________________________________________________________________________
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 4 (IV)
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 4 (IV)
________________________________________________________________________
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Conclusions
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
The previous discussion was intended to provide theoretical support to the thesis sketched in the first essay, and further developed in the last two, that superstring theory has been possible thanks only to the cooperation of numerous persons, each of them with different backgrounds and performing diverse tasks. Without this collaboration string theory would not exist, in any imaginable form. This perspective dissents with other common approaches to scientific creativity. In the first part of the essay I reviewed two of these theories, both especially widespread within theoretical physics: the gifted child and the creative dream. The origin of the first of these myths on creativity is very recent, no older than the Romantic era. In the mid-nineteenth century Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who actively advocated a world view free of extra-scientific elements, attacked the German philosopher Max Stirner for sustaining what they thought was a metaphysical interpretation: “Thus, the child immediately becomes a metaphysician, trying to find out the ‘basis of things.’ This speculating child, for whom the nature of things lies closer to his heart than his toys ... .”[source] This attitude with regard to creativity attained wide acceptance by the end of the Romantic period and in our days is very diffuse. The pioneer psychologist of creativity Howard Gardner once evoked that by the time he began his studies, “The child was seen by nearly all researchers as an exclusively rational creature, a problem-solver – in fact, a scientist in knickers.”[source] Creativity in theoretical physics, as I have recalled in this essay, has not been safe from interpretations of this sort. The second myth is the one asserting that there is a relationship between the state of dreaming and creativity. This myth, which has its origins in ancient times, was reinvigorated in Western societies by Freud’s discovery of the psychoanalysis. The role of the unconscious in scientific creativity became popular, especially in mathematics and theoretical physics, thanks to the influence of Poincaré’s model and Hadamard’s later developments. Naturally, the problem with studying creativity in science, and in physics in particular, is that practitioners are not inclined to communicate their experiences, and when they do it, as in introspective reports, the truthfulness of the information is doubtful. One of the advantages of the sociocultural approach, the one I have chosen to enquire into the development of string theory, is that it circumvents these inconveniences generally associated to psychological studies. We did not delve into the psyche of the greatest string theorists. Moreover, and this is the main point of the essay, this was not necessary. To understand how string theory has been constructed we do not need to concentrate on the individual theorist or group of theorists, but on all those that have contributed in one way or the other to its development: professional string theorists, popular science writers, string theory fanatics, casual readers, and so forth. (An inevitable consequence of this perspective is that it is useless to make the usual distinction between the context of discovery and the context of explanation. And this is simply because there is no discovery without explanation. The discovery becomes such only after a long and complex process of explanation involving many people.)
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
Conclusions
*******You can read this blog for free! Please, do not copy its content.*******
The previous discussion was intended to provide theoretical support to the thesis sketched in the first essay, and further developed in the last two, that superstring theory has been possible thanks only to the cooperation of numerous persons, each of them with different backgrounds and performing diverse tasks. Without this collaboration string theory would not exist, in any imaginable form. This perspective dissents with other common approaches to scientific creativity. In the first part of the essay I reviewed two of these theories, both especially widespread within theoretical physics: the gifted child and the creative dream. The origin of the first of these myths on creativity is very recent, no older than the Romantic era. In the mid-nineteenth century Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who actively advocated a world view free of extra-scientific elements, attacked the German philosopher Max Stirner for sustaining what they thought was a metaphysical interpretation: “Thus, the child immediately becomes a metaphysician, trying to find out the ‘basis of things.’ This speculating child, for whom the nature of things lies closer to his heart than his toys ... .”[source] This attitude with regard to creativity attained wide acceptance by the end of the Romantic period and in our days is very diffuse. The pioneer psychologist of creativity Howard Gardner once evoked that by the time he began his studies, “The child was seen by nearly all researchers as an exclusively rational creature, a problem-solver – in fact, a scientist in knickers.”[source] Creativity in theoretical physics, as I have recalled in this essay, has not been safe from interpretations of this sort. The second myth is the one asserting that there is a relationship between the state of dreaming and creativity. This myth, which has its origins in ancient times, was reinvigorated in Western societies by Freud’s discovery of the psychoanalysis. The role of the unconscious in scientific creativity became popular, especially in mathematics and theoretical physics, thanks to the influence of Poincaré’s model and Hadamard’s later developments. Naturally, the problem with studying creativity in science, and in physics in particular, is that practitioners are not inclined to communicate their experiences, and when they do it, as in introspective reports, the truthfulness of the information is doubtful. One of the advantages of the sociocultural approach, the one I have chosen to enquire into the development of string theory, is that it circumvents these inconveniences generally associated to psychological studies. We did not delve into the psyche of the greatest string theorists. Moreover, and this is the main point of the essay, this was not necessary. To understand how string theory has been constructed we do not need to concentrate on the individual theorist or group of theorists, but on all those that have contributed in one way or the other to its development: professional string theorists, popular science writers, string theory fanatics, casual readers, and so forth. (An inevitable consequence of this perspective is that it is useless to make the usual distinction between the context of discovery and the context of explanation. And this is simply because there is no discovery without explanation. The discovery becomes such only after a long and complex process of explanation involving many people.)
Three are the key components to be considered when dealing with creativity: people, processes, and products. All of them have been favoured at a certain time and by different authors. Here, I have taken the stance that the product is the principal constituent in the analysis of creativity. More specifically, I have focused on the AdS/CFT correspondence. The process conducive to the construction of the AdS/CFT correspondence was already described in essay 1, in the main section of the present essay I have emphasized the collective nature of the project.
Psychologists underline that to produce something new means to add something to the culture, a contribution that has to be approved by those authorized beforehand to do it. This elite decides whether or not the idea or invention is worthy of being included in the specific domain and of being passed on to the next generation of scholars. However, as the AdS/CFT case suggests, the group of people entitled to make such a decision is not always well defined and can indeed exceed the usual field.
I have used elements of the “Systems Model” of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in order to explain the emergence of the AdS/CFT correspondence and string theory more generally. That is, string theory as the creative product where the domain, the field, and individuals merge. However, my point differs from Csikszentmihalyi’s in a decisive aspect. For him, as for many other psychologists of creativity, the field of a specific domain is strictly made up of those individuals who have been trained within its rules: teachers, researchers, journal editors, and eminent physicists, among others. Moreover, it is widely sustained that the more the domain is codified, for example, in mathematical language, the smaller the number of individuals designated to evaluate and eventually incorporate the new ideas into the domain. Throughout this essay I have been claiming that this is not always the case. We have seen that string theory is highly mathematical; however, it has recourse to the large public’s participation in order to progress and withstand the criticisms.
In this collaborative effort, theoretical physicists prepare their tactics according to the available resources, whether human or material. This is what happens when, for instance, critics of string theory dedicate a significant part of their time and energy to attack the theory making use of the distribution system of popular science. As string theorists have already successfully done, these physicists try likewise to create a network of supporters extending beyond the professional boundaries with the hope of diminishing the impetus of string theory and changing the situation in their favour. Nevertheless, the results of this strategy are difficult to predict; as those abhorring string theory can testify. It should be noticed that the reaction of these sceptic physicists was in the beginning motivated by a supposed undermining of traditional scientific tenets by string theorists, in particular their audacious use of mass-media propaganda. Interestingly, they have been behaving in the same way; just with lesser efficacy.
In summary, I think that the process leading to string theory – not an isolated case within modern big science, however – is quite similar to Csikszentmihalyi’s understanding of market products: “For mass-market products such as soft drinks or motion pictures, the field might include not only the small coterie of product developers and critics, but the public at large. For instance, if New Coke is not a part of the culture, it is because although it passed the evaluation of the small field of beverage specialists, it failed to pass the test of public taste.”[source] If, as is natural, designers and marketers take into account the possible responses of the public, the same could be said about string theory popularisers.
To conclude, let me remark on the breadth of the previous reflections. Consider, the people that have contributed to creating the idea that string theory is a beautiful theory (see essay 3). The first names that will come to your mind are Edward Witten, Nathan Seiberg, Juan Maldacena, Joel Polchinski, Barton Zwiebach, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and many other string theorists. But, if you are convinced by what I have just said, then you will add: Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, George Musser, Lubos Motl, Peter Woit, general relativity and particle physics experts, some of your high school teachers, science writers, the reviewers at amazon.com, and so forth. Now, what is the contribution to string theory of Dirac, Wigner, Leibniz, Descartes, Galileo, Plato, the Neo-Pythagoreans, and Pythagoras? Maybe you are thinking that I am going too far by insinuating that Pythagoras could be part of the superstring world. Well, imagine you have to explain string theory without talking about Pythagoras, Plato, or implying the book of nature. You can do it, no doubt, but the theory would look completely different; if not incomprehensible. Try to remove everything having to do with Pythagoras from a standard string theory discourse, let’s say Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe, and you will be left with no more than a few unintelligible lines.
The last example also shows that a collaborative project such as string theory is not limited to participants belonging to the same time. A final example will help to further illuminate this. In essay 2 I argued that the metaphor of the violin string rested upon the Western belief that we lived in a musical universe resounded with classical music. This idea has been successfully exploited by string theorists thanks to the association usually made between early twenty-century physics and classical music. In addition, I also commented that one of the reasons why many German physicists of the early twentieth century played music, i.e. classical music, was thanks to their mothers’ commitment to their early education. Hence, if we talk today about the music of the superstrings it is in great part due to the determination of these devoted mothers that care about the future of their sons and their nation. They are, of course, also part of the superstring world.
In the next essays we will see further examples of how the superstring web has been spun and we will discuss the extent of its ramifications.
________________________________________________________________________
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 4 (IV)
SELECTED READINGS FOR ESSAY 4 (IV)
________________________________________________________________________
