine?

I only believe science that I don't understand.