Prof. Robert Crease’s review in Physics World of my book “The Ant Mill” contains false and grossly misleading quotations and other falsehoods, which are so serious that they necessitate a response

Under normal circumstances, I would never comment on a review of one of my books. People are entitled to have their opinions and to disagree with me. I consider it bad style to interfere with that. But there are exceptions, and one of them is when a book review contain factually incorrect and grossly misleading statements and made-up quotations. 

This is the case with Professor Robert P. Crease’s review in Physics World of my book “The Ant Mill — how theoretical physics descended into groupthink, tribalism and mass production of research”, which is a sociological analysis of theoretical high-energy physics. His review includes a number of false quotations, which are so serious that I feel that I am forced to react.

Before I go into details let me say this: I welcome disagreement and pushback. I believe that we approach the truth as a collective through debate, discussion, and disagreement. And that process can sometimes be fierce, it can be tough, it can even be ugly. But there is a line, which we should never cross, and that is the line between honest, constructive discourse and dishonest, destructive agression. If what we aim to achieve is not to counter what we believe are unsound arguments with counterarguments, but rather to silence an unwelcome and inconvenient opponent by using false quotations and other falsehoods, then we are no longer in the domain of acceptable, civilised behaviour.

I do not wish to go into a general discussion about Prof. Crease’s review but will here simply list a number of factually untrue statements and false quotations that it contains. 

FIRST, Prof. Crease writes:

Theoretical physicists, Grimstrup writes, have become “obedient idiots” […] He slams theoretical physics for becoming a “kingdom”, a “cult”, […]

The problem is that these statements are untrue. These quotations cannot be found anywhere in my book.

The words “obedient idiots” do, in fact, appear in my book. In chapter 9 I include in a subsection excerpts from an email written by an anonymous physicist to the physicist and YouTuber Sabine Hossenfelder (pages 109 and 110). It is in that email that the words “obedient idiots” appear. The words also appear in the headline of that subsection and, as a consequence, in the Table of Contents. It is clearly stated that these are not my words. Furthermore, in the paragraph following this email I describe its content as “shocking”, and distance myself from it.

In addition to this, I express in the introduction of my book my respect for my colleagues. Specifically, I write:

“The criticism that I raise in this book comes from a place of comradeship and respect. I know how dedicated and intelligent most of my colleagues are, I know how hard they work and how strongly they believe in our common cause. But even the best people can veer off course and when that happens it is important to point it out.” 

Moreover, throughout the book I describe the colleagues, whom I criticise, with the words “very serious and meticulous”, “most respected”, “friendly, thorough, and very polite”, “best of us”, “very competent and knowledgeable“, “talented and smart” etc. I vehemently disagree with the statement that theoretical physicists have become obedient idiots. To attribute this quotation to me is deeply offensive and clearly defamatory.

There is no doubt that my book is critical of certain aspects of theoretical high-energy physics¹. But that does not mean that I think that all my colleagues and fellow theoretical physicists are idiots. I most certainly do not, and I have never said so nor written it anywhere. 

In an email² Prof. Crease justifies his quotation in this way:

“If someone put down the book after the second mention³, they would have absolutely no reason to think other than that the phrase was the author’s.“

That is, according to Prof. Crease, if you read the book until the headline that reads “Obedient idiots”, and stop reading immediately after that, then you might find his quotation plausible. But if you read just a few lines further you will realise that it is false. This is a bizarre argument. In this way there is almost no limit as to what quotations one can ascribe to an author. If you are permitted to simply ignore any section of a book and instead imagine what it might contain, you can conjure up whatever you want. Note also that the headline only says “Obedient idiots”, it does not say who the idiots are. 

Next, the word “kingdom” also appears in my book (page 37 and 38), but only as an example that I use to explain why social systems do not scale linearly with size. Nowhere do I write that theoretical physics is becoming a kingdom.

Similarly, the word “cult” can also be found in my book (page 106), but only in connection with the research community of noncommutative geometry, about which I write:

“It has a sociological structure that in some ways resembles that of a cult.“

The size of the research community of noncommutative geometry is probably of the order of 100 researchers. Compare this to the size of theoretical physics at large, which is probably of the order of 100.000 researchers. It is clearly a completely different thing to say that a tiny community like noncommutative geometry has certain cult-like features and to claim that a vastly larger community of theoretical physics is becoming a cult. 

The notion that theoretical physics is becoming a kingdom or a cult is absurd. 

SECOND: Prof. Crease writes:

“Half the chapters begin with an anecdote in which Grimstrup describes an instance of rejection by a colleague, editor or funding agency. In the book’s longest chapter Grimstrup talks about his various rejections – by the Carlsberg Foundation, The European Physics Journal C, International Journal of Modern Physics A, Classical and Quantum Gravity …“

This is also incorrect. First, it is not true that half the chapters in my book begin with an anecdote of the kind that Prof. Crease mentions, and secondly, nowhere in the book have I written that I have been rejected by these three journals. In fact, anyone can check my publication record and see that I publish in them relatively regularly.

THIRD: Prof. Crease writes:

“The Standard Model of particle physics, according to Grimstrup, is dominated by influential groups that squeeze out other approaches.“

This is not merely another false reference to my book, it is also utterly meaningless. 

FOURTH: Prof. Crease writes:

“But there followed a decade of rejected articles and lack of opportunities. Grimstrup became “disillusioned, disheartened, and indignant”.“

This, too, is a false quotation. In my book I write in the introduction that “the following pages are […] also a very personal story that at times has left me disillusioned, disheartened, and indignant”. That is, I describe momentary feelings, not a permanent state of mind. 

Concerning the actual content of Prof. Crease’s review let me say two things: 

1. When Prof. Crease consistently refers to my book as a “anti-string theory rant” then he conveniently ignores that a) my book is not primarily about string theory and b) it involves a lot of statistical and bibliometrical analysis alongside a meticulous mapping of the incentive structures and social forces in theoretical high-energy physics, something that hardly fits the description of a rant. 
2. When Prof. Crease criticises me for insisting on falsifiability and asks the question “Is falsifiability really the sole criterion for deciding whether to accept or fail to pursue a theory?”, then he conveniently ignores the fact that I discuss this question at some length in my book. It is clearly stated in my book that I do notbelieve that falsifiability is the sole criteria. 

I can’t help but wonder whether Prof. Crease has actually read my book?

I contacted the editorial board at Physics World and pointed out Prof. Crease’s false quotations and misrepresentations and explained that they are damaging to my reputation as a physicist and scientist. I asked them to grant me the opportunity to publish a response in their magazine, which they refused.  

Sadly, Prof. Robert P. Crease’s review confirms one of the key points in my book about the deterioration of the scientific discourse. As already mentioned, in his review Crease completely ignores the central part of my book, which is an in-depth bibliometric study of theoretical high-energy physics that spans 70 years and involves a detailed statistical analysis. This analysis reveals hitherto unknown facts about, for instance, the level of competition in theoretical high-energy physics and its sociological implications, findings which it would have been interesting to have challenged by a competent scholar. But instead of engaging in a serious academic exchange, Prof. Crease resorts to denigrating language, straw-man arguments, and spreading of falsehoods that one would think unworthy of a professor of philosophy. 

25 years ago Prof. Crease published a piece in Physics World with the title “Why science thrives on criticism”. I agree with the younger Crease! Science needs criticism, academia needs dissent. This is the whole point with my book. My aim is not to hurt academia but to make it stronger, more curious and courageous. Academia is a critically important part of our societies, and it is precisely for that reason that it needs to be criticised and challenged. That is how it evolves, grows, and adapts. I criticise theoretical high-energy physics because it matters to me. 

Jesper Møller Grimstrup

______________________________________

1. I want to stress, however, that my book is more analysis than criticism. My aim is to understand the underlying sociological forces that has shaped the research field of theoretical high-energy physics into its present form. ↩︎
2. I have obtained this email from a third person who communicated with Prof. Crease about his review. ↩︎
3. First mention of “obedient idiots” is the Table of Contents, second mention is the headline of the sub-section, third mention is in the email from the anonymous physicist who wrote to Sabine Hossenfelder. ↩︎