Mrs Sabine Hossenfelder is a stunning example.
She was basically forced to pretend that she is a physicist literally for decades fifty-fifty though she has no innate aptitude for physics as well as she hates the dependent viscerally (especially its to a greater extent than theoretical subdisciplines where she is supposed to belong). The latest shocking manifestation of this hatred was shown inwards her tirade Physics Facts as well as Figures.
She has compared some apples as well as oranges inwards various disciplines – including the set out of papers, its annual growth rate, ability constabulary relationships betwixt the set out of papers as well as set out of authors, typical numbers of authors per newspaper – as well as irrationally interpreted all these things as beingness "bad" for physics. All of this piteous house was solely presented inwards companionship to justify her predetermined conclusion. The terminal paragraph says:
So this is what physics is, inwards 2018. An ageing champaign that doesn’t wish to convey its dwindling relevance.Wow.
Let me outset lift her primary talking points that are meant to endure bad for physics. To demonstrate the omnipresence of her anti-physics bias, I volition start from the end. We acquire that physics is an "ageing" champaign amongst "dwindling" relevance that "denies" this trend. Whether physics is "dwindling" as well as whether it's correct to "deny" such an describing word volition endure discussed later.
But the most emotional describing word that is supposed to brand a departure is "ageing". What does it hateful for physics (or anything or anybody) to endure ageing? If yous are interested inwards an emotionally neutral Definition of this adjective, it agency for its historic menstruum to increase. Let me enjoin yous something incredible. Everything as well as everyone inwards the world that is even then endure is "ageing". The solely argue why a speaker picks XY (a mortal or a discipline) as someone or something that is "ageing" is that the speaker truly dislikes or hates XY (either XY's appearance or something deeper) and/or he or she dislikes XY's electrical current appearance relatively to the past times one. There is but no other justification.
We may nation that some generalized physics has been roughly for thousands of years – ancient civilizations receive got studied "it" along amongst astronomy – but fifty-fifty if nosotros adopt a narrower "Western civilization's" Definition of physics, it started amongst Galileo Galilei or Isaac Newton as well as those lived some 3-5 centuries ago, too. It's been a long fourth dimension inwards either case.
You know, because physics is this old, relatively to some newer disciplines, it's truly ageing less quickly, relatively speaking. If nosotros determine that the historic menstruum of physics is 2,000 years, physics solely ages past times 0.05% every twelvemonth these days! Younger disciplines are "ageing" much to a greater extent than quickly. So is at that topographic point some meaningful beef inwards the usage of the discussion "ageing"? Well, at that topographic point is a subjective one. Mrs Hossenfelder would dear her readers to link physics amongst the stereotypes nigh some useless, unproductive pensioners who are waiting to die.
Is at that topographic point some existent justification for this way of agreement physics? Not at all. Physics is a vibrant champaign as well as it volition always remain the most key natural scientific discipline because that's how physics is basically defined as well as separated from other disciplines. So the precise topics that physicists as well as scientists focus on may alter amongst fourth dimension as well as volition alter amongst fourth dimension but at that topographic point volition ever endure something that is fundamental-like nigh the world, it volition endure studied past times some scientists, as well as they volition naturally reckon themselves physicists as well as heirs to the giants who receive got already been identified as physicists.
So the describing word "ageing" is exactly a reflection of her negative sentiments.
Is physics "dwindling"? Hossenfelder offers some numbers. The doubling fourth dimension for the annual set out of papers is eighteen years inwards physics but lower (faster) inwards other fields, e.g. 8-10 years inwards electrical engineering as well as technology. Is that a justification to depict physics as "dwindling, ageing"?
It's evidently not. The annual growth charge per unit of measurement of the set out of papers is 3.8% which is somewhat higher than the world's existent gross domestic product growth rate. So fifty-fifty relatively to the average economy, the production of physics papers goes upwards to a greater extent than quickly. It's non dwindling but growing.
However, to a greater extent than importantly, counting papers is exactly a terribly stupid measure to evaluate the value of anything. According to INSPIRE, Lee Smolin wrote 208 papers but his contribution to physics remains basically at zero. Papers aren't created equal. And the value or importance of the average newspaper doesn't necessarily remain constant inwards time, either.
So she discusses the animate beingness set out of papers as if it could endure straight used as a mensurate of "value" or "impact" as well as their development over time. Well, those exactly can't endure used inwards this way. An average paper's importance may double or acquire halved every 10 years, too. She completely ignores these "intensive" factors inwards the game which is why her conclusions are guaranteed to endure null else than worthless as well as demagogic expressions of her prejudices (mainly her hatred towards physics).
She also criticizes the large set out of authors inwards some physics papers. Well, the set out of authors has sure enough grown 1 time the ATLAS as well as CMS Collaborations at the LHC inwards CERN began to write hundreds of papers where the names of the whole collaboration (3,000 members inwards either case) are included as parts of the paper. Needless to say, she says that this tendency is bad, too.
People wish to write papers amongst many co-authors because that's how they may receive got a higher set out of publications for less effort, she claims. Holy cow. This is such a stupidity.
If yous write many papers that receive got 10 authors each, yous may receive got a large set out of papers but yous won't endure considered an of import physicist waiting to endure hired past times the best places as well as given the best grants. Those who brand the actual hiring as well as funding decisions are non idiots – dissimilar Mrs Hossenfelder. They know that a physicist who manages to write an of import newspaper past times himself is likely smarter or to a greater extent than of import or valuable than 1 of 10 physicists who belong to a large grouping of authors that shares an every bit of import paper. And yous know, fifty-fifty inwards larger lists of co-authors (starting from 2: the best travel is teamwork but two is oftentimes already likewise many), people who determine nigh hiring as well as funding almost ever tending "which co-author has contributed how much".
So at most, she is unmasking how lame as well as idiotic her ain thinking nigh the quantity – the set out of authors of a paper, inwards this illustration – is. But her beingness a consummate idiot does not imply that many actual physicists or most physicists are idiots. On laissez passer on of that, the large set out of authors is but a nifty thought inwards many cases.
The LHC Collaborations could endure smaller but they couldn't endure tiny. There's but a lot of travel at many levels that are needed for an LHC newspaper to endure completed. To pigment the growth of the collaborations inwards key experimental physics as a "bad trend" solely tells us nigh the speaker's prejudices – there's null rational nigh this judgement. High-energy physics needs high energy, so large gadgets, those demand many "hardware" as well as "software" layers, as well as lots of people must laissez passer on them. It's inevitable as well as it's exactly a symptom of progress inwards some specific plenty situation.
More reasonably, nosotros could appear at the set out of people who travel at that topographic point as well as the funding they're getting. Physics is doing fine. Of course of teaching yous observe disciplines that are growing faster. But many of them may plough out to endure temporary flukes that may terminate presently – they may endure bubbles or fads. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 dependent may double each v years but yous may endure pretty sure that it hasn't done then for 2,000 years. Readers who are uncertain nigh my arguing should seek to calculate how much is two to the 400th power. ;-)
So the implicit supposition that 1 should abandon disciplines that demand eighteen years to double, as well as solely laissez passer on some fads that double to a greater extent than quickly, is a sign of someone's extremely superficial character, her wish to bring together every bubble etc. Science as well as the mankind exactly couldn't travel if this mental attitude were really widespread.
There's some other occupation amongst all of this. The separation to the disciplines is arbitrary to a large extent. The outset illustration of the "faster, to a greater extent than dynamic" dependent she mentioned was electrical engineering. It's fine nosotros telephone phone it "engineering" then it's non "physics" but it's every bit sensible to recall that it's exactly a subfield of applied physics. Why should a particle physicist experience the duty to reckon an atmospheric physicist to endure his "close colleague" piece the electrical engineer has to endure treated as a "distant alien"? It makes no sense. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 item physicist may really good observe some fields classified as non-physics to endure closer to his Definition of goodness physics-like scientific discipline than some disciplines classified as parts of physics.
The full general signal of the previous paragraph is that this whole pissing challenger inwards which nosotros compare clumped collections of disciplines is an illustration of stupid identity politics.
Instead of counting the set out of papers, nosotros may compare the full set out of citations or the h-indices which even then brand much to a greater extent than feel for a meritocratic evaluation of disciplines. You know, I receive got served as the Harvard Junior Fellow which agency that I know a lot nigh the laissez passer on people from very various disciplines as well as their interactions. My beau Fellows – our primary duty was to utter to each other – included laissez passer on historians of chemistry, philosophers of morality, experts inwards Slavic or Chinese literature or medieval Icelandic poetry, condensed affair physicists, Yau-like mathematicians, a pharmacist of early on life on Earth, as well as then on. Some comparisons may endure made, others can't because the disciplines culturally differ as well as receive got different expectations, different units of "output" as well as "excellence", as well as other things. Lots of "calibration" has to endure made for whatever comparing of the disciplines to endure at to the lowest degree slightly professional.
But assume that the set out of citations or the h-index (the maximum integer "h" such that the writer has at to the lowest degree "h" papers amongst at to the lowest degree "h" citations) may endure applied across the scholarly disciplines. Where practise nosotros get? Pick this amusing list. On laissez passer on of the list, yous observe Sigmund Freud ;-) amongst the h-index of 272 as well as almost one-half a meg citations.
Sigmund Freud was a neurologist but he was mainly pseudoscientist working inwards psychology, too. He has accumulated one-half a meg of citations but I am confident that most physicists – as well as fifty-fifty scientists inwards other disciplines that appreciate difficult scientific discipline – volition concord amongst me that most of these citations are unavoidably rather soft. Followups of Freud's papers are something inwards betwixt science, pseudoscience, as well as pop articles. It is non necessarily wise to convey the set out likewise seriously.
Beneath Freud, yous observe lots of people inwards medicine, some people inwards genetics, some sociologists, economists such as Stiglitz, as well as postmodern philosophical crackpot Derrida, amid others. You demand to acquire to the house #47 to observe Edward Witten amongst h-index of 188 as well as 180,000 citations or so. So the theoretical physicists' citation guru Witten solely made it to the "top 50" which doesn't appear similar a stellar result.
But again, every sensible mortal knows that the citation from a Freud fan isn't quite the same "deal" as a followup to Witten's paper. It takes a lot of news as well as difficult travel to practise the calculation for a typical followup to Witten's papers. On the other hand, it's plenty to write some other newspaper proverb that "your sexuality reflects the pressures from your parents during your childhood" for Sigmund Freud to win some other citation. That's truly not quite as precious as a novel newspaper on M-theory or anything else that Witten has worked on (or discovered).
Jacques Derrida – who is two spots inwards a higher house Witten – has written only garbage, I think, as well as all the people "working" on similar materials are to a greater extent than or less ideologically driven morons.
So again, of course of teaching yous volition observe other disciplines inwards a higher house physics (especially theoretical physics) inwards similar tables. But some of these disciplines – specially medicine – are considered "crucial applied sciences" past times most humans on globe (and I largely portion this honor towards medicine – exactly to endure sure, I wouldn't write an overly full general negative article nigh almost any dependent of natural sciences) which guarantees that their importance is as well as volition remain high. Others are postmodern or otherwise pseudoscientific rubbish. Others are nigh technological breakthroughs – similar basic concepts of some novel photovoltaic cells – that are considered of import inwards the manufacture but may endure considered branches of applied physics, too.
There's a lot of diversity, some of the fields are closer to each other than others, some of the fields are considered worthless past times researchers inwards other fields, some of the fields arrive much easier to collect the citations. So it's even then a occupation to pull whatever conclusions from such lists – but such lists based on h-indices as well as citations are even then vastly ameliorate than anything that Mrs Hossenfelder has discussed (based on the demonization of the set out of papers as well as authors). Mrs Hossenfelder's criteria are all nigh comparing things that are obviously neither commensurable – comparing apples to oranges – nor constant benchmarks inwards fourth dimension as well as assigning labels "good" as well as "bad" to these criteria inwards a way that is done to confirm her prejudices, anyway (especially "physics is dwindling").
It's terrible for someone to endure forced to endure a physicist when she truly hates it then much (especially theoretical physics). Affirmative activity is evil. Please, someone who matters, terminate this farce as well as release her from this curse.