Physics envy

The term physics envy is used to criticize the modern writing and research of academics working in the "softer sciences", such as economics, sociology, psychology, political science, or anthropology.^[1][2][3] The term argues that writing and working practices in these disciplines have overused confusing jargon and complicated mathematics to seem more 'rigorous' as in heavily mathematics-based natural science subjects like physics.^[4][5]

The success of physics in "mathematicizing" itself, particularly since Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, is generally considered remarkable and often disproportionate compared to other areas of inquiry.^[6] "Physics envy" refers to the envy that arises from the perceived inadequacies of scholars in other disciplines for the mathematical precision of fundamental concepts obtained by physicists.

More specifically, the term is usually in reference to the social sciences, since these academic areas have the reputation of expressing their concepts with an artificial complexity similar to mathematics and math-based fields as a form of obscurantism. This reputation is at least partially due to scholarly hoaxes like the infamous Sokal affair, which brought the intellectual rigor of prominent social science journals into question.

Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr discusses the issue of the inability to reduce biology to its mathematical basis in his book What Makes Biology Unique?.^[7] Noam Chomsky discusses the ability and desirability of reduction to its mathematical basis in his article "Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden."^[8] Chomsky contributed extensively to the development of the field of theoretical linguistics, a formal science.

The social sciences have been accused of possessing an inferiority complex, which has been associated with physics envy. For instance, positivist scientists accept a mistaken image of natural science so it can be applied to the social sciences.^[9] The phenomenon also exists in business strategy research as demonstrated by historian Alfred Chandler Jr.'s strategy structure model. This framework holds that a firm must evaluate the environment in order to set up its structure that will implement strategies.^[10] Chandler also maintained that there is close connection "between mathematics, physics, and engineering graduates and the systemizing of the business strategy paradigm".^[10]

In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), physics envy arises in cases of projects that lack interaction with each other, using only one idea due to the manner by which new hypotheses are tested and discarded in the pursuit of one true intelligence.^[11]

Defenders of the use of mathematics in social sciences argue that the users of the term "physics envy" fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of mathematical language in social sciences. Mathematics, due to its axiomatic construction, lends itself the property of internal logical consistency. Its usage ensures arguments made in social science to be consistent with its foundational assumptions. Unlike physics, the social sciences do not have the luxury of hiding itself away from possible political and social manipulations of its arguments. Mathematical language reduces the possibilities of such manipulations. In addition, mathematical language ensures the clear interpretation of arguments without the presence of its authors. For example, in economics, while people still debate the actual meanings of texts written by Marx and Hegel for the purpose of public policy, nobody debates about the meanings of texts written by Keynes and Paul Samuelson. It is true that the ubiquity of mathematics have raised the entrance bar of engaging with academic texts. However, one must separates the difference between academic communication and pure academic research, whose intended audience is fellow social scientists of the same field.

• Scientism
• Academese
• Newtonianism
• Philosophy of biology
• Philosophy of physics
• Philosophy of science
• Reductionism
• Unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics

• Chomsky, N. (2009). "The Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?". Journal of Philosophy. 106 (4): 167–200. doi:10.5840/jphil2009106416.
  • Collected in Chomsky, Noam (2010). "1. The Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?". In Jean Bricmont; Julie Franck (eds.). Chomsky Notebook. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-14475-9.
• Csikszent, M.; Hektner, J.M.; Schmidt, J.A. (2006). Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-4923-1.
• Mayr, E. (2004). What Makes Biology Unique? Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84114-6.
• Mirowski, P. (1999). "The Ironies of Physics Envy". More Heat Than Light. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42689-8.
• Schabas, M. (1993). "What's So Wrong with Physics Envy?". In de Marchi, N. (ed.). Non-Natural Social Science. Duke University Press. p. 45. ISBN 0-8223-1410-X.
• Schram, S.; Caterino, B. (2006). Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-4033-0.

• Overcoming ‘Physics Envy’, op-ed by two political scientists. New York Times, published March 30, 2012
• Physics Envy: "quants" and financial models, essay and book review of Models Behaving Badly by Emanuel Derman. Review by Burton Malkiel, WSJ, December 14, 2011
• [1] Andrew Lo (MIT Sloan School) and Mark Mueller (MIT Sloan School and MIT Center for Theoretical Physics), "Warning: Physics Envy May be Hazardous to Your Wealth!" published in the Journal of Investment Management, Volume 8, Number 2, Second Quarter 2010 [2]