I'm worried this might devolve into semantics:
No worries, we agree. If by 'check' they meant 'check directly', then I agree the statement isn't right.
I'm worried this might devolve into semantics:
No worries, we agree. If by 'check' they meant 'check directly', then I agree the statement isn't right.
Another alternative reading is "can theoretically be checked". Obviously, this is strictly weaker, but still covers a large number of logical failures (e.g. creationism).
Loop quantum gravity actually does have at least one testable conclusion: non-constancy the speed of light at high energies. There's even some support for this as of a couple of weeks ago, with measurements from the Fermi telescope.