We usually associate collective irrationality with mysticism and various crazed cultish forms of belief. By contrast, since the enlightenment, science has been viewed as almost embodying reason itself.
There are plenty of fanciful doctrines in philosophy and social theory that could be seen as forms of collective irrationality, where systems of belief in the intellectual world completely fly in the face of empirical reality or have little basis in firm empirical support. But can collective irrationality also be displayed in the hard sciences?
It can, and was, on several occasions during the past century. Collective irrationality in the sciences is usually seen as a feature of totalitarian regimes. There was the Stalin-era Lysenko affair in biology, 'Aryan physics' in Nazi Germany, and mad 'Mao Tse Tung Thought' style particle physics during the cultural revolution.
Sometimes, this type of collective irrationality can work. For instance a group of Japanese physicists who tried to prove Karl Marx's philosophy of 'dialectical materialism' actually made some important discoveries in our understanding of the strong nuclear force in the 1950s. Alas they went off the rails thereafter.
But scientific irrationality is not linked exclusively to doctrinaire ideology. It would appear that a more market-driven collective irrationality, based around fashion, has emerged in the science world. This relates to a contentious line of theory known as 'superstring theory'.
One of the enduring goals of theoretical physics is the marriage of Einstein's general theory of relativity — a theory of gravity — with quantum mechanics. Gravity is the weakest force but operates over large scales, so it is crucial to understanding some of the bigger things in life, such as the universe as a whole. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, accounts for the micro-world.
It is hoped that the consummation of this marriage, 'quantum gravity', would unify physics and provide us with new insight into the underlying laws of nature. Some even hold out the promise of a 'theory of everything', because we would thereby combine our best theories of the very big and the very small into one neat package.
But it has been a calamitous and rocky courtship. Even Dexter, the robot who yielded his compatibility algorithm on the dating game show Perfect Match, would struggle! Every attempt at unification results in ugly mathematics that spews out nonsense and anomalies.
Superstring theory is the most popular theory aimed at unifying physics. It has had a long and torturous history, but essentially the premise is that the physical world — literally, everything, including space and time — is built out of strings and membranes.
It's become something of a celebrity science. Anyone who follows popular science would be familiar with the theory, as it has been the subject of many books, articles, documentaries and radio shows, all attempting to explain the promise and hidden intricacies of the theory.
Superstring theory is noted for its mathematical elegance. It does not produce troublesome infinities and has even prompted important new developments in pure mathematics.
But superstring theory comes at a price. For example, to be mathematically consistent and to exorcise the demons of traditional quantum gravity, the theory requires that we assume 'spacetime' has many dimensions. The obvious paradox is explained away by assuming that all those extra dimensions that we do not perceive are conveniently hidden in tiny, tiny spaces.
A bigger problem is that the theory requires more universes than our own. The inherent paradox is addressed by invoking the 'anthropic principle', which states that we can make predictions about the nature of our universe based upon the fact of our own existence. This constrains how many of the theoretical universes could possibly be our own. But with so many universes anything and everything becomes possible, rendering 'prediction' rather pointless. Our universe is not being explained so much as explained away.
In short, despite its popularity, progress in superstring theory is being conducted without reference to empirical reality.
It is true that it is easier to get a job or get on the box doing superstring theory than any of its rival theories. It might be appropriate to conclude that it is the emphasis of universities on quantity of publications and citations, combined with the gravitational effect that intellectual celebrity has on university funding levels, that explains the collective irrationality around superstring theory.
This would be a market driven form of collective irrationality in contrast to our earlier examples that stressed irrationality arising from ideology.
What is of fascination here is that string theory might end up telling us more about the sociology and philosophy of science itself than it does about nature.
LINK:
The official string theory website
Marko Beljac is interested in the interface between science and global security. He wrote his PhD at Monash University and teaches at LaTrobe University and the University of Melbourne.