SI N-D 2006 pgs 9/27/06 9:44 AM Page 53

BOOK REVIEWS

A Rare Contribution to the Rant Literature in the Sciences

ROBERT P. CREASE

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. By Peter Woit. Basic Books, New York, 2006. ISBN 0-465-09275-6. 304 pp. Hardcover, $26.

he humanities have a genre that Search for Unity in Physical Law is a rare might be called, with genuine example of rant literature in the sci- Taffection, “rant literature.” It ences. The discipline is theoretical consists of books—written by insiders, physics. The fashionable trend is string wannabe insiders, or critics, and theory. The vital taproot being threat- intended for outsiders—that rage ened is the interaction between theory against some fashionable trend that has and experiment. The author is an taken over a discipline. The trend, it is insider—a Harvard graduate, with a claimed, is not only empty but harmful, Princeton PhD in theoretical physics, for it is cutting off the discipline from its who now lectures in the Mathematics vital taproot. Rant literature aims to Department at Columbia and writes an expose the vapidity and danger of the anti-string-theory blog. Woit’s claim is trend and hopes thereby to help bring not so much that string theory is bad the discipline to its senses. Classic exam- theory—in science, after all, it’s good to ples of rant literature include Tom have bad theories, because they chal- Wolfe’s books From Bauhaus to Our lenge you and give you something to House (1981), on the empty pretensions work against—but that it’s only a of modern architecture, and The field’s developments, setbacks, and key promissory note for a theory. String Painted Word (1975), on how modern players. It is entertaining because of the theory is pernicious, Woit claims, painting sold out to theory. In the per- fresh anecdotes and dirty laundry on because it dispenses with the traditional formance arts, a classic example is The display, and because the authors’ pas- reliance of physics on experimental Agony of Modern Music (1955) by Henry sions about the subject tend to brighten data. The title is taken from a famous Pleasants, which claimed that modern the prose. But because rant literature is put-down by Wolfgang Pauli, who once music had exhausted its resources and usually an exercise in ax-grinding, one said a colleague’s work was so bad it was was being perpetuated by an entrenched must take it with grains of salt. “not even wrong.” elite whose members were deluding The sciences have few examples of Woit’s book is written for a general themselves about the music’s cultural rant literature. Perhaps this is because audience, for those who like books by relevance. Even philosophy has rant lit- the internal mechanisms for guarantee- authors such as Brian Greene. It should erature, such as Paul Nizan’s The ing quality tend to be stronger than in therefore be reviewed by the standards Watchdogs (1932), which argued that the humanities, or because of a dearth of of someone who is an interested out- the French philosophical establishment genuine science critics. And what would sider. That’s me, I think; not a physicist was betraying everything that philoso- be the point of ranting to outsiders? The but a philosopher and historian of phy stands for. sciences are embedded in culture differ- Rant literature can be instructive and ently, so that outsiders have less leverage Robert P. Crease is chairman of the entertaining, if one does not take it too to influence trends. Department of Philosophy at Stony Brook seriously. It is instructive because the Peter Woit’s book Not Even Wrong: University. E-mail: [email protected]. reader usually gets an overview of the The Failure of String Theory and The sunysb.edu.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER November / December 2006 53 SI N-D 2006 pgs 9/27/06 9:45 AM Page 54

BOOK REVIEWS

science. I have no competence to judge toaster?” And he devotes several pages to quote about string theory from Thomas a work in string theory (though I will insinuating that string theory is akin to Harris’s book Hannibal (yes, as in “The say that it’s historically true that never masturbation, for both are intense activ- Cannibal” Lecter). Woit quotes quot- have so many theorists been so con- ities that feign, but fail, to connect with able people, such as Richard Feynman vinced they can figure out so much with the real world. “The question of who is (“String theorists don’t make predic- so little guidance from nature). I sit in having successful and satisfying inter- tions, they make excuses”) and Gerard the bleachers and enjoy the spectacle. course with the deepest levels of reality, ‘t Hooft (“Imagine that I give you a From that vantage, Not Even Wrong is and who is just imagining it, still chair, while explaining that the legs are primitive compared to humanities rant remains to be answered” (p. 191). Not still missing, and that the seat, back and literature. It is not as wicked as Wolfe, by Woit. armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; lacks Pleasants’s sustained argument, and Woit’s selection of targets is uneven, whatever I did give you, can I still call it is devoid of the almost religious certitude as when he spends two pages needlessly a chair?”). that fortifies Nizan, thanks to his demolishing Fritjof Capra’s book, The Woit is most effective when he gets Marxism. The first half covers recent Ta o o f Ph y s i c s . Woit’s massing of evi- down to numbers, as when he points developments in physics. There’s an dence is also uneven; he blends refer- out that of the nine MacArthur fellow- inevitable hand-waving at things that ences to peer-reviewed papers and good ships given to particle theorists, only cannot be summarized briefly for a pop- arguments with second-hand and obvi- one has gone to a non-string-theorist, ular audience. And Woit makes a few ously exaggerated stories, quotes from and that of twenty-two tenured people errors when he is not fully up to date on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and at the top half-dozen physics depart- recent philosophical-historical literature. excerpts from blogs and conference ments who received their PhDs after He repeats, for instance, the widely held chatter. Woit sometimes quotes the 1981, twenty specialize in string theory. claim that Einstein and Pauli decisively work of science writers, not scientists, Such data makes for great rant literature, refuted Hermann Weyl’s work on gauge in support of his thesis about contem- and the book would be more effective theory. But philosopher Thomas porary science. A chapter on “Beauty with more, and with additional vivid Ryckman demonstrated in The Reign of and Difficulty” never seriously engages details regarding what’s not getting done Relativity that Einstein and Pauli not the complex issue of beauty in theoreti- due to the surplus of string theorists. only misunderstood Weyl’s thrust, but cal physics, and the one that asks “Is This would be the bottom line of effec- Weyl subsequently reformulated his the- Superstring Theory Science?” never tive rant literature in the sciences. ory in a way that easily accommodated seriously confronts the question of what At the end of the book, Woit turns all the facts mentioned by those two crit- a science is, but recycles outdated and up the morally charged language, sug- ics—and this reformulation is of enor- flawed ideas. And Woit sometimes gesting that string theory is dishonest mous significance for relativity theory. seems to verge on the paranoid, as when in its pretension to be science, that Then Woit turns to string theory, he insinuates that intimidation by conferences on string theory are com- and the fun begins. “Readers who like string theorists nearly prevented the parable to those of the Modern their science always to be inspirational,” book from being published. Woit Language Association, that a graduate he writes, charmingly and disarmingly, claims that a Harvard professor (whom student “birth control” procedure be “are advised that now may be the time to Woit does not identify) once called crit- instituted to restrict the number of stop reading this book” and pick up ics of string theory “terrorists who string theorists entering the field, and something more inspirational by Brian deserved to be eliminated by the U.S. that the Department of Energy and the Greene. Woit’s central point is that military.” But how informal was the National Science Foundation might string theory “isn’t really a theory, but context of the remark, and was there no step in to forcibly change the direction rather a set of reasons for hoping that a humor or irony involved? of research. This last suggestion appears theory exists” (p. 175). It isn’t a theory Lay readers of this book, who like me to answer my question about the point mainly because it fails to make predic- are not participants but spectators, are of ranting to outsiders. That a scientist, tions. Woit dismisses string theorists in the position of those who overhear a during the administration of George who offer rationales for this deficiency. cluster of critics at a bar arguing about a W. Bush, should be calling for govern- Woit cites a remark (but fails to name a performance or gallery show from mental intervention in science in order source) that string theory is like a which they have just returned, but who not just to fix it but to make it more “spaceship from the future for which the are not in a position to judge how much “honest,” is such a jaw-dropping spec- instruction manual is lacking” (p. 185) of the conversation is serious, how much tacle that it alone makes the book thereby setting up his retort, “What if mere opinion, and how much posturing worth reading. the mysterious gadget that one hopes is and grandstanding. Still, we enjoy the But that’s just my perspective from a spaceship turns out to be merely a repartee. One chapter begins with a the bleachers.

54 Volume 30, Issue 6 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER