More Sabbath Theology Blogging: The Problem of Easterbrook...

Would a benevolent God construct a world in which publications like Slate and the New Republic hired Gregg Easterbrook to write about science? I say no. The fact that they do hire him is a proof of the non-existence of a benevolent God.

Peter Woit nevetheless thanks the One Who Might Be that Gregg Easterbrook did not review his book about string theory but Lee Smolin's:

Not Even Wrong: Yesterday I also saw two reviews [of Lee Smolin's book] that I don't think much of. The first is Gregg Easterbrook's piece at Slate, The Trouble With String Theory. It's a very enthusiastic review of Smolin's book, and when I started reading it my initial reaction was positive, although it did seem a bit over the top. As I read on, besides wondering "Hey, is he going to mention my book too?", I started to remember who Easterbrook is, and how stupid some of his previous writings on physics were. By the end of it, I was very glad Easterbrook had left me out of it. One sometimes depressing aspect of being on this side of the string theory controversy is seeing who some of one's allies are.

Easterbrook is best known as a sports writer writing about the NFL, but for some reason various prominent publications feature his writing on other topics. The biggest mystery of all is why places like Slate and the New Republic have him writing about science, a topic he seems to know nothing about, and be actively hostile to. For once, Lubos Motl's paranoid rantings about "anti-science" people who dislike string theory do actually have someone they legitimately apply to. This latest Easterbrook effort isn't even original, he's plagiarizing himself...

Chad Orzel observes:

Uncertain Principles: Take the Bad with the Good: The bad news is, Gregg Easterbrook is writing about science for Slate. Actually, Gregg Easterbrook writing about anything other than football is bad news, but science is particularly bad. His knowledge of the subject always seems to operate at the Star Trek sort of level-- like he's read the glossary of a bunch of general science books, but never really understood how it all fits together... the problematic paragraph being this one near the end:

Today if a professor at Princeton claims there are 11 unobservable dimensions about which he can speak with great confidence despite an utter lack of supporting evidence, that professor is praised for incredible sophistication. If another person in the same place asserted there exists one unobservable dimension, the plane of the spirit, he would be hooted down as a superstitious crank.

...In the context of string theory, "dimension" has a precise scientific meaning-- roughly, "a direction of motion perpendicular to all other directions of motion." In the context of religion, "dimension" is a metaphor. Equating the scientific and "spiritual" meanings of dimension, the way Easterbrook does, makes about as much sense as saying "A big drop in stock prices could lead to a bear market, which would be bad because bears ripped apart that guy in Grizzly Man." It lends a wonderful Lemony Snicket quality to the article, but doesn't exactly mark him as a Deep Thinker...

Jacob Levy would presumably say that Gregg Easterbrook's writing about science for Slate might be one of those apparent evils that we cannot, because of our limited vision, see as really part of a greater good.

What hidden greater good that we cannot perceive might Gregg Easterbrook's writing about science for Slate be a part of? Suggestions are welcome.

Comments

[Michael Carroll]

Brad,

God has put this trial before you as a test because he is preparing you for some great purpose.

[a different chris]

>What hidden greater good

Ummm, err, hmmmm, ahhhh, mmmmmmm......

Nope. Got nothin.

[Barbara]

Is there anyone who can publicly and patiently explain to Gregg and his many readers that, precise definitions aside, if those 11 dimensions are disproved by the energies of some future scientist, the science books will be revised but there is nothing that will convince the advocate of the "one" dimension that he is wrong. That Easterbrook doesn't get this fundamental difference between religion and scientific hypothesis is really astonishing.

So the one good thing: he makes me feel smart and scientifically educated by comparison!

[Walt]

Easterbrook's column was so stupid that I almost blacked out after reading it.

["Q" the Enchanter]

As I noted over at Ezra Klein's blog, having Easterbrook walk the science beat is like having Don Luskin cover economics.

[Bill Broch]

Jacob Levy, Jacob Weisberg . . . what's the difference? All Jewish names sound pretty much the same anyway, right?

[Gene O'Grady]

To paraphrase Edmund Gosse's father, the benevolent God put Gregg Eastbrook here to tempt Brad DeLong to unbelief.

[hackticus]

Not only does Easterhack not understand physics, he doesn't even understand simple geometry: if there were a "plane of the spirit", it would involve two unobservable dimensions, not one. He's thinking of the "line of the spirit" perhaps.

[c]

It's a Sign that we should continue not reading Slate, which has long since jumped the shark.

If only the NYT made it easier to find Doonesbury, I'd never go near Slate at all.

[wcw]

http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/

I do recall making this argument about god with the poor woman who volunteered to teach Tuesday-night CCD. In official Catholic theology, there would appear to be an answer to same, which I am not interested enough to Google.

What I want to know is how people like Easterbrook get work. Who hires them, and why don't they hire my cats instead? They have a lot of free time on their paws.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ex=1260248400&en=f28e2fcec63c1d22&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

December 7, 2004

String Theory, at 20, Explains It All (or Not)
By DENNIS OVERBYE

ASPEN, Colo. - They all laughed 20 years ago.

It was then that a physicist named John Schwarz jumped up on the stage during a cabaret at the physics center here and began babbling about having discovered a theory that could explain everything. By prearrangement men in white suits swooped in and carried away Dr. Schwarz, then a little-known researcher at the California Institute of Technology.

Only a few of the laughing audience members knew that Dr. Schwarz was not entirely joking. He and his collaborator, Dr. Michael Green, now at Cambridge University, had just finished a calculation that would change the way physics was done. They had shown that it was possible for the first time to write down a single equation that could explain all the laws of physics, all the forces of nature - the proverbial "theory of everything" that could be written on a T-shirt.

And so emerged into the limelight a strange new concept of nature, called string theory, so named because it depicts the basic constituents of the universe as tiny wriggling strings, not point particles.

"That was our first public announcement," Dr. Schwarz said recently.

By uniting all the forces, string theory had the potential of achieving the goal that Einstein sought without success for half his life and that has embodied the dreams of every physicist since then. If true, it could be used like a searchlight to illuminate some of the deepest mysteries physicists can imagine, like the origin of space and time in the Big Bang and the putative death of space and time at the infinitely dense centers of black holes.

In the last 20 years, string theory has become a major branch of physics. Physicists and mathematicians conversant in strings are courted and recruited like star quarterbacks by universities eager to establish their research credentials. String theory has been celebrated and explained in best-selling books like "The Elegant Universe," by Dr. Brian Greene, a physicist at Columbia University, and even on popular television shows.

Last summer in Aspen, Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Green (of Cambridge) cut a cake decorated with "20th Anniversary of the First Revolution Started in Aspen," as they and other theorists celebrated the anniversary of their big breakthrough. But even as they ate cake and drank wine, the string theorists admitted that after 20 years, they still did not know how to test string theory, or even what it meant.

As a result, the goal of explaining all the features of the modern world is as far away as ever, they say. And some physicists outside the string theory camp are growing restive. At another meeting, at the Aspen Institute for Humanities, only a few days before the string commemoration, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, called string theory "a colossal failure."

String theorists agree that it has been a long, strange trip, but they still have faith that they will complete the journey.

"Twenty years ago no one would have correctly predicted how string theory has since developed," said Dr. Andrew Strominger of Harvard. "There is disappointment that despite all our efforts, experimental verification or disproof still seems far away. On the other hand, the depth and beauty of the subject, and the way it has reached out, influenced and connected other areas of physics and mathematics, is beyond the wildest imaginations of 20 years ago."

In a way, the story of string theory and of the physicists who have followed its siren song for two decades is like a novel that begins with the classic "what if?"

What if the basic constituents of nature and matter were not little points, as had been presumed since the time of the Greeks? What if the seeds of reality were rather teeny tiny wiggly little bits of string? And what appear to be different particles like electrons and quarks merely correspond to different ways for the strings to vibrate, different notes on God's guitar?

It sounds simple, but that small change led physicists into a mathematical labyrinth, in which they describe themselves as wandering, "exploring almost like experimentalists," in the words of Dr. David Gross of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif.

String theory, the Italian physicist Dr. Daniele Amati once said, was a piece of 21st-century physics that had fallen by accident into the 20th century.

And, so the joke went, would require 22nd-century mathematics to solve.

Dr. Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., described it this way: "String theory is not like anything else ever discovered. It is an incredible panoply of ideas about math and physics, so vast, so rich you could say almost anything about it."

The string revolution had its roots in a quixotic effort in the 1970's to understand the so-called "strong" force that binds quarks into particles like protons and neutrons. Why were individual quarks never seen in nature? Perhaps because they were on the ends of strings, said physicists, following up on work by Dr. Gabriele Veneziano of CERN, the European research consortium.

That would explain why you cannot have a single quark - you cannot have a string with only one end. Strings seduced many physicists with their mathematical elegance, but they had some problems, like requiring 26 dimensions and a plethora of mysterious particles that did not seem to have anything to do with quarks or the strong force.

When accelerator experiments supported an alternative theory of quark behavior known as quantum chromodynamics, most physicists consigned strings to the dustbin of history.

But some theorists thought the mathematics of strings was too beautiful to die....

[kid bitzer]

but it gets better!

After he tells us that string-theory is no better than theology because it has no testable content, he then tells us that its proponents are just making it up in order to intimidate anyone who criticizes their use of tax-payer money for funding large experimental labs!

Got that?

These string-theorists--they just want to build huge atom-smashers using your hard-earned money ('taxation is theft')! And they're nothing but theologists, either, because they don't do any experiments!

Easterbrook would be a disgrace to journalism, except that journalism can no longer be disgraced.

[HankP]

Easterbrook is not completely useless. He can always be used as a bad example.

[Evan]

Easterbrook's science writing is glib and clueless. A perfect match for Slate's trademark "counterintutitive!!" style. But -- there was this one time way back in 1980 when Easterbrook wrote a very prescient and insightful article about the boondoggle that was the Space Shuttle program:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

Maybe the hope is that lightning will strike twice?

[Emma Anne]

Hackticus: "line of the spirit," LOL!

[c]

Sure, Evan, but you don't need to be a scientist to recognize the Space Shuttle and Space Station as colossal boondoggles -- they're like potlatching on a national scale. *Any* sports journalist could have written that story.

The thing about String Theory is that even if most of it turns out to be wrong, it's still a useful way of thinking about the puzzles that confront 21st century Physics. The idea that a bold hypothesis might be fruitful to think with, even if it turns out to be wrong, is the kind of thing Easterbrook can't handle. A defining feature of bad science journalism is an inability to grasp the process of science.

[Rob]

Mickey Kaus and Gregg Easterbrook are of the same cloth. Kaus wrote stuff about welfare in the 1980s and Easterbrook wrote about science. And while each had certain things correct, alot of what they wrote turned out to be completely wrong. But somehow both of them stayed employed as some sort of public intelectual writting about things they don't know.

As to Easterbrook's continued employment, maybe it helpd to bring down the Washignton Post empire? Maybe that's it good? Then again the Post employed Columnist(Shill) for Hire James Glassman for years and is still here...

[Evan]

"A defining feature of bad science journalism is an inability to grasp the process of science."

Wow, c -- actually I think that might be *the* defining feature of bad science journalism. Getting a few of the particulars wrong might lead to "adequate" or "mediocre" science journalism...but now that I think about it, it's misunderstanding the scientific *process* (whether deliberately or accidentally) that is the primary factor behind every bad article about global warming, evolution, etc. Thanks, this has been very clarifying!

[Ken Houghton]

The one good thing about Easterbrook writing about Science in SLATE: We know not to read any science columns in SLATE. The time saved thereupon is, perhaps, a Giffen Good.

[Seth Gordon]

God is benevolent, but he has granted us free will. If Easterbrook uses his to make a fool of himself, and the Slate editors use theirs to propagate his folly...well, Yom Kippur is in two weeks. Maybe they'll repent.

It could be worse. My father once heard some rabbi claim that the string theorists had merely rediscovered what the kabbalists had known all along, becaues the ten dimensions of (certain flavors of) string theory obviously correspond to the ten sephirot.

Dad, who used to work as a physicist at Fermilab, was pissed, because he knew that there are only about twelve people in the world who actually understand enough higher mathematics to say anything intelligent about string theory. And this rabbi sure wasn't one of them.

[andres]

"Jacob Levy would presumably say that Gregg Easterbrook's writing about science for Slate might be one of those apparent evils that we cannot, because of our limited vision, see as really part of a greater good.

What hidden greater good that we cannot perceive might Gregg Easterbrook's writing about science for Slate be a part of? Suggestions are welcome."

Silly Brad. God's greatest gift is that he endowed intelligent human beings with free will, the Freedom to Choose that people like uncle Milton Friedman like to abuse so much. It follows that free will cannot exist if publications like Slate don't have the power to choose twits like Easterbrook to write their science columns, or if the American people don't have the power to elect GWB for presidnt. Free will necessarily involves the ability to make mind-bogglingly incompetent choices. Oh well.

[sglover]

I think there's a better approach to this theological spat -- schism. encourage Fred Kaplan and Dahlia Lithwick to follow Daniel Gross' example, and form their own temples. And let Slate be. It's a fit place for people like Kaus and Weisberg and Easterbrook. In time it'll attract as many adherents as the Shakers.

[Donald A. Coffin Donald A. Coffin]

See, having Gregg Easterbrook write about science is a great timesaver. I just refuse to read what he's written.

[Johann]

Actually, Easterbrook's football writing is as glib and clueless as his science writing. Granted, his approach to football is different and original, but his analysis of the actual games is usually very superficial. On the other hand that statement is true of almost all football columnists so his football errors are far more forgivable than his scientific ones.

[The Black Monk]

Oh. This one isn't so hard.

It's a question of lost opportunities. If Easterbrook is busy trying to write about science, then he's not writing about politics or economics or how embarrassingly *bad* the Steelers will be this year.

It's truly a blessing...

[matija]

Couldn't agree more with Seth Gordon, if he a republican, he'll be the next president. And yes he will be writting his own material, priceless

[Platypus]

I long ago stopped reading Easterbrook columns because it became clear to me after the first few that he not only lacked a basic understanding of the principles of science but was too incompetent to recognize his ignorance. What amazes me is that Slate, TNR and the Washington Post continue to present him as their in-house science expert. Don’t their editors realize the corrosive effect this has on their reputation? Easterbrook’s scientific illiteracy is easy for readers to see. If the editors of these fine publications either can’t recognize it or don’t care, then how do they expect the public to trust their judgment on anything else they publish?

[Count Agion]

So the one good thing: he makes me feel smart and scientifically educated by comparison!

Posted by: Barbara

Ditto!

[John]

Isn't science reporting in the MSM a general problem, not just Easterbrook or Slate or WaPo? The NY Times Science section Tuesdays is pretty bad.

Reading it I get the idea that science is mainly medical, involving studies that "suggest" not eating x, y, or z would be good for your health; or eating a, b, or c would be good for your health. All about "links" that "suggest." Too bad English doesn't have a subjunctive. The latest proposed that losing weight presages Alzheimers. Maybe. It was a link, you see. I don't understand how the editor allows such drivel to be printed.

It's not all medical: the remainder is hopefully human interest stories about obscure animals, tribes, or antiquities.

The Science section of most papers are even worse than their real estate sections.

[Robert Waldmann]

Why would a benevolent God

Easterbrook is very funny in the way that people who are not tone deaf claim to find PDQ Bach funny.

Easterbrook reminds us that Scientists actually know things and that amateur science critics make themselves look like fools.

Anyway don't ask me. I have long argued that if we try to determine the intention of The Creator from His (or Her) creation, we can only conclude that the purpose of the universe is the quest for the uttermost abyss of idiocy. http://tinyurl.com/jm842

wondering if The Creator would not leave in existence the reduntant bits of a Universe which has achieved it's Telos, I do not dare read the writings of Easterbrook.

[Robert Waldmann]

Why would a benevolent God

Easterbrook is very funny in the way that people who are not tone deaf claim to find PDQ Bach funny.

Easterbrook reminds us that Scientists actually know things and that amateur science critics make themselves look like fools.

Anyway don't ask me. I have long argued that if we try to determine the intention of The Creator from His (or Her) creation, we can only conclude that the purpose of the universe is the quest for the uttermost abyss of idiocy. http://tinyurl.com/jm842

wondering if The Creator would not leave in existence the reduntant bits of a Universe which has achieved it's Telos, I do not dare read the writings of Easterbrook.