For a long time I’ve been having difficulty making sense for myself of a lot of what is going on in the world around me. Recently I’ve found that a useful way of understanding some otherwise baffling things is as products of what is sometimes called “epistemic collapse”. By “epistemic collapse” I mean the collapse of a shared reality, caused by the loss of reliable sources for distinguishing what is true from what is false.
Someone I’ve found to have a very insightful take on this is Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins. Some of his best explanations of the problem are at threads on his Bluesky feed, for example here and this recent one, which includes:
The danger isn’t just that people believe lies. It’s that entire communities become locked into belief systems that can’t be challenged, where loyalty replaces evidence, and disagreement feels like betrayal. That doesn’t just distort truth, it breaks trust.
When this happens at scale, it’s not just bad information, it’s a breakdown in how society makes decisions. We lose the ability to deliberate, to find common ground, to hold anyone accountable. That’s what disordered discourse really is, a collapse in collective reasoning.
And when debate collapses, power doesn’t disappear, it just becomes unaccountable. Truth becomes tribal. Institutions become hollow. People are left shouting across a void, each group certain the others are insane or evil…
So the real question isn’t “who decides what’s true.” The question is, do we still have the ability to decide anything together at all? Because once we lose that, democracy isn’t under threat. It’s already gone.
I find thinking in these terms helps to make sense of the bizarre and disturbing new political situation in the US and elsewhere, with a new form of Fascism on the march. Autocrats are coming to power on a wave of lies and the destruction of institutions that can provide the facts needed for a shared reality. Efforts to fight this by just coming up with better policy proposals are doomed, what is needed is some way to bring back reality to our information environment. Absent this, we’re looking at a future dominated by autocrats governing through lies and a system of client oligarchs who work with them. The US is now well on its way there.
I don’t have any idea of how to deal with the epistemic collapse problem, other than a hope that if it becomes more widely recognized, people will somehow start finding answers. Thinking in these terms has made me realize that a lot of what I’ve been doing on this blog has been motivated by wanting to provide a source of reality-based information about topics that I have first-hand knowledge of but where at the same time I see the mainstream information environment as dominated by lies.
The situation in fundamental physics
The motivation for starting this blog was the situation in fundamental physical theory over twenty years ago. At the time, popular discussion of the subject was dominated by untruths about string theory, with for instance endless press articles claiming “physicists have finally found a way to test string theory!”. There’s a lot less of this now, and I hope some of that is due to the influence of this blog and the book that I wrote. Within physics departments, string theory was pursued in a very tribal manner, with the main conflict pitting the string theory tribe against the phenomenology and loop quantum gravity tribes.
Nowadays the situation is somewhat different, with the string theory tribe still dominant in formal theory, but mostly no longer doing string theory. The failed string theory ideology is now in the background, but publicly acknowledging its failure will still get you in big trouble with the tribe. Students are still being trained in the ideology (this fall here at Columbia the physics department is again offering an undergraduate course in string theory), but the mainstream research agenda is now elsewhere.
The problem of epistemic collapse in particle theory now goes way, way back. What kept the subject tightly tethered to reality was experiment, but from the 1980s on the main open questions lost useful experimental input. From then until now, the subject has been dominated by an evolving set of “hot topics”, Lacking any shared agreement about whether they were connecting in any useful way to reality, these were often driven more by tribal considerations than anything else. The tribal structure is now complicated, but well-understood to those working in the subject. One very over-simplified way to understand it is as subtribes governed by an oligarchy dominated by figures at Harvard and the IAS. These days if you want a career in the subject, you need to join a tribe, with your choice the Swampland (Vafa), celestial holography (Strominger), amplitudes (Arkani-Hamed), generalized symmetries (Seiberg) or black holes/information (Maldacena/Witten).
Yes, this is a caricature. Also worth noting is that the whole subject is facing a different sort of collapse, as physics departments and US federal funding agencies stop funding theoretical particle physics at all. The latest hep-th US faculty hiring rumor mill has only 8 people getting tenure track jobs this year, about half from the formal theory subtribes.
The situation at Columbia
I started writing about what is happening here at Columbia very specifically to counter lies being widely spread about the subject, which I often know to be lies based on first-hand information. That there is a serious antisemitism problem at Columbia is a lie, heavily promoted by those upset by criticism of the ongoing genocidal and ethnic cleansing policies of the Israeli government. About the truth of what is happening here and now locally, I’m mainly relying on my own eyes and conversations with others who are also here and have first-hand information. What’s going on is very much tribal warfare with on the ground massive killings of civilians happening in Gaza and here a campaign to deny this and paint anti-genocide protest as antisemitic terrorism.
About what’s happening in Gaza I don’t have first-hand information. There I have to rely on a long lifetime of reading various news sources and getting some idea of their reliability. If you don’t believe genocide and ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza, you need to explain why this story from today’s Haaretz headlined
‘It’s a Killing Field’: IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid
is not true. I don’t see how “genocide” is not the right word for starving 2 million people and firing on them when they try and get food. As for “ethnic cleansing”, Israeli policy in Gaza appears to be to destroy all structures there, shooting civilians who get too close to the operation
“Today, any private contractor working in Gaza with engineering equipment receives 5,000 [roughly $1,500] shekels for every house they demolish,” said a veteran fighter. “They’re making a fortune. From their perspective, any moment where they don’t demolish houses is a loss of money, and the forces have to secure their work. The contractors, who act like a kind of sheriff, demolish wherever they want along the entire front.”
As a result, the fighter added, the contractors’ demolition campaign brings them, along with their relatively small security details, close to distribution points or along the routes used by aid trucks.
In order [for the contractors] to protect themselves, a shooting incident breaks out, and people are killed,” he said. “These are areas where Palestinians are allowed to be – we’re the ones who moved closer and decided [they] endangered us. So, for a contractor to make another 5,000 shekels and take down a house, it’s deemed acceptable to kill people who are only looking for food.”
What next?
My problem these days is that I’d really like to be spending my time on something very different, continuing to make slow progress on some ideas I find very promising, and getting the results written up. About the situation in fundamental physical theory, for a while I’ve been writing less and less. It’s a depressing topic, nothing is happening, epistemic collapse has led to intellectual collapse, and I’ve long ago said whatever I have to say about it.
About the situation at Columbia, it is changing and evolving. The bogus “antisemitism” campaign continues in force and I still believe it’s worth the time to try and challenge it with accurate information about what is really happening here, so I’ll keep blogging about it to some extent.
I have very limited time to moderate discussion in the comment section, so in particular no time to deal with those who want to conduct tribal warfare here. While I hope the notes on “epistemic collapse” are helpful to others, unfortunately I also don’t have the time to moderate a general discussion of that topic, outside it’s specific application to the subjects I’m trying to write about on the blog.
Peter,
In relation to your, and others, discussion of the problem in fundamental physics, I would like to hear your response to the following argument. Take, as one possibility, that fundamental physics has now reached its limit, at least for, say, the next hundred years and no new advances are now possible. I would argue that it is still worthwhile maintaining graduate programs in the subject even though, by definition, it will not produce any really “new” information. There are many such graduate programs that, arguably, are in this category, eg, literature, philosophy, history, languages, etc. These fields survive because people are interested in them, they want to study them and learn about them, and they need people to teach them about it. If fundamental physics is in this situation, does it really matter if there are “tribal” fields (Swampland, holograpy, amplitudes, etc.) as long as students find them interesting to study and there are novel “problems” that they can work on and publish? I am a retired biophysicist, and I personally love trying to understand physics, most of which was been well understood for nearly a hundred years. I can certainly imagine young students that also love the field and want a career studying and learning about it. Even if nothing fundamentally new is left to discover, isn’t it valuable maintaining the field, in the same way, eg, as Shakespearian studies?
Regarding “What Next”: I hope you will continue to post about your own research, and also about interesting developments in pure mathematics.
David,
Yes, it’s possible that fundamental physics has reached a limit where it’s just too hard for humans to make progress. The problem with the idea that all is well, people can just happily work on things and publish papers, is one of honesty. If the oligarchs of the field honestly argued “real problems are too hard, let’s just work on this fake one I find entertaining” that would be fine. Instead, this work is advertised as making progress on real problems, that’s what attracts funding, and ambitious young people.
To reiterate a main point of the posting, I really find lying offensive. Some people seem fine living in an environment full of lies, I’m not fine with it.
“These days if you want a career in the subject, you need to join a tribe, with your choice the Swampland (Vafa), celestial holography (Strominger), amplitudes (Arkani-Hamed), generalized symmetries (Seiberg) or black holes/information (Maldacena/Witten).”
I am an assistant professor who posts to hep-th and I just want to give this a thumbs up. This is exactly how it works. The interesting thing for the future is that most of these people are retirement age. What happens in 5-10 years? There is nobody in the younger generations with anything close to the stature of the people in that group (at last in hep-th). Mainly because the last big results in hep-th were in the 1990’s.
Anthony,
Will certainly write more about my own research. To write more about developments in mathematics also is something that requires time I don’t have enough of. I’ve always spent a lot of my life happily learning about new areas of mathematics and what was happening in them, but that’s a time-consuming activity.
Hi – You wrote,
“That there is a serious antisemitism problem at Columbia is a lie, heavily promoted by those upset by criticism of the ongoing genocidal and ethnic cleansing policies of the Israeli government.”
I don’t know anything about it – I came here for the physics. As someone at Columbia, I wonder how your experiences compare with reporting by the NY Times about a Project Esther, led by the Heritage Foundation, which they say is carrying out something similar to what you describe:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/us/project-esther-heritage-foundation-palestine.html
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000010154898/inside-a-plan-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-activism.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/opinion/antisemitism-israel-palestine-esther.html
https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/project-esther-national-strategy-combat-antisemitism