1st half: history and desc of string theory, reasons why it doesn't seem to be working out--pretty technical although no math; 3rd quarter: desc of alternatives to string theory being pursued by some; 4th quarter: scathing indictment of hiring and grant awarding practices current in academic physics and their stultifying effect on innovation and consequent achievement of goals of scientific inquiry, i.e., how they're counterproductive to the very thing the physicists are supposed to be doing.
An excellent and insightful writer. I'm wondering whether the tight hold of senior academicians over the purse strings and direction of research and thus careers of younger scientists isn't due to the general aging of the population and the growing proportion of older workers staying on rather than retiring and opening positions for younger ones. This would not be confined to physics nor to academe. It would be interesting to know if there are folks in other fields who feel as Smolin does.

Smolin really delivers with this volume. It's pretty weighty, but the concepts are presented very neatly and without a lot of the technical jargon. The real strength of this book is Smolin's real objectivity when surveying the landscape of modern physics research. With all the hype over String Theory, it's nice to see someone take a step back from the giddying beauty and symmetries of the theory(ies) and provide a realistic assessment as to whether or not the theory has delivered. I think some of the best parts of this book are the last few chapters that deal with the sociological and philosophical aspects of science in general for the 21st century. Smolin's insights into the profession, particularly his critique for how new graduates are hired, given tenure, or research grants are pointed and disconcerting. Whether or not String Theory is the real deal, or the worst fad in physics since the aether, Smolin's approach to the subject is one that is well wroth embracing. The lesson that professionals and amateurs alike can take from this is never to put all your eggs in one basket. There've just been too many precedents of fundamental assumptions being overthrown in the past 300 years.

Started off really strong, then goes into lots of waffle about the state of science and becomes a bit monologue esque. Genuinely interesting point within, I just think a shorter and punchier book would have been better,

A very refreshing perspective on physics and the progression of science. It's nice to read a book in which the author acknowledges the lack of experimental proof that string theory is based upon. He also discusses the problems facing science and how it progresses (or doesn't progress). I enjoyed it although it was a difficult read in the middle, it's hard to comprehend a lot of the abstract physics.

I got recommendation of this book after i read Cixin Liu's Remembrance of Earth's Past novel series. For people who love the first book, i believe will appreciate this book. It has eerily resemblance with one of the important plot of The Three Body Problem: the progress of fundamental physic is stuck and physicists are in panic.

Absolutely love this book. The author starts with the great problems of fundamental physics and describe the mystery why we can't find a theory that describe them, we basically stuck and there is no revolutionary progress till now.

Then he goes into details, explaining the leading theory, String Theory. He explains the reason why it still can't describe the nature of our reality. Finally, the last part, he explains the plausible explanation of why this phenomena emerged, which he argued it was because of how our science work.

Some part are quite though, especially the second part, when the author explains String Theory in depth. I am sure I miss some core explanations. Will reread again one day to complete my understanding.

Apart from some overly detailed sections about particular physics theories, this was an informative insider's view into the structure and processes of the physics community. I totally understand what Smolin is saying about the flaws in the system. It sounds like physics has streamlined and backed itself into a corner out of which its own system is preventing it from breaking free. It sounds kind of cultish, tbh. I thought Smolin made a good effort at suggesting practical ways to fix the problem, but idk that they'll work, since the 'system' is not owned and operated by one (open and honest) entity - it's a culture that by design culls those who question and could help it. Welcome to the Church of String Theory.

I am reminded of Arthur Schopenhauer's quote: "Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see." And the problem Smolin points out plaguing the world of physics (at least at the time of it's publication), is that no one trusts the guy who's interested in a target everyone else can't see.

Though written for a lay audience, unless you have an interest in theoretical physics, you might find yourself slogging through the meat of the book as I sometimes did. Perhaps the most interesting section was the last (Part IV), his commentary on the current state of science in general and physics in particular. University physics departments, specifically large ones, have become sclerotic and risk averse. Rather than bet on a budding scientist with fresh ideas, the money - and tenure track positions - usually goes to the safe bet, that is the graduate students who choose to follow fashionable research. Sure and steady wins the race, or in this case, makes for happier faculty, but the field as a whole suffers as a result.

Smolin's The Trouble with Science is kind of a weird book. It was originally meant as a book about the sociology of the scientific community, but the string theory portion swelled to make the book more commercially viable. And to Smolin's credit, that part of the book was what originally pulled me in; he does an excellent job of detailing the history of science over the last few decades, including the developments that led to string theory as well as alternative programs. But about 3/4ths of the way through the book, the topic shifts to problems within the scientific community with a big clunk, and you sense that's his true passion.

One of the fundamental issues—one only semi-directly dealt with at the end of the book and never explicitly said—is that our social expectations of theory and the needs of science have come to be at odds. We want any new theories to agree with existing ones (for the standard model is possibly the most successful scientific theory ever), but need ones that disagree to actually give us testable predictions and cope with the unexpected results of experimentation. So we get theories, both string and otherwise, that only differ on the very large or very small scales. And whenever we do find unexpected effects at those scales, we are often left with nothing that had predicted them.

He does close, though, with a wonderful paen to the different "seers" in the field, those who have pursued inconsistencies and worries about the structure of theories for decades. They ran in the face of the field's traditional incentive structure, which prizes publishable work to earn tenure and looks for consistent output that precludes tackling the big fundamental issues of physics. It's hard to not tie this to Bret Victor's "Inventing on Principle" talk that's been circulating lately, and see the same lesson here. Pursuing a principle as a guiding light can lead you to much greater things than simply seeking to excel or solve a specific problem. It's a vision of the way the world should be, one that leads you to the skills and the means you need to make it a reality.