Frankly speaking your top down behaviour is a little bit irritating

"Simple. Because I'm a physicist ..."

A part from the fact that I my self hold a university degree in nuclear engineering , even though I do not dare to call myself a scientist and even more important I have never told anybody , here in this forum :

"Walk out .."

Apart from that, do you mean that Brian Greene is not a Physician , just because

" String theory is pure math and thus not physics "

What are you saying ?

"Relativity does not invalidate the Kinematic Equations we learn in Physics"

Once again what are you saying ?
Of course Einstein theory invalidates Newton physics
One thing is claiming that Newtonian physics is sufficiently accurate to send a rocket to the moon, an other thing is claiming that einstein's theory expands Newton's physics
It does not expands, it fixes some errors
Maybe these errors are negligible for 99.99 % of pratical uses but this is an other story

"Thus you will have to present me with an experiment that will be conducted at CERN with the LHC which will directly (not indirectly) deal with String Threory"

I suppose you are joking arent' you ?
A " direct" experiment ? in atomic physics ?
All the evidences in modern physics are bound to be "in direct" come on..
As I said and I repeat once again, if some new particles pop out and these particles have the characteristic expected by the theory than the theory ,is likely, true otherwise it is for sure false

"First off, I know that this is an off-the-cuff example, but let's be clear that science has no room for "feelings" or "popular vote". If the 18 values correctly predict the behaiviour, then you must find another theory that does the same (and better or more) before it will be replaced."

Thanks for clearing these concepts
You simply did not grasp the meaning of my example even though I can admit it is poor example
What do you mean for " Correctly predict " ?
A theory correctly predict , simply because :

a) The measuring instruments available at the time are not accurate
b) The domain of applications of the theory is limited

The same theory can miserably fails if you improve your measuring intruments and \ or you extend the domain of its application
However even in case a) and b) there is an other way to judge a theory
This method is not 100 % scientific but , sometimes, it works
If a theory is too complex , if it must introduce a lot of non clear parameters than probably there is something wrong even though the results are apparetly correct

You can like it or not but this is exactly the case of SM

SM is exceptionaly accurate ( in its domain of applications) but a lot of great scientists consider SM an " ugly " theory for the reason explained before

"The 25 parameters of the SM or NOT, I repeat, NOT physically unclear "

May be you did not notice that I quoted a certain Rogen Penrose on this specific topic