The Trouble With Physics, What Lee Smolin May Have Missed
Dear Lee Smolin,
Below is a short review of your book, I want to suggest you missed just one part of the puzzle.
Great work, I admire what you do,
Sincerely,
-NeverOddOreveN
Thesis Statement
Science has gotten much worse because it has gotten much bigger. All large institutions suffer from Dis-Economies of Scale and a lack of Local Knowledge, which leads to a miss-allocation of resources. In Physics, this manifests itself by the massive amounts given to String Theory without any evidence, or even a concrete theory, while other, more promising, sciences get starved.
Intro
I just finished your work, "The Trouble With Physics" and while you hit on the scale of science many times, I believe you missed the full impact it has on the field. While everything you said is well rooted in how philosophers think about science, you fail to grasp a key component when focusing so hard on "Sociology".
As all economists will point out, sociology is often just the human reaction to an underlying material reality.
Think about what you said in the book about:
1-large universities (who failed to recognize the promise of String Theory)
2-government funding of science
3-large grants
All of these have grown massively since Einstein, which means science will have a much harder time directing resources to fruitful endeavors.
Dis-Economies of Scale
As institutions get bigger, the humans in charge of running these institutions have a harder time understanding all the factors necessary to produce success. This means institutional leaders must allocate resources in the absence of crucial information.
Imagine you run a Starbucks. If you work hard, you can keep an eye on all 100 factors necessary for success. However, once you own 10 Starbucks stores, you now have to keep track of 100 factors for each store, not to mention be physically present to observe these factors.
If the human mind can only comprehend 250 factors, that means anyone who runs 10 Starbucks stores will have to allocate resources and make decisions without a full 75% of the relevant information. This leads to poor decisions and less productivity per dollar invested.
Lee Smolin mentions this in how professors evaluate their students and peers. Generalizations abound because no human can comprehend the output, personalities, and life experiences of 10 would-be professors, much less the research they labor over each day. This is why students focus on "me too" science that they know is already widely accepted. If they focus on anything innovative, they run the risk that professors will underestimate their contributions to the field.
As Physics gets larger, fewer people will be able to grasp what is going on in all parts of it, and resource allocation will get more difficult at an exponential rate.
Local Knowledge
Why doesn't Starbucks adapt every store to the unique community it inhabits? This is because the administrators working in Seattle, Washington have no idea what people in Van Horn, Texas want. Even a massive amount of market research will only lead to a tiny fraction of the local knowledge someone would gain from living in Van Horn for their whole lives. At best, Starbucks would be competing against people who know far more.
This lack of local information makes it difficult for the CEO in Seattle to develop products that will align specifically with the desires of people in Van Horn. Of course, Starbucks does do some local research and develops local products (analogous to the work done by scientific "Seers") but the Local Knowledge problem is why the vast majority of their resources go into propagating items that already exist.
Likewise, a bureaucrat in Washington, or at Princeton, cant understand all the work currently being done in Physics. Therefore, they must rely on theories that are already successful in order to judge individuals. This means large institutions will always massively favor current conceptions at the expense of innovation.
Lee Smolin even says in his book that if you want someone to pick a Seer, you should ask a Seer! This is because the Seer will have much more local knowledge than the far bureaucrat in HR who sends out rejections.
Conclusion
Throughout your book, you mention finding a "deeper" reason for why things are. However, your critique fails to internalize this desire. Why do older physicists have so much more power over younger ones? Focusing on Sociology may be important, but it is just the surface of a much deeper issue in science.
The tectonic shift from the older science done in Europe by wealthy and independent individuals to the current wave of professionals who outnumber all the Physicists who ever lived leads to fundamental problems.
The larger scale means Physics leaders encounter Dis-Economies of Scale when dealing with a number of research papers on an order of magnitude larger than in the past. Additionally, modern scientists lack the Local Knowledge that is necessary to make good decisions when it comes to funding theories and people. These problems lead to the current inefficiencies and lack of progress we see in the Physics community.
As long as funding is controlled by governments, massive schools, and huge grants, it will be difficult to encourage entrepreneurship and make true scientific progress.
Luckily, I think your idea of decentralizing and "flattening" the scientific field will go a long way in correcting these issues.
If you have any thoughts or questions, I would love to hear back from you. My letter comes from a place of admiration. I am so happy someone like you is willing to speak up.
