Career academic computational biologist here, and also a science communicator from Russia. I enjoy most of Sabines content but I agree that statements like "science is failing" or "I don't trust scientists" are unfortunate click-bate that can have undesirable social consquences and fuel science denialism, which is allready a great problem for the world. Science communicators have a responsibility to accurately represent the state of academia. Thank you for bringing up the same issues that have been troubling me.
@@KathrynElizabeth-j7y that is not what he said. There are still educational videos on her channel. He has issues with the clickbait science is bs videos. Which dave is talking about in the video
in India this situation is way worse , and trust me its gonna get way worse, the last time i heard anything scientifically accurate said by a politician here was never , its about religion and old culture now nothing about future
@@macon8638it was approved way too early. But it was a normal vaccine. It worked. However the problem isn't skepticism towards this specific vaccine, problem is it turned many people into being more generally anti-vax. Many just denied Covid. Half of people didn't wear masks even in metro even during the peak of the pandemic
Carl Sagan’s foreboding of an America, a quote from my favorite book “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Man I need to reread that book. It’s amazing how accurate he was predicting the uprising of the anti-science and anti intellectualism movements. That book and Richard Hofstadter‘s anti-intellectualism in American life are some of the best books to understand the modern right wing science denial.
An engineering student from indonesia here. Thanks for this video. For people like sabine and many other who have enjoyed living in a country with strong and institutionalized academic culture, such anti science rhetoric might only seem like the cynical deep end of realpolitikking to revitalize such academia, but for people like me and many others in developing countries, anti scientism often lead directly to religious demagogue adopting it to strengthen their propaganda. It is not just an ethical mistake, for many people it is also a sociopolitical mistake. I really really hope people like sabine here is aware of the power she hold, small bias slipping out unintentionally from her can be twisted into a general and often dangerous conclusion. (you should see what our "ulama" (islamic religious "scholar", but really they often are just an opporrtunist) can do with vague word.)
Yup. It was an issue years ago, it seemed like Google steered the algorithm AGAINST clickbaits. But feels they turned back on that decision... I really wonder why 😂
Vid is 30 mins long, uploaded 14 mins ago, people already post comments agreeing/disagreeing. Video creator complains about people not watching the video first in the early minutes of the video. Is anyone actually here to listen what he wants to say or just for drama?
I’m a scientist. I implant radioactive particles into materials to understand their behavior at the molecular level. From that understanding we can efficiently design new materials with desirable properties. I’m studying lithium ion diffusion in battery materials, betavoltaic batteries, and tracking drug molecules interact with model cell membranes. All of these things are not BS. The same is true of my colleagues work whether they are working in organic synthesis or nuclear astrophysics. I completely agree with Professor Dave calling out Sabine Hossenfelder for the irresponsible and untrue things she says about science.
Sabine clearly refers to the foundations of physics in her video, and always has been. Then she stated that she fears the mechanism which brings about lack of progress in that area will eventually creep into other fields. What is so hard to understand. It's not a personal attack on your niche of research.
Your job sounds cool as all hell. Also I never heard of betavoltaic batteries before so thank you for sending me into a new research rabbit hole to fuel my sci-fi writings!
@@FunkyDexter Did you not watch the same video I watched? There are so many clips interspersed about how every single aspect of science is dying. That there is added nuance to her statements later on does not retract her irresponsible blanket statements about all fields.
@@saucemaster6452 I watched both videos, and I keep by my statement. Sabine is (was) a particle physicist. She works in the foundations of quantum mechanics. That's all the context you need. Besides, I can confirm her fears by personal experience. I'm a chemist, and you can not understand how much shit research and papers that are churned out by the day. Reactions with falsified yields, falsified data, you name it. And they mostly come from china.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov
I was one of those "but actually" people on the last video. I did watch the entire video and I think a lot did, but it likely hit a nerve with many and me, specifically because we all know all too well what some of the issues, that actually influence the science, are, as we all worked in academia. And some of Sabine's communication does hit that as well. But you're totally right that the nerve that was hit, missed the actual point and I'd like to apologize for that, there is a big difference between being critical of some of the issues (that science communicators never seem to address either btw) and actual damaging titles/rhetoric. Also, let me just subscribe to you, I unsubbed from Sabine's channel a few years ago basically because of the same point.
I'm sure Dave would be interested to hear about your gripes with academia, the kind of things that science communicators never seem to address I mean. I'm sure it's an interesting topic in its own right, and when communicated by someone who does have a lot of experience in communicating science with lay-people, it could make for interesting content, too. Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Dave, it's just a suggestion.
@@insu_na Thanks, well these are also from personal experience, but things that are issues in other areas outside science as well. I was just kinda disappointed to find out scientists are people too. :) Many communicators only talk about the cool stuff, which I love, but never about less-cool issues which likely people don't click on either. I'm on the autism spectrum and have always worked as a hardcore fundamental scientist, I couldn't imagine that management, egoism, falsifying of results due to ridiculous pressure and some getting papers published easier due to previous work (which also shouldn't be a thing, issue there is that fields aren't as big always and peers know the work of "competitors"), were things that could happen. They don't happen all over academia and everywhere, but way more than should be the case. In my workplace this was happening and I kinda lost it when the top management decided that fundamental science wasn't worth the money and pushed for practical science. The influence just a few people then have on the entire process in a department is just not right in my opinion. Not to say this made me hate science by itself, not at all, but the practical implementation can be improved.
(currently 1/3 through the video) But that reminded me of a youtuber called BobbyBroccoli. He makes awesome (and quite popular) videos exposing some failings of science. He manages to do it without sensationalizm, sweeping generalizations, clickbait titles and defeatist narratives. So it's possible to criticize science in an honest way without deliberately pandering to the anti-science crowd.
Bobby's movies, dare i call them that, are great. Tell an engaging story and narrative and get into the science just enough for the viewer to understand the story being told.
@@KsThe20 so, is everyone acknowledging that Sabines underlying points are valid but they are upset that she says things like “science is failing “? I don’t think that is worth hours of content to argue about. It’s almost like arguing over semantics
I've been feeling frustrated and angry for the past couple of days, and this video is inspiring me to channel my anger into something positive and productive, rather than laying down and giving up. Thanks.
In a popular Creationism facebook group, I recently saw one of the deeply scientifically illiterate members try to make a case for science as a whole being bullshit, actually. Posting a video by... Sabine as illustration of his point. This is my non-surprised Pikachu face -_- In my opinion you carry responsibility for the way you communicate and how you're interpreted, and when you notice a part of your audience, that is not your target audience, weaponizes it unfairly, then you should speak up and explicitly address them to back off. Mary Schweitzer (of T. rex soft tissue fame) did this very well.
"you carry responsibility for the way you communicate" absolutely "and how you're interpreted" well, no, how does that work in real life? You can't control people's delusions "then you should speak up and explicitly address them to back off" how are you supposed to know that one of your video was posted in a creationism facebook group? Social networks don't provide creators any tools to map where their work has been deployed
@geraldmerkowitz4360 of course, you can't mindread, and trawl the internet for misuse. But you can control the ambiguity of your words and preemptively mention what you don't mean when there's a risk. You can also avoid clickbait thumbnails and titles, that's 100% under the creator's control.
@@borisbauwens7133 every researcher worth their salt knows wording is always key. Knowing how entrenched she is in academia, I'm pretty sure she knows what she's doing.
Her video on autism was so uninformed and downright dangerous. She defends Autism Speaks but has ostensibly done little research into the organization and seems ignorant of the significant harm it has inflicted on many of us on the spectrum. One can unwittingly promote a great deal of misinformation when one makes confident (and often dismissive) pronouncements on a topic outside one's area of expertise with only a tertiary amount of research. As someone with her own area of expertise (which she took years to acquire) she should know better.
Dave did explicitly exempt her branch-out videos from criticism in the original video, which i think is one of his biggest mistakes.There isnt much to say about her physics content
@@Gliccit Yes, her off-topic videos are invariably awful. The ones on autism and transgender were bad; the one on capitalism so filled with gross misunderstanding I no longer trust anything she has to say on any topic
I gasped when she said "...well the science deniers are right to not trust academia". That's like saying "there are difficulties in having a harmonious multicultural society" then following it up with "well the racists are right to be concerned".
@@gronki1 “Sarcasm”? My man, I think you should stick to the natural sciences since the study of communication doesn’t seem to be your field of expertise.
This video is fucking based. She’s been heading down this path for a while now, and her carefully cultivated fans are rabidly defending this notion that “science and/or academia are failing”-or really ANY opinion she espouses, and I just recently caught on that it’s probably for click money. Great job on speaking up! When some of us try to do this and we don’t have the clout we just end up getting firewalled by her cultish fans or even get called “unprofessional” (with incredibly irony) by colleagues :(
@@GliccitWell, I certainly don’t believe I said ALL her fans behave like this-because yes, that WOULD be a generalization. But here’s the thing, I’ve counted myself until recently as a fan of hers. until I noticed that there’s a significant portion who behave exactly like the anti-science crowd that Dave here alleges she caters to and attracts.
what’s crazy is that I used to click on her videos ALL THE TIME, and more and more I noticed how cynical and flat out click baity she became. It came to the point where i’d just read the thumbnail without clicking any more. Then dave drops the last video a few days ago and I was like, “wow, so it isn’t just me” lmao. I unsubscribed to her channel about halfway through his video and didn’t need to watch the rest. He hit every point I made to myself and more.
Hey Dave, undergraduate astrophysicist here. I was really disheartened when I watched her videos about how science is failing and how it’s impossible to make it in the research field. I know there are problems but wanted to say that your videos were a great and necessary reminder that there is still so much left to discover and that scientific progress is a worthy goal on its own. Cheers and keep up the good work!
I mean, any physicist also kind of tuned out when she was talking about anything else. It's not really like she ever demonstrated a great grasp beyond just pushing her awful brand. Everyone in the know has known that she is a hoax-pony pretty much since the beginning - for more than one reason.
I think that many people don’t understand that not all science yields groundbreaking results. She’s been complaining about the string theory being incorrect, and quantum computing being a scam. Maybe these areas of research won’t yield a breakthrough. This doesn’t mean that it’s all bullshit. Taking up a hypothesis, testing it, and coming up with “this doesn’t work” is science. And it is worth pursuing, even though it wouldn’t change the way we see the universe. It definitely doesn’t mean that this is all useless. I’m a mathematician by education, I could say that A LOT of modern math is useless - there’s no direct applications of many recent discoveries. Does this mean that it’s all worthless?
I'm working for the Max Planck research institute. We are utilising techniques that didn't exist 20 years ago to discover genetic regulatory processes nobody had any idea of 70 years ago. Science marches ever onward. Don't listen to people who had one bad experience taint their view of all Science everywhere.
If you want to see what REAL academia criticism is, watch Angela Collier. She CONSTANTLY talks about very serious and widespread issues with academia, and yet she still finds it within her to respect the only framework we humans have ever devised to accurately understand our world.
Thanks I was only searching for a comment like urs dude.. I m truly confused as to whom should I follow being a student who really is interested to do science in academia myself
Yup she’s awesome. Somehow she is able to explain problems in academia and within specific fields of science without fueling science denial it’s almost like they aren’t mutually exclusive something Sabine doesn’t seem to understand
@@eugenegubbard4017 Angela is so funny! I love her channel. I don’t always agree with her but at least she is reliably respectful of people and institutions, even behind her deadly sarcasm.
I am scientist, deeply involved in academia, and doing well in my career. I simply cannot make any statements about the quality of science in applied mathematics outside my particular expertise (nonlinear dynamics), or about the quality of climate science outside my particular expertise (clouds). I find it absolutely ridiculous that someone can make "conclusive" statements (it's dying) in such a broad term the whole of "theoretical physics", a huge field in itself. Imagine how ridiculous it is to make "conclusive" statements about all of science, which you would need 1,000s of years to even get a basic grip on.
Please god, do not stop making this content. So many people don't see the real damage of misinformation and science denial. It's society's greatest threat. I cannot express how much I appreciate you.
I think his incendiary rethoric and personal attacks are exactly what is going wrong in the US today. It's like watching Trump just in the academic field - just absolutely uncivilized and insufferable. I think we need to look at arguments and not at the source - this is an extreme problem in the US' public discourse - and Dave tries to implement the top-of-the-loungs tire-screeching mode of discourse in science communication. It's wrong and not how science and scientific discourse should be conducted.
That's exactly how it works. "Look at me, I'm a doctor, I have PhD, you can trust me, now let me tell you what you want to hear and you give me some of your money, and if someone tells you you are wrong tell them a PhD agrees with you".
I agree, but as soon as there are bigger audiences, money comes into play, no matter what. Because there is always someone offering to pay for ads in some capacity.
Career academic neuroscientist here from a medical school. Thanks, Dave. As usual, you have accurately called out her irrational and illogical gross overgeneralizing and the straw men responses of her science denier supporters. Keep up the great work. 🧠☀️
Whats the issue? She denies science, they support her? Idk if her supporters would even have an issue with the label. Would you rather free thinker or anti-establshment? 😅 you're one or the other if you support her @LaurentCassaro
@@latinajoseph she denies the trend to trust modern academic scientists.. Many scams took place and why trust scientists? You have evidence.. you are good to go .
@@LaurentCassaroWhat on God's flat earth is your issue with this phrase? Anyone who believes the objectively untrue statement that science is dying is a science denier and they support her. Are you speaking English as a second language, honest question?
I had to stop watching Sabina a few months ago. She always used to have a unique but well-informed perspective on cutting edge physics that I could simply either take or leave as appropriate. Now she has abandoned any pretext of participating in the scientific community/process and has instead positioned herself firmly as an antagonistic outsider. Truly sad to see.
i have a feeling she started her channel from a mostly positive place, wanting to put to use the knowledge she gained while studying. but as her channel started to grow in subscribers, she slowly adopted practices to grow her brand that eroded her ethics. clickbait. sketchy ad reads (betterhelp). misleading language in her videos. and i feel she justified every slip of her morals by letting her bitter experience in academia fuel her as the subscribers started pouring in.
PhD in mathematics. I completely agree with you. I used to watch Sabine for fun, but last few years she's become unbearable. This is the comment I left on her latest video: "This is a completely idiotic take. There are vast problems in academia in general and perhaps in fundamental theoretical physics in particular, but to title your video "science is failing" and then to start by complaining why cranks and conspiracy theorists are drawn to you is nonsense. Science is not failing. Fundamental physics is not failing. To dismiss measurements and experimental verification made over the last decades is nonsense. By that logic, there were no advances in fundamental physics from 1668 to 1860. To conflate possible failures of a TINY field such as fundamental theoretical physics with a supposed failure in science broadly is nonsense. To say that all fundamental physics is stuck because they keep using the wrong methods, yet never providing what the correct methods are is nonsense. Seriously, provide us the appropriate approach. Regarding guessing math for physical theories. Without exception, physicists have always guessed math because physics is not derivable from mathematics and is not a deductive branch of knowledge. Einstein's field equations were never derived. They were guessed at by Einstein (or Hilbert guessed the form of the Lagrangian density). For special relativity, Einstein and Poincare guessed the definition of simultanaity. Dirac guessed Dirac's equation. Regardless, at the end of the day this sub field of physics is tiny. Most science is not fundamental physics. Applied physics is as dynamic as ever. Biophysics, for example, is undergoing massive progress. What happens with string theorists or supersymmetry is almost of no relevance to almost anyone who watches your videos."
@@Toommm11 she makes the content the same way shapiro does, or the heck off commie guy, they just read headlines that support them and dont read the research
As someone who has learned a lot from Sabine and enjoys her mixture of humor and science... I know neither she nor Manny of her followers think that way. She teaches science. Including that one of her critiques of scientists was that she believes climate scientists are too cautious and conservative out of fear of getting sued for doing their job correctly. You clearly haven't watched her.
@@Toommm11 she'll have researchers and people working on her scripts. She could well do a Russell Brand, although I suspect she was never on the left of politics.
It's definitely easier to make money as a right wing grifter so i can see her headed that way. Wouldn't surprise me if she made a video in a few years titled " Why flat earthers aren't that bad".
@@rylandrc It is in isolation, but after you accept it, you are REALLY likely to accept bunch of more dangerous conspiracies. Believing flat earth requires extreme anti-science stance and willful levels of ignorance, which easily leads to other harmful beliefs.
It's also called "theoretical" physics for a reason. Observation > theory > hypothesis > test. She describes this method of advancing our understanding of physics as problematic but it is literally how theoretical physics has always been done. If you look back at scientific progress your mind can easily pack down the centuries it took to get here so by extension if we can't do in a few decades what they did in those centuries it's suddenly "stalling" and "problematic".
That’s not her argument when it comes to theoretical physics. And that’s not the overall argument David is addressing when it comes to Sabine. For clarity, I 100% agree with Dave, but Sabine’s root problem with theoretical physics isn’t with theoretical physics, but with what’s funded for research since there are theories that have overstayed their welcome because, from the outset we knew that they were untestable physics, like string theory, where the energy levels are too large to test if the theory is true or not. She has a problem with scientists or institutions receiving funding for things that ultimately cannot be tested. What she falls victim to, however, is conflating her experience in one corner of theoretical physics, namely what gets funded, with all of theoretical physics and other sciences. She has a deep emotional inclination to as David said “burn the building down” instead of just killing the roaches. For instance, imagine one doctor misdiagnosing an illness that Sabine has. Her response is like that of a person that says “medicine is failing” and not “that doctor made a mistake.” She may even be right if she were to say that the doctor was committing fraud, but wrong in conflating the idea that an act of fraud means that the entire practice of medicine is fraudulent.
@@VonJay This is one of the better comments I’ve seen on this video. I think you accurately summarized her specific gripe with that specific sub-discipline of physics, from what I gathered by watching her videos at least. But as you said, she needlessly and baselessly extrapolates that gripe to make sweeping generalizations about all science, which is what a lot of people are missing, and what Dave is criticizing.
The tactic Dave described of Sabine making sensationalist, untrue, dangerous claims... then falling back to a more defensible position when called out is called a Motte and Bailey Fallacy. "The motte-and-bailey fallacy is when an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, but one is modest and easy to defend and the other is much more controversial. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the modest position is being advanced." It is exactly a technique dishonest hacks like Jordan Peterson abuse a lot. Its a way to get attention by saying sensationalist things, appealing to avg Joe idiot, and a large uneducated clickbait driven crowd... yet having having no responsibility when called out for it being misleading and sensationalist. For example: Jordan will say stuff like "Christianity is the most true thing there is", or "The bible was the first book" or 'atheists are murders", "America is a christian, not secular nation".... These things are untrue, very poor and dishonest uses of language that appeal to his largely far right christian audience and he knows it. But when called out by an intellectual for being wrong and misleading, Jordan falls back to the Motte... redefining truth, or it wasn't literally the first book, or claiming your not actually an atheist...ur christian at heart(simply redefining the word christian), or he means Jesus is the ultimate fiction... More defensible but different claims The problematic language is clearly intended to get views, cause controversy, be sensationalist and appeal to a certain demographic... but when called out the position is claimed to not mean what they actually said and they therefore cant hold any responsibility for it being misinterpreted... You simply misunderstood them, even though they used the wrong language... and there is a whole swath of people admitting they fell for the Bailey. Just like how Sabine pretends to be surprised crackpots, science deniers, and morons fall for her videos.... I WONDER WHY... its almost like ur literally appealing to them by making wild comments they want to hear, then falling back to the Motte when called out. Claiming you cannot trust climate scientists is the Bailey ... a wild and overstated claim, while the Motte is you have a niche disagreement with some climate scientists(who know exponentially more than you in the first place and ur probably out of your depth) about how much to value hot models. The problem is how many people genuinely fall for the Bailey and sensationalism, how many people wont trust climate science at all, the way most people wont realize Jordan is redefining the words christian, truth, atheist and see it as bolstering their christian nationalism... But lets be real, who's gonna click a video more accurately titled "I think hot models are slightly under-represented compared to some experts.".. "I dont trust climate science"... thats the golden ticket. Ironically how Sabines fans defended her, its exactly how Peterson acolytes defend him... Pretending the Motte has just been mistaken and its your fault. Completely blind and ignorant to how misleading and dishonestly the info was actually presented and how it was intentionally presented that way for views, attention, and cash.
We can no longer afford to take science denialism lightly. Unfortunately, these types of people now pose a legitimate threat to the society, which means that academia will soon follow.
@@boredom2go academia is the only reason mouth breathers like you are able to freely share their opinions. you’re the town idiot no one takes seriously, but your voice is amplified because of the countless advancements made by people that actually get shit done. western society is crumbling because there will always be a surplus of worthless cromagnons like you, and the voices of the small percent of people pushing humanity forward are being drowned out because of the technology they put in the common idiots hands.
Since the dawn of ages there have been science deniers. If academia lowers it's standards even more and paper mills and AI produce not only thousands of mediocre publications a day, but a tenfold using AI, just to survive in the points of citations regime, that isn't helpful. Shutting from the rooftop doesn't help. If Academy would be fine and dandy, we wouldn't have this discussion.
If you do that you will find out interesting new studies like how de-population is the answer to climate change. And everybody will accept it because you silenced the concerned. Don't do that.
You know what, I am starting to warm up to Professor Dave's rather abrasive approach to calling out criticism to anybody. It is direct and precise yet emotional and respectful to the degree it was earned.
He's barely even abrasive compared to the open hatred and bullshit that some of these people spread. More science communicators should be brave like Dave is.
But wait. She implied she does not trust herself, but she should not trust that statement as it came from her, so she should trust her when she says she does not trust herself. (Edit: this is clearly a joke. You can’t unironically believe a paradox lol)
I was quite disappointed with her video response. It didn't address any of the criticism and doubled down on the harmful rhetoric. I wasn't exactly surprised by that but part of me still hoped she would do better
"imagine if chemists created a whole dark sector of the periodic table and then trying to find them" Hasn't that been happening constantly since the invention of the actual table itself?
Yup they litterally did do exactly that. Mendeelev predicted scandium (Sc, 21), gallium (Ga, 31), technetium (Tc, 43), and germanium (Ge, 32) before they where discovered.
More precisely, they CALCULATED that there should be something there, they checked their math for errors every which way then did experiments to determine if their math correctly predicted reality. The discovery of the outer planets has a similar history.
Right?? Like "Imagine if scientists theorized about things and then tried to find them." She's literally just describing theoretical physics. Black holes as a theory *came about* because Einstein's equations were used to predict that they exist decades before they were confirmed experimentally, and decades after that, they've been verified through thousands upon thousands of observations. What on Earth is Sabine talking about?
I bailed on her over the trans issue. Her research question was whether or not young children should instantly receive surgery if they ever say that they are anything other than pure representatives of gender stereotypes. And the answer is no. But that's also the answer that surgeons who do gender reassignment surgery would give. In fact, it is not the case the young children are automatically given surgery if they express gender non-conformity. In fact, very few human beings under the age of 16 even receive hormonal treatment, and the number of children in this world who have received gender reassignment surgery at age 12 or below is almost zero. It is not a real issue, and the fact that she ran with it as if it was made me mistrust her. She knows who her audience is, and she knows what they want.
Yeah, I only watched a few of her videos before that and was kind of intrigued at her channel. Then I saw that video, and immediately saw where she was going. She went out of her way to misrepresent the science to suit whatever audience she's chasing's agenda. It was both sides bullshit through and through and made me realize how biased and shitty Sabine is.
"Almost zero" is not zero. And no, it's not almost zero. It also matters because people are actively pursuing puberty blockers, while not enough is known about whether or not their effects are reversible.
Theyve been using puberty blockers for decades because lots of kids started puberty too early. Im prrtty sure the onky side effects are the kid might end up a bit shorter than they wouldve been. @rickmorty5215
@@rickmorty5215 The only case of a child receiving gender reassignment surgery that I can think of was after a botched circumcision that mangled the child's genitals beyond repair. The parents were convinced to allow sex reassignment and the child became part of a psychological study. The patient was from Canada, treated by US doctors. David Reimer was their name.
I found Sabine's response to your first video deeply disappointing. While she's right on so many things, and yes, academia isn't perfect, she simply and utterly refused to see what the message was.
The US election was 99% about buzz words, slogans, and short-form platitudes. Up to 50% of the population lacks an internal dialogue. Essentially every dissenter (and Sabine herself) responded to Dave's video without actually consuming it. Don't think too hard about how little people actually use their gift of sentience.
@@Logical.Psychopath Science isn’t failing; your reductionist thinking is. Blaming ‘irrational people’ as the root of all humanity’s issues? That’s laughably simplistic and, frankly, ironic coming from someone who claims to be a ‘genius.’ Real objectivity demands depth, not shallow generalizations. If you actually understood logic, you’d realize that human behavior is complex, influenced by countless variables beyond your narrow concept of ‘rationality.’ Simplifying the world down to ‘irrational vs. rational’ is exactly the kind of intellectual laziness that genuine thinkers despise. Maybe stop hiding behind your inflated ego and actually engage with the real complexity of human nature.
@@Logical.Psychopath I think people are making rational choices. It’s just that we have such perverse incentive structures, people are given incorrect information, and people’s preferences have shifted more toward feeding their own egos at the cost of promoting opinions that are at odds with the facts.
the replication crisis is very real, but its scope has been blown completely out of proportion. Not only that, but the way science has responded to the crisis has actually been very promising. The "crisis" largely affected psychology, but the burgeoning field of behavioral economics also relied heavily on that research and so was also affected. This isn't the end of the story, as lots of the research has been thrown out, and a new field of science, "meta-science" has risen to specifically check research. The replication crisis, and the response from the scientific community, would make for a great video.
I love this. It’s 100% meat, no bone. Meta-science for the win (okay, more like for the slow, gradual, two steps forward one step back, hard won progress).
Saying that "you cut out context" is such a popular excuse these days. I see countless people use it to defend the straight up BS people they like say.
Much of the time I see the context claim they basically just want them to reproduce the entire argument before saying anything. It's a time wasting tactic oftentimes.
It's a refuge of the scoundrel. What else are quotes, if not out of context? :D Absent malicious distortion (or even accidental) it's a ridiculous charge.
As for person who claims almost all publicly funded research is bullshit she herself is very eager to bullshiting in many of her videos about fields in which she isn't specialist. It's classic example of criticizing her own faults and weaknesses mainly in others and never admitting to them herself, to veil herself in the aura of moral and intellectual superiority that makes her so popular and fuels her feelings of grandiosity and importance. The same trick on which religious authorities are based upon, ie. they mainly criticize various immoral behaviours of others to hide the fact all their own activity is basically a scam and abuse. Before her response to your video I gave her benefit of doubt, but now I ceased to have any.
@@juannaym8488 then maybe you aren’t interested in that field of science because for me, no matter how much I learn in any field of science it feels like I am closer to the universe. I can’t get enough of it. I will admit the only boring thing is the part of doing work(I’m lazy)the interesting part is learning.
@@Monsterhunter16 you're not understanding the main point here though. He's talking about the perspective of people who aren't innately intrigued by the mundane learning part of science. Mainly the general public. They don't care for or find interest in the day to day things scientists do that are important in the long term. Most people only care when attention grabbing headlines are put out there and then they feel like it's cool and important.
You’d think the fact that scientists change their positions upon new information would be a point of praise. Nobody is perfect the first time around, and even if one aspect of science proves to be a dead end that does not mean it’s worthless and taught us nothing. A lot of Freud’s ideas are considered nonsense nowadays but he still founded the field of psychotherapy
Hell, Lamarck got his concept of genetics wrong but then he got somewhat vindicated because we figured out epigenetics are similar to his hypothesis. Dude was lost in the potato field, but he intuited a pattern that turned out to be there on a different scale.
Yeah we moved on because he is dead. It's astonishing how people think scientists change their minds so easily. Usually the shifts are more generational than individuals changing their minds. Scientists are probably better than the average person, but wouldn't overestimate their ability to put their biases aside.
@@drustvism2029 these people start with the magical thinking of religion and since education was never great and has been largely gutted, they dont comprehend the process of science on a basic level, to them it is just an institution beyond their comprehension like any other. The discourse is hard to notice if you dont expect it and somewhat specifically obscured so the same critical thinking wont be applied to their leaders. Its their solution to the kids getting turned woke by school. And they dont seethe connection to all of technology and all of the conveniences we have and all the ways we *dont die*. Which, ofc, proves its works.
Her criticism is that they don't change their position after spending decades trying the same thing with minor variations. Further that this is caused by certain buzzword theories being more fundable. And that getting grants for research has become the primary determinant of employment success in academia.
@@mutawi but, they do change. Scientific change is gradual and soemthing that a lay person is not going to see. Can you name me one specific aspect of a theory in any field of science that has been repeatedly disproven beyond a reasonable doubt that scientists hold on to? No you cannot
Wow. I didn't realize it was this bad or she'd double down. Your last video was excruciatingly clear. Im not a PhD in anything and I understood the message.
Long before your video on Sabine, I was really upset with the way she spoke almost like a science denier. She uses language she shouldn't and I did unsubscribe because what she said in her videos made me angry at her.
It's always been bleak, we're just more exposed to it and weak willed. And there are legitimate concerns around the social sciences as well, but people who don't trust natural sciences are frankly, morons indeed.
I think that many are desperate to believe that the scientific community is unreliable because if many scientific consensuses are true, a lot of people have done horrible things. Climate change is doing a huge amount of harm to the entire world and a lot of people are responsible. A lot of people got others sick during the pandemic because of their irresponsibility so they need to believe that nothing we did worked, they need to believe that their opposition to gender-affirming care didn't cause harm, etc. Bad people needing to believe lies to pretend they're not bad people.
Sabine Hossenfelder just thinks she has all the knowledge and the whole world should follow her ideas. This is, of course, not the case. I've been spending some time watching her videos until I finally stopped when she came to that point when she wanted to make the world believe that SHE knows everything and she is more clever than the rest of the scientific community.
No, it's worse than that. She knows very well she's bullshiting the public but she's bullshiting anyway, rationalizing it with conviction that it's normal and others are certainly worse than her. It's not like with the case of people who are either stupid or insane, and because of that make their antirational claims laughably ridiculous. She knows that to go with this content to the mainstream she needs to be mild enough to cross the usual bullshit detector of average person, and gain from their confusion, uncertainty and cognitive dissonance. In other words, she's just trolling.
%100 agree with you! I’m sick of “science communicators” trashing science in order to get clicks or get notoriety. Equally, those who state of-the-cuff opinions and pass it off as fact.
Hi Phil. I agree wit you 100%. I gave up watching Sabine long long ago when she made three major errors in her physics in just two videos. Since that time, judging by her a small selection of her thumbnails (I blocked her in my feed), she seems to have completely gone off the rails.
Again: you confuse the isssue on multiple levels. I have literally no skin in the game and no need to *defend Sabine*. What I have issue, is self-appointed professor doing click hunt, being told in comments under his video by people actually IN THE SYSTEM how what he "thinks" - isn't. Not to mention: she's right.
@@piotrd.4850 For some reason calling himself "professor" is perfectly fine. Instead of sticking to the usual mentally ill flat earthers he now quite aggresively attacks one of the most interesting science communicators on youtube. Talk about fueling science denial...
@@piotrd.4850 do you not know that Dave has a chemistry degree and has taught chemistry to students at the university level? Or are you just deliberately ignoring that fact because you hate Dave?
I don't know why but watching this video felt like a huge weight falling off my chest. I'm so glad to see someone properly adressing the topic of anti-science misinformation. Videos like this truly feel like a blessing
Don't be scared, be stoically angry. And when the anti-science, anti-expertise side blunders something, point it out, and make it clear to people how the bad effects are direct consequences of their policies.
In Brazil we are having the exact same problem with regard to science denial and fascist candidates... Our former president was exactly that... and the guy who has the most amount of papers published in Brazil is a quack who promotes young earth Intelligent Design... Btw Professor Dave, that guy specifically quoted your debate with James Tour (obviously being biased and saying you lost). It's a shame that this is happening both in politics and science
Yes. You mention about an incredible problematic character. If we lived in a reasonable world he would be stripped from academic titles. He is an idiot of higher degree,
Dave, Im tired of people hating on FLUORIDE. They focus on fluoride,' as if there aren't hundreds of other issues that can actually affect reasoning ability and brain health.
I am assuming you didn't see/understand the rest of the video then. There is a difference in the mathematical approach and the scientific approach. In mathematics, (very vaguely explained) you make sure the equations are correct. That's it. As long as the equation is correct, you are good to go. Whilst in science, you need to come up with theories that can be experimentally tested, that is what science does. By coming up with untestable theories, it does not advance science as it cannot be proven or unproven, nor can it be useful. She clearly knows what math is and its purpose. Some of you are acting like she doesn't have a PhD and decades of experience in the foundations of physics.
Professor dave i love you. You have helped me so much throughout college and i love your debunking vids. I would be careful on the future now that our government has been captured by the people you regularly oppose
While I agree with the sentiment, professor Dave isn’t some one who will be cowed just like that. As he said, he’s a warrior and he will fight. I only hope it’s not too late.
Dave- I can't thank you enough for the moral clarity you bring to these issues. I watched her response and was a bit shocked by the "you're not my dad" tone. I find myself stressing constantly about the complexities of bad faith tactics, narcissistic avoidance techniques, audience capture, and how these can all sound identical to anyone with a desire to believe something and lack of familiarity with abuse dynamics. Your work has a big impact on my mental health- thank you for being a consistent tether to reality.
Thanks for you video clarifying it again. I am sorry that detractors did not get it. Sabine is being careless and dangerous, certainly not responsible. I wrote Sabine to let her know about her perhaps unintended consequences. I asked her to stop being a weapon for science deniers. I am scared about the prospect of RFK being incharged of anything. Thank you for your initial video and for not giving up and making this follow up video - it is too important not to make it clear. I hope more scientist will amplify your videos.
Thank you Dave for everything you do, really. I've come across your content on so many separate occasions and it's always been good. Hope you can keep it up while ignoring all the hostility from the internet
There are many problems with the current way to fund academic work. One part of it is that hunting for grants from the private sector (including non-commercial funds) take time and effort that could be used to further the research, it is currently just as important to be a good sales person as a good scientist to keep your position as a professor and your department funded. Another part is potentiel bias, of course. As for Sabine, I decided not to watch any more of her videos simply because she is no longer a science communicator. But she will not notice, as there are at least four science deniers to replace me as a viewer.
That's why public funding is so important. May i remind y'all mRNA vaccine has been researched for over a decade, and almost all of the funding comes from the public?
Thank you very much for the effort you have put into this video. I'm one of those non-academics who couldn't fully comprehend some of your points in the last video, so I'm very grateful for this addition.
@boredom2go Phrasing a statement like that in an interesting way and then recording and editing it takes effort in my world. If it wasn't to your satisfaction, I'd say...well, bummer for you I guess?
Very unfortunate. I Unsubscribed from Sabina right after seeing that click bait video title yesterday. Hopefully future science educators don't follow in Sabina's footsteps.
I’m so thankful for the time and energy you put into these videos! You’re one of the grounding voices out there that I think a lot of us will continue to learn from. My two girls hear your videos all the time. I want them growing up listening to voices like yours.
I think the problem is that Sabine never worked outside of academia. She sees all the problems in science/universities, but what she doesn't see is how thinks are outside of academia. I'm sure Sabine would get a heart attack if she would work at some big company and would see the realities there. If someone thinks that the average paper is garbage, that person should read a few patents and see the insanity there.
I started watching your videos for help with my physics degree. I miss the days when all I had to stress about in the world was midterms and problem sets. What the hell is happening in the world.
Yeah - I think Sabine's channel is going downhill faster and faster and faster. She's talking some serious BS about physics too... I mean, "I think we can go faster than light"... Geez... Ok - let's talk about what would happen, but... no... that isn't remotely orthodox Physics that you're promoting...
@professordaveexplains shout out for the two videos. I'm a fan of Sabine's divulgation videos, and I was captured by her bluntness as I was by yours in your debunking videos. But I've felt more and more unease about her undiscriminated carpet bombing, wild claims and rethoric against academic science. Or rather "science", as she's now even dropping the "academic" qualifier altogether... You've put words on my feelings, and even better you've shown by exemples how criticism can be voiced without the need for unfounded apocalyptic extrapolation. Best regards from a gravitational wave experiment analyisis PhD, today scientific computation engineer working on planetary spectroscopy in space missions.
I'm watching and enjoying her videos since 2 years or so. Now as a german I am feeling like science denial is pretty much a big deal in our country. Good video, I agree with you.
I appreciated your point (and agreed with your points that she's gotten clickbait'y)... I like Sabine but think what she's doing is airing academic dirty laundry without considering how joe 6-pack (or more dangerously, politicians grifting joe 6-pack) will willfully (or ignorantly) misinterpret it.
I’ve always disliked Sabine because she just doom and glooms constantly and acts like she had the answer for everything. Academics shouldn’t be stating things as absolute fact; it’s irresponsible.
Sabine has learned what to say to get VIEWS and CLICKS and to make INCOME from youtube for herself. She also gets off on the power of having followers.
Problem is, Sabine USED to do fairly good mediation of science for lay people, but somewhere down the line got lazy/greedy/fed up. Now - in multiple videos - she's looking at a VERY narrow subjects and use the conclusion indiscriminately for a whole field. It's not becoming.
She seemed always on the fringes of mainstream or at least gave that sort of rhetoric. Wasn't she saying the big bang didn't happen? I forget what she actually says because she starts making it seem like she denies mainstream science but then seems a little more sensible when you go further along.
That’s exactly what Dave said this first video that she actually is a good science communicator, when she communicates science. the problem is when she started spewing ant science rhetoric for clicks.
Here to watch the vid, but also to check the comments saying that they have watched the entire 32 minute video within 5 mins of upload. Can see some already.
I am a Tongan dealing with the fallout of the replication crisis in my field, and this video was fantastic and cathartic to watch, there are problems in academia but communicators like her are apart of it. Faith in empirical evidence over deferrence to local church leaders has been a difficult battle in my nation, clickbait such as this makes it more difficult to build local trust in medical institutions and achieve health equity for the most vulnerable
I used to watch Sabine when she made her science information videos, then she started to transition to the 'dark side'. I know some Climate Science communicators on YT have also made reply video to her comments. It seem that in order to build her following, she produces attack videos. Thanks for your work Prof, I find it very useful and informative.
"Climate Science" stopped being Science some 40 years ago. To the point, that people negate nuclear power, cherry pick fact and - say, Simon Clarke - found new enemy: people stating obvous fact that 120ppm of CO2 won't remove themselves in any reasonable timeframe, and that our 'green policicies' are accelerating the change increase emissions ( now alsmost 2ppm/year accordign to Manua Loa observatory).
I cannot overstate my appreciation for you Dave, it feels like the entire world is going fucking mad most days, and I try to do my part with what knowledge I possess, but damn it's good to have a guy as intelligent, capable and eloquent as you in the corner of rationality and reason ❤
Passing along a friends thoughtful comments on this video. This friend is going through a lot, and BOTH of your channels really helps them get through it all: "I don't want to see this escalate. It seems like there’s a growing division between your channels, with people being motivated to pick sides-Team Dave vs. Team Sabine. I don't think this tribalism was initiated by you on purpose, but it's inevitable... because the Internet. I understand your frustration with Sabine’s content, particularly her titles, and I agree with the core criticism that some of her content can be misused by science deniers. However, I think the tone you took in parts of this video, while effective against charlatans and real science deniers, may be unnecessarily harsh when directed at Sabine. I don't think she's a bad actor, and I think a continued constructive, collaborative tone (even if you don't think she's doing the same) would be more productive for science communication, especially between two people who are ultimately on the same side. At this point, there's no way she can NOT be defensive, but one of you has to break the cycle. With the resurgence of theocracy and fascism, and the growing threats to science, reason, and democracy, I believe we need both of you in the fight. This back-and-forth risks escalating, and that makes me sad. As someone who learns from and supports both of your channels, I’d love to see you both engage in a way that builds each other up rather than feeds division. We’re all on the same side when it comes to fighting for science and a better future, and I think we can do better than fueling polarization. Written communication is often insufficient, and attention spans are short, but please see the spirit of what I'm saying here. Thanks for your work, and *PLEASE* keep doing what you do-it matters! Remember, WWCS! (What would Carl Sagan do?)"
Dave the sience communicator calls out bad sience communication...and gets a boat load of bad science communication in response, literally making his point for him. Thanks for your work dave, you are one of the few people on the internet making us look like an intelligent species.
When someone says something is out of context they should have to say what the missing context was that changes the point. Because "out of context" is one of the most transparent technique folks use to run cover for bullshit! Keep rocking Dave, you're doing important work!!
I stopped subscribing to Sabine only because you allowed me to step away from my gut instincts and actually see the big picture. Any scientist who is hooked on clickbait should choose another profession.
Career academic computational biologist here, and also a science communicator from Russia. I enjoy most of Sabines content but I agree that statements like "science is failing" or "I don't trust scientists" are unfortunate click-bate that can have undesirable social consquences and fuel science denialism, which is allready a great problem for the world. Science communicators have a responsibility to accurately represent the state of academia. Thank you for bringing up the same issues that have been troubling me.
So you're an academic... and a science communicator... who can't understand the problem with her enough to admit you can't like her garbage anymore?
@@KathrynElizabeth-j7y that is not what he said. There are still educational videos on her channel. He has issues with the clickbait science is bs videos. Which dave is talking about in the video
@@KathrynElizabeth-j7y practice reading before typing
Alexander I did not know that you too watch Professor Dave! Long time fan of both of you guys. Wish you luck in your endeavors
@@KathrynElizabeth-j7y Dafuq did you just type?
in India this situation is way worse , and trust me its gonna get way worse, the last time i heard anything scientifically accurate said by a politician here was never , its about religion and old culture now nothing about future
Same here in Russia. During covid so many people turned anti-vax. And with our government neglecting education it is going to get worse.
Looks like it's happening everywhere then....
@@mr.t107 yeah, post-truth, anti-science ultra-right wing, authoritarian shift. It is worldwide. A name is a bit long, but covers all parts of it
@@KateeAngel Please tell me if im wrong but i did hear some pretty dodegy things about the russian covid vaccine back in the day
@@macon8638it was approved way too early. But it was a normal vaccine. It worked. However the problem isn't skepticism towards this specific vaccine, problem is it turned many people into being more generally anti-vax. Many just denied Covid. Half of people didn't wear masks even in metro even during the peak of the pandemic
Carl Sagan’s foreboding of an America, a quote from my favorite book
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
I love Demon Haunted World and this quote lives rent free in a fully staffed, central park facing 2000 sq ft loft in my head
Or Clarke's "There is a feeling that someone's ignorance is worth as much as an experts' knowledge".
Holy fuuuuuck was that prescient.
Man I need to reread that book. It’s amazing how accurate he was predicting the uprising of the anti-science and anti intellectualism movements. That book and Richard Hofstadter‘s anti-intellectualism in American life are some of the best books to understand the modern right wing science denial.
He died before 1996 too when he said this, so yeah he was probably onto something
An engineering student from indonesia here. Thanks for this video. For people like sabine and many other who have enjoyed living in a country with strong and institutionalized academic culture, such anti science rhetoric might only seem like the cynical deep end of realpolitikking to revitalize such academia, but for people like me and many others in developing countries, anti scientism often lead directly to religious demagogue adopting it to strengthen their propaganda. It is not just an ethical mistake, for many people it is also a sociopolitical mistake. I really really hope people like sabine here is aware of the power she hold, small bias slipping out unintentionally from her can be twisted into a general and often dangerous conclusion. (you should see what our "ulama" (islamic religious "scholar", but really they often are just an opporrtunist) can do with vague word.)
I'm afraid she isn't really aware of that. She just likes to be a bit edgy with her criticism.
Antiscientific rhetoric has the same consequences in America, too.
Genuinely cool perspective, thanks for sharing!
Well said
This may be at risk of happening in the USA and where I live in Canada. Religion before knowledge is scary. It really helps control people.
Clickbait is destroying UA-cam.
Next you know Sabine will start talking about AI being Woke, or something
"AI is the woke autistic gay agenda of DEI in failing science."
-Sabine in 2026, or sooner
Evviva Gesù...
@@dedalomusicGGGGESÙ
Yup. It was an issue years ago, it seemed like Google steered the algorithm AGAINST clickbaits. But feels they turned back on that decision... I really wonder why 😂
Don't give her ideas 🤣
Vid is 30 mins long, uploaded 14 mins ago, people already post comments agreeing/disagreeing. Video creator complains about people not watching the video first in the early minutes of the video. Is anyone actually here to listen what he wants to say or just for drama?
Just here for drama myself to be honest. But I have no dog in this.
I always thumbs up on Dave’s videos before I watch it! 🤷♂️
Well, he _did_ put the summary in front...
@@tiggerbane4325 yes you do
Just drama.
I’m a scientist. I implant radioactive particles into materials to understand their behavior at the molecular level. From that understanding we can efficiently design new materials with desirable properties. I’m studying lithium ion diffusion in battery materials, betavoltaic batteries, and tracking drug molecules interact with model cell membranes. All of these things are not BS. The same is true of my colleagues work whether they are working in organic synthesis or nuclear astrophysics. I completely agree with Professor Dave calling out Sabine Hossenfelder for the irresponsible and untrue things she says about science.
Sabine clearly refers to the foundations of physics in her video, and always has been. Then she stated that she fears the mechanism which brings about lack of progress in that area will eventually creep into other fields. What is so hard to understand. It's not a personal attack on your niche of research.
Your job sounds cool as all hell. Also I never heard of betavoltaic batteries before so thank you for sending me into a new research rabbit hole to fuel my sci-fi writings!
@@FunkyDexter Did you not watch the same video I watched? There are so many clips interspersed about how every single aspect of science is dying. That there is added nuance to her statements later on does not retract her irresponsible blanket statements about all fields.
@@FunkyDexter oh look, someone that didn't watch 2 videos! 😂
@@saucemaster6452 I watched both videos, and I keep by my statement. Sabine is (was) a particle physicist. She works in the foundations of quantum mechanics. That's all the context you need.
Besides, I can confirm her fears by personal experience. I'm a chemist, and you can not understand how much shit research and papers that are churned out by the day. Reactions with falsified yields, falsified data, you name it. And they mostly come from china.
The fact you have to explain this is incredible. Incredibly sad.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
Are you sure it's not Carl sagan?
Pretty sure it was Washington.
@@Sib1204 He wrote something similar but I think this quote is Asimov. Happy to be proved wrong if I am.
If anyone bothered to Google the quote you would see it was Asimov.
@@fr57ujf It's possible that I did and didn't entirely trust Google. Thanks : )
I was one of those "but actually" people on the last video. I did watch the entire video and I think a lot did, but it likely hit a nerve with many and me, specifically because we all know all too well what some of the issues, that actually influence the science, are, as we all worked in academia. And some of Sabine's communication does hit that as well. But you're totally right that the nerve that was hit, missed the actual point and I'd like to apologize for that, there is a big difference between being critical of some of the issues (that science communicators never seem to address either btw) and actual damaging titles/rhetoric. Also, let me just subscribe to you, I unsubbed from Sabine's channel a few years ago basically because of the same point.
I'm sure Dave would be interested to hear about your gripes with academia, the kind of things that science communicators never seem to address I mean. I'm sure it's an interesting topic in its own right, and when communicated by someone who does have a lot of experience in communicating science with lay-people, it could make for interesting content, too.
Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Dave, it's just a suggestion.
@@insu_na Thanks, well these are also from personal experience, but things that are issues in other areas outside science as well. I was just kinda disappointed to find out scientists are people too. :) Many communicators only talk about the cool stuff, which I love, but never about less-cool issues which likely people don't click on either.
I'm on the autism spectrum and have always worked as a hardcore fundamental scientist, I couldn't imagine that management, egoism, falsifying of results due to ridiculous pressure and some getting papers published easier due to previous work (which also shouldn't be a thing, issue there is that fields aren't as big always and peers know the work of "competitors"), were things that could happen. They don't happen all over academia and everywhere, but way more than should be the case. In my workplace this was happening and I kinda lost it when the top management decided that fundamental science wasn't worth the money and pushed for practical science. The influence just a few people then have on the entire process in a department is just not right in my opinion. Not to say this made me hate science by itself, not at all, but the practical implementation can be improved.
Takes a big person to apologise in public. You have my respect. 😊
Props to you. Much respect! Cheers Bro!
Respect
(currently 1/3 through the video)
But that reminded me of a youtuber called BobbyBroccoli. He makes awesome (and quite popular) videos exposing some failings of science. He manages to do it without sensationalizm, sweeping generalizations, clickbait titles and defeatist narratives.
So it's possible to criticize science in an honest way without deliberately pandering to the anti-science crowd.
Bobby's movies, dare i call them that, are great. Tell an engaging story and narrative and get into the science just enough for the viewer to understand the story being told.
I love Bobby so much, I wish he published more often but quality takes time I guess
BobbyBrocoli is a must watch , great channel
@@KsThe20 so, is everyone acknowledging that Sabines underlying points are valid but they are upset that she says things like “science is failing “? I don’t think that is worth hours of content to argue about. It’s almost like arguing over semantics
Bobby's videos aren't about the failings of science, rather, People who use their reputation as scientists to take advantage
I've been feeling frustrated and angry for the past couple of days, and this video is inspiring me to channel my anger into something positive and productive, rather than laying down and giving up. Thanks.
In a popular Creationism facebook group, I recently saw one of the deeply scientifically illiterate members try to make a case for science as a whole being bullshit, actually. Posting a video by... Sabine as illustration of his point.
This is my non-surprised Pikachu face
-_-
In my opinion you carry responsibility for the way you communicate and how you're interpreted, and when you notice a part of your audience, that is not your target audience, weaponizes it unfairly, then you should speak up and explicitly address them to back off.
Mary Schweitzer (of T. rex soft tissue fame) did this very well.
"you carry responsibility for the way you communicate" absolutely
"and how you're interpreted" well, no, how does that work in real life? You can't control people's delusions
"then you should speak up and explicitly address them to back off" how are you supposed to know that one of your video was posted in a creationism facebook group? Social networks don't provide creators any tools to map where their work has been deployed
@geraldmerkowitz4360 of course, you can't mindread, and trawl the internet for misuse.
But you can control the ambiguity of your words and preemptively mention what you don't mean when there's a risk.
You can also avoid clickbait thumbnails and titles, that's 100% under the creator's control.
@@geraldmerkowitz4360 Bruh.....this video by Dave was completely unnecessary.
@@borisbauwens7133 And Sabine does that, ALL THE TIME.
@@borisbauwens7133 every researcher worth their salt knows wording is always key. Knowing how entrenched she is in academia, I'm pretty sure she knows what she's doing.
Her video on autism was so uninformed and downright dangerous. She defends Autism Speaks but has ostensibly done little research into the organization and seems ignorant of the significant harm it has inflicted on many of us on the spectrum. One can unwittingly promote a great deal of misinformation when one makes confident (and often dismissive) pronouncements on a topic outside one's area of expertise with only a tertiary amount of research. As someone with her own area of expertise (which she took years to acquire) she should know better.
Dave did explicitly exempt her branch-out videos from criticism in the original video, which i think is one of his biggest mistakes.There isnt much to say about her physics content
@@Gliccit Yes, her off-topic videos are invariably awful. The ones on autism and transgender were bad; the one on capitalism so filled with gross misunderstanding I no longer trust anything she has to say on any topic
It seems that she considers herself an expert in any field just because she is one in physics.
Same with her video on Transgender people. She's a problem when she speaks outside her field.
i'm autistic, and it's why i stopped listening to anything she has to say.
she's a crank.
you claim science is not failing. yet my car, which i named science, is starting to fail. curious.
MANY SUCH CASES
many such cases...
Have to look into this🤓🤣
"Interesting"
Currently looking into this
I gasped when she said "...well the science deniers are right to not trust academia". That's like saying "there are difficulties in having a harmonious multicultural society" then following it up with "well the racists are right to be concerned".
word!
The idea of sarcasm makes you gasp?
@@gronki1 Sabine wasn’t being sarcastic when she said “science deniers are right not to trust academia.” What are you even talking about?
@@gunt-her That's not a strawman. Are you saying that the claim that science deniers are right not to trust academia is true, though?
@@gronki1 “Sarcasm”? My man, I think you should stick to the natural sciences since the study of communication doesn’t seem to be your field of expertise.
This video is fucking based.
She’s been heading down this path for a while now, and her carefully cultivated fans are rabidly defending this notion that “science and/or academia are failing”-or really ANY opinion she espouses, and I just recently caught on that it’s probably for click money.
Great job on speaking up! When some of us try to do this and we don’t have the clout we just end up getting firewalled by her cultish fans or even get called “unprofessional” (with incredibly irony) by colleagues :(
Are you sure thats a valid assessment of people on sabine's side? Pretty broad, uncharitable generalisation.
@@GliccitWell, I certainly don’t believe I said ALL her fans behave like this-because yes, that WOULD be a generalization.
But here’s the thing, I’ve counted myself until recently as a fan of hers. until I noticed that there’s a significant portion who behave exactly like the anti-science crowd that Dave here alleges she caters to and attracts.
Your logical fallacy is: "x doesn't support Ukraine, therefore x supports Russia".
what’s crazy is that I used to click on her videos ALL THE TIME, and more and more I noticed how cynical and flat out click baity she became. It came to the point where i’d just read the thumbnail without clicking any more. Then dave drops the last video a few days ago and I was like, “wow, so it isn’t just me” lmao. I unsubscribed to her channel about halfway through his video and didn’t need to watch the rest. He hit every point I made to myself and more.
This video is fucking bullshit. He literally does the exact thing he accuses Sabine of doing.
Hey Dave, undergraduate astrophysicist here. I was really disheartened when I watched her videos about how science is failing and how it’s impossible to make it in the research field. I know there are problems but wanted to say that your videos were a great and necessary reminder that there is still so much left to discover and that scientific progress is a worthy goal on its own. Cheers and keep up the good work!
I don't think anyone ever said there wasn't more to discover. Even lunatic flat earthers say that lol.
@@techienate you would be surprised.
I mean, any physicist also kind of tuned out when she was talking about anything else. It's not really like she ever demonstrated a great grasp beyond just pushing her awful brand. Everyone in the know has known that she is a hoax-pony pretty much since the beginning - for more than one reason.
I think that many people don’t understand that not all science yields groundbreaking results. She’s been complaining about the string theory being incorrect, and quantum computing being a scam. Maybe these areas of research won’t yield a breakthrough. This doesn’t mean that it’s all bullshit. Taking up a hypothesis, testing it, and coming up with “this doesn’t work” is science. And it is worth pursuing, even though it wouldn’t change the way we see the universe. It definitely doesn’t mean that this is all useless.
I’m a mathematician by education, I could say that A LOT of modern math is useless - there’s no direct applications of many recent discoveries. Does this mean that it’s all worthless?
I'm working for the Max Planck research institute. We are utilising techniques that didn't exist 20 years ago to discover genetic regulatory processes nobody had any idea of 70 years ago. Science marches ever onward. Don't listen to people who had one bad experience taint their view of all Science everywhere.
If you want to see what REAL academia criticism is, watch Angela Collier. She CONSTANTLY talks about very serious and widespread issues with academia, and yet she still finds it within her to respect the only framework we humans have ever devised to accurately understand our world.
Science is not unique to academia Be careful not to mistake one for the other.
Thanks I was only searching for a comment like urs dude.. I m truly confused as to whom should I follow being a student who really is interested to do science in academia myself
Yup she’s awesome. Somehow she is able to explain problems in academia and within specific fields of science without fueling science denial it’s almost like they aren’t mutually exclusive something Sabine doesn’t seem to understand
@@eugenegubbard4017 Angela is so funny! I love her channel. I don’t always agree with her but at least she is reliably respectful of people and institutions, even behind her deadly sarcasm.
Angela feels like a real person who makes UA-cam videos. That’s missing from a lot of the discourse in general I think
I am scientist, deeply involved in academia, and doing well in my career. I simply cannot make any statements about the quality of science in applied mathematics outside my particular expertise (nonlinear dynamics), or about the quality of climate science outside my particular expertise (clouds). I find it absolutely ridiculous that someone can make "conclusive" statements (it's dying) in such a broad term the whole of "theoretical physics", a huge field in itself. Imagine how ridiculous it is to make "conclusive" statements about all of science, which you would need 1,000s of years to even get a basic grip on.
That's exactly the kind of scepticism SabineH doesn't apply to herself.
I'm doing master's degree and I can barely speak anything about that
Conspiracy theorists don't just vote. They run for president and even get elected.
Only because of Neo liberals running on right wing Austerity policies.
Good point.
Mmmm 🍿
What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth... ABOUT 6 MONTHS!
America is when felons can’t vote but a failing-upwards felon gets elected
Please god, do not stop making this content. So many people don't see the real damage of misinformation and science denial. It's society's greatest threat. I cannot express how much I appreciate you.
Wont let me comment, I appreciate you.
Someone's gotta do it. I feel like I'm the only sane person some days. Which by definition means that I'm not the norm. Sad times.
Thanks Dave, please continue to be a voice for the sane!
I think his incendiary rethoric and personal attacks are exactly what is going wrong in the US today. It's like watching Trump just in the academic field - just absolutely uncivilized and insufferable.
I think we need to look at arguments and not at the source - this is an extreme problem in the US' public discourse - and Dave tries to implement the top-of-the-loungs tire-screeching mode of discourse in science communication.
It's wrong and not how science and scientific discourse should be conducted.
Why are you calling Dave "god"? I mean, he's a nice fellow and all, but... :)
Leave Sabina alone, she's just trying to get on Joe Rogan Podcast.
She's probably hoping to get on the show with Graham Hancock so they can both bash academia.
First Joe Rogen, next Prager U! Woo-hoo!
@@NinjaMonkeyPrimeJeez dude you are everywhere, get a life.
@@phr3ui559 Kind of ironic that you seem to be obsessed with my habits while claiming I need to get a life.
@@phr3ui559harsh!
Sabine: "Don't trust scientists. Except for me of course, a very cool and normal scientist" 🙄
She is no longer a scientist. As soon as you change the system from science to media you operate under a different code.
That's exactly how it works. "Look at me, I'm a doctor, I have PhD, you can trust me, now let me tell you what you want to hear and you give me some of your money, and if someone tells you you are wrong tell them a PhD agrees with you".
I miss youtube before monetization. The motivation to lie for money is too coercive.
Double edged sword. It also drives some creators to make better content (not in this case unfortunately)
I agree, but as soon as there are bigger audiences, money comes into play, no matter what. Because there is always someone offering to pay for ads in some capacity.
@@amarug simple, outlaw advertising. The entire world will begin to heal.
@@unholycrusader69 this assumption of meritocracy is clearly unfounded, as can especially be seen here
I would say that money is the root cause of many of our societal problems.
Career academic neuroscientist here from a medical school. Thanks, Dave. As usual, you have accurately called out her irrational and illogical gross overgeneralizing and the straw men responses of her science denier supporters. Keep up the great work. 🧠☀️
"Science denier supporters"
🤦♂️
Whats the issue? She denies science, they support her? Idk if her supporters would even have an issue with the label. Would you rather free thinker or anti-establshment? 😅 you're one or the other if you support her @LaurentCassaro
@@latinajoseph she denies the trend to trust modern academic scientists.. Many scams took place and why trust scientists? You have evidence.. you are good to go .
@@LaurentCassaro It's hilarious that you got triggered by a perfectly straightforward and fair descriptive term. 🤣👌🏻😂👍🏻
@@LaurentCassaroWhat on God's flat earth is your issue with this phrase? Anyone who believes the objectively untrue statement that science is dying is a science denier and they support her. Are you speaking English as a second language, honest question?
I had to stop watching Sabina a few months ago. She always used to have a unique but well-informed perspective on cutting edge physics that I could simply either take or leave as appropriate.
Now she has abandoned any pretext of participating in the scientific community/process and has instead positioned herself firmly as an antagonistic outsider.
Truly sad to see.
Me too!
There’s more money in it…
i have a feeling she started her channel from a mostly positive place, wanting to put to use the knowledge she gained while studying. but as her channel started to grow in subscribers, she slowly adopted practices to grow her brand that eroded her ethics. clickbait. sketchy ad reads (betterhelp). misleading language in her videos. and i feel she justified every slip of her morals by letting her bitter experience in academia fuel her as the subscribers started pouring in.
Guess which videos do better she's a UA-camr after all and what do UA-camrs usually do about hood doing videos....
PhD in mathematics. I completely agree with you. I used to watch Sabine for fun, but last few years she's become unbearable. This is the comment I left on her latest video:
"This is a completely idiotic take. There are vast problems in academia in general and perhaps in fundamental theoretical physics in particular, but to title your video "science is failing" and then to start by complaining why cranks and conspiracy theorists are drawn to you is nonsense.
Science is not failing. Fundamental physics is not failing. To dismiss measurements and experimental verification made over the last decades is nonsense. By that logic, there were no advances in fundamental physics from 1668 to 1860.
To conflate possible failures of a TINY field such as fundamental theoretical physics with a supposed failure in science broadly is nonsense. To say that all fundamental physics is stuck because they keep using the wrong methods, yet never providing what the correct methods are is nonsense. Seriously, provide us the appropriate approach.
Regarding guessing math for physical theories. Without exception, physicists have always guessed math because physics is not derivable from mathematics and is not a deductive branch of knowledge. Einstein's field equations were never derived. They were guessed at by Einstein (or Hilbert guessed the form of the Lagrangian density).
For special relativity, Einstein and Poincare guessed the definition of simultanaity.
Dirac guessed Dirac's equation.
Regardless, at the end of the day this sub field of physics is tiny. Most science is not fundamental physics. Applied physics is as dynamic as ever. Biophysics, for example, is undergoing massive progress. What happens with string theorists or supersymmetry is almost of no relevance to almost anyone who watches your videos."
"I don't trust scientists." = "I don't read any of the research I deny."
How does she make videos about the contents of the papers if she doesn't read them? What research is she denying, rather than criticizing?
@Toommm11 she's skimming it then angrily denying it using sophist tactics.
@@Toommm11 she makes the content the same way shapiro does, or the heck off commie guy, they just read headlines that support them and dont read the research
As someone who has learned a lot from Sabine and enjoys her mixture of humor and science... I know neither she nor Manny of her followers think that way. She teaches science. Including that one of her critiques of scientists was that she believes climate scientists are too cautious and conservative out of fear of getting sued for doing their job correctly. You clearly haven't watched her.
@@Toommm11 she'll have researchers and people working on her scripts.
She could well do a Russell Brand, although I suspect she was never on the left of politics.
She's on her way to PragerU.
Or Clintel.
It's definitely easier to make money as a right wing grifter so i can see her headed that way.
Wouldn't surprise me if she made a video in a few years titled
" Why flat earthers aren't that bad".
@@eddierayAs far as conspiracy theories go, flat earth is one of the less harmful ones IMHO.
@@rylandrc It is in isolation, but after you accept it, you are REALLY likely to accept bunch of more dangerous conspiracies. Believing flat earth requires extreme anti-science stance and willful levels of ignorance, which easily leads to other harmful beliefs.
@@eddierayehm... she already sort of did...
It's also called "theoretical" physics for a reason. Observation > theory > hypothesis > test. She describes this method of advancing our understanding of physics as problematic but it is literally how theoretical physics has always been done. If you look back at scientific progress your mind can easily pack down the centuries it took to get here so by extension if we can't do in a few decades what they did in those centuries it's suddenly "stalling" and "problematic".
So, how are these tests for string theory or simulation hypothesis going? You are from Issac Arthur's school of scienece, right?
Shouldn’t it be observation -> hypotheses -> test -> theory ? 🤔
That’s not her argument when it comes to theoretical physics. And that’s not the overall argument David is addressing when it comes to Sabine. For clarity, I 100% agree with Dave, but Sabine’s root problem with theoretical physics isn’t with theoretical physics, but with what’s funded for research since there are theories that have overstayed their welcome because, from the outset we knew that they were untestable physics, like string theory, where the energy levels are too large to test if the theory is true or not. She has a problem with scientists or institutions receiving funding for things that ultimately cannot be tested. What she falls victim to, however, is conflating her experience in one corner of theoretical physics, namely what gets funded, with all of theoretical physics and other sciences. She has a deep emotional inclination to as David said “burn the building down” instead of just killing the roaches. For instance, imagine one doctor misdiagnosing an illness that Sabine has. Her response is like that of a person that says “medicine is failing” and not “that doctor made a mistake.” She may even be right if she were to say that the doctor was committing fraud, but wrong in conflating the idea that an act of fraud means that the entire practice of medicine is fraudulent.
@@VonJay This is one of the better comments I’ve seen on this video. I think you accurately summarized her specific gripe with that specific sub-discipline of physics, from what I gathered by watching her videos at least. But as you said, she needlessly and baselessly extrapolates that gripe to make sweeping generalizations about all science, which is what a lot of people are missing, and what Dave is criticizing.
She is dumb. As simple as that. The videos talk by themselves.
The tactic Dave described of Sabine making sensationalist, untrue, dangerous claims... then falling back to a more defensible position when called out is called a Motte and Bailey Fallacy.
"The motte-and-bailey fallacy is when an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, but one is modest and easy to defend and the other is much more controversial. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the modest position is being advanced."
It is exactly a technique dishonest hacks like Jordan Peterson abuse a lot. Its a way to get attention by saying sensationalist things, appealing to avg Joe idiot, and a large uneducated clickbait driven crowd... yet having having no responsibility when called out for it being misleading and sensationalist.
For example: Jordan will say stuff like "Christianity is the most true thing there is", or "The bible was the first book" or 'atheists are murders", "America is a christian, not secular nation".... These things are untrue, very poor and dishonest uses of language that appeal to his largely far right christian audience and he knows it. But when called out by an intellectual for being wrong and misleading, Jordan falls back to the Motte... redefining truth, or it wasn't literally the first book, or claiming your not actually an atheist...ur christian at heart(simply redefining the word christian), or he means Jesus is the ultimate fiction... More defensible but different claims
The problematic language is clearly intended to get views, cause controversy, be sensationalist and appeal to a certain demographic... but when called out the position is claimed to not mean what they actually said and they therefore cant hold any responsibility for it being misinterpreted... You simply misunderstood them, even though they used the wrong language... and there is a whole swath of people admitting they fell for the Bailey. Just like how Sabine pretends to be surprised crackpots, science deniers, and morons fall for her videos.... I WONDER WHY... its almost like ur literally appealing to them by making wild comments they want to hear, then falling back to the Motte when called out. Claiming you cannot trust climate scientists is the Bailey ... a wild and overstated claim, while the Motte is you have a niche disagreement with some climate scientists(who know exponentially more than you in the first place and ur probably out of your depth) about how much to value hot models. The problem is how many people genuinely fall for the Bailey and sensationalism, how many people wont trust climate science at all, the way most people wont realize Jordan is redefining the words christian, truth, atheist and see it as bolstering their christian nationalism... But lets be real, who's gonna click a video more accurately titled "I think hot models are slightly under-represented compared to some experts.".. "I dont trust climate science"... thats the golden ticket.
Ironically how Sabines fans defended her, its exactly how Peterson acolytes defend him... Pretending the Motte has just been mistaken and its your fault. Completely blind and ignorant to how misleading and dishonestly the info was actually presented and how it was intentionally presented that way for views, attention, and cash.
Thanks for covering Sabines mid-life crisis....
She seems more of a spurned lover to me ...
You got it
😂😂
LOL
We can no longer afford to take science denialism lightly. Unfortunately, these types of people now pose a legitimate threat to the society, which means that academia will soon follow.
Academia caused this problem. Academia isn't interested in fixing it. So sit down.
So mad @@boredom2go
@@boredom2go academia is the only reason mouth breathers like you are able to freely share their opinions. you’re the town idiot no one takes seriously, but your voice is amplified because of the countless advancements made by people that actually get shit done. western society is crumbling because there will always be a surplus of worthless cromagnons like you, and the voices of the small percent of people pushing humanity forward are being drowned out because of the technology they put in the common idiots hands.
Since the dawn of ages there have been science deniers. If academia lowers it's standards even more and paper mills and AI produce not only thousands of mediocre publications a day, but a tenfold using AI, just to survive in the points of citations regime, that isn't helpful.
Shutting from the rooftop doesn't help. If Academy would be fine and dandy, we wouldn't have this discussion.
If you do that you will find out interesting new studies like how de-population is the answer to climate change. And everybody will accept it because you silenced the concerned.
Don't do that.
You know what, I am starting to warm up to Professor Dave's rather abrasive approach to calling out criticism to anybody. It is direct and precise yet emotional and respectful to the degree it was earned.
The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is reeling at the possibility.
He was respectful about it in the first video, but she simply doubled down instead of listening.
He's crass, but he does the homework to back it and the people he criticizes are such frauds they have it coming.
He's barely even abrasive compared to the open hatred and bullshit that some of these people spread. More science communicators should be brave like Dave is.
I just hate people who constantly complain and say "this sucks" but never, ever do shit about anything
"Guuuys! Is not my problem that my anti-science dog whistles are attracting science deniers"
Sabine
Just so.
Hang on, Sabine is a scientist, so she doesn't trust herself, and if she doesn't trust herself, none of us should trust her either.
this comment needs more updoots
But wait. She implied she does not trust herself, but she should not trust that statement as it came from her, so she should trust her when she says she does not trust herself.
(Edit: this is clearly a joke. You can’t unironically believe a paradox lol)
That will cause a paradox where Sabine doesnt trust herself not to trust herself
She clearly said that she was part of the science system. And distrust should go mostly towards the system. Go hide your strawman in a closet
She's not in research or academia anymore. Her life as a practicing scientist is pretty much over. Now she just teaches the world on youtube.
I was quite disappointed with her video response. It didn't address any of the criticism and doubled down on the harmful rhetoric. I wasn't exactly surprised by that but part of me still hoped she would do better
"imagine if chemists created a whole dark sector of the periodic table and then trying to find them"
Hasn't that been happening constantly since the invention of the actual table itself?
Yup they litterally did do exactly that. Mendeelev predicted scandium (Sc, 21), gallium (Ga, 31), technetium (Tc, 43), and germanium (Ge, 32) before they where discovered.
More precisely, they CALCULATED that there should be something there, they checked their math for errors every which way then did experiments to determine if their math correctly predicted reality. The discovery of the outer planets has a similar history.
Right?? Like "Imagine if scientists theorized about things and then tried to find them." She's literally just describing theoretical physics. Black holes as a theory *came about* because Einstein's equations were used to predict that they exist decades before they were confirmed experimentally, and decades after that, they've been verified through thousands upon thousands of observations. What on Earth is Sabine talking about?
I bailed on her over the trans issue. Her research question was whether or not young children should instantly receive surgery if they ever say that they are anything other than pure representatives of gender stereotypes. And the answer is no.
But that's also the answer that surgeons who do gender reassignment surgery would give. In fact, it is not the case the young children are automatically given surgery if they express gender non-conformity. In fact, very few human beings under the age of 16 even receive hormonal treatment, and the number of children in this world who have received gender reassignment surgery at age 12 or below is almost zero. It is not a real issue, and the fact that she ran with it as if it was made me mistrust her. She knows who her audience is, and she knows what they want.
Yeah, I only watched a few of her videos before that and was kind of intrigued at her channel. Then I saw that video, and immediately saw where she was going. She went out of her way to misrepresent the science to suit whatever audience she's chasing's agenda. It was both sides bullshit through and through and made me realize how biased and shitty Sabine is.
"Almost zero" is not zero. And no, it's not almost zero.
It also matters because people are actively pursuing puberty blockers, while not enough is known about whether or not their effects are reversible.
Theyve been using puberty blockers for decades because lots of kids started puberty too early. Im prrtty sure the onky side effects are the kid might end up a bit shorter than they wouldve been. @rickmorty5215
@@rickmorty5215 The only case of a child receiving gender reassignment surgery that I can think of was after a botched circumcision that mangled the child's genitals beyond repair. The parents were convinced to allow sex reassignment and the child became part of a psychological study. The patient was from Canada, treated by US doctors. David Reimer was their name.
@@lagunkaz "Don't modify children's bodies" people when you tell try to get them to not cut their children:
Dave you should get really jacked and do these videos with your shirt off, then everyone will suddenly understand.
Or claim he learned it on a mushroom trip when he spoke to Einstein's spirit.😂
He needs to get on 1.5g of Tren and eat raw liver while making these videos. Only then will I understand
Does he have to get an HGH gut too?
@@Yordleton He doesn't have to show his waist
If Natural Hypertrophy were a science communicator:
She’s deeply irresponsible.
So was saying "follow the science", while giving people untested gene therapy drugs. Then complaining people don't trust you.
This is the best description of Sabine's vids highlighted here.
I'd like Sabine to move to America and live in the mess she's helped create.
Germany is on the same path as America.
The Netherlands too - and ahead of Germany.
@@aidenstoat5745 Germany have free healthcare
I found Sabine's response to your first video deeply disappointing. While she's right on so many things, and yes, academia isn't perfect, she simply and utterly refused to see what the message was.
There was a response?? Where??
@@jakkmcknight2933 She (or someone from her channel) replied on his last video and later deleted the comment
No doubt she's doubling down now. Dave revealed how her BS is giving her more clicks. As if she didn't already know.
@@jakkmcknight2933she made a response video on her channel. Didn’t mention Dave, but it was a response to his first video.
Power corrupts....
Something I'm learning this week is most people don't think about anything.
The US election was 99% about buzz words, slogans, and short-form platitudes. Up to 50% of the population lacks an internal dialogue. Essentially every dissenter (and Sabine herself) responded to Dave's video without actually consuming it.
Don't think too hard about how little people actually use their gift of sentience.
Science is not failing, people are.
People are failing to be rational, thus every problem we, humanity, have right now.
Yeah I see it everywhere not only in academia
@@KateeAngel Yea, exactly. Irrational people are the reason for every problem we have. Unfortunately, most people are very irrational.
@@Logical.Psychopath I dont think most are.....but the 30% seems to be enough to total screw over the other 70% that arn't a single group.
@@Logical.Psychopath Science isn’t failing; your reductionist thinking is. Blaming ‘irrational people’ as the root of all humanity’s issues? That’s laughably simplistic and, frankly, ironic coming from someone who claims to be a ‘genius.’ Real objectivity demands depth, not shallow generalizations. If you actually understood logic, you’d realize that human behavior is complex, influenced by countless variables beyond your narrow concept of ‘rationality.’ Simplifying the world down to ‘irrational vs. rational’ is exactly the kind of intellectual laziness that genuine thinkers despise. Maybe stop hiding behind your inflated ego and actually engage with the real complexity of human nature.
@@Logical.Psychopath I think people are making rational choices. It’s just that we have such perverse incentive structures, people are given incorrect information, and people’s preferences have shifted more toward feeding their own egos at the cost of promoting opinions that are at odds with the facts.
This guy helps me learn molecular shapes and lets me laugh at science deniers. Gigachad professor
calling people deniers lets everyone know what you are
Also throwing the word denier around is pretty stupid
@@xmathmanxthe rational one? Lmfao
@@matsiv5707but they are *denying* science, what word would you use? Conspiracy theorist also works I guess
Also your professor sounds incredible
the replication crisis is very real, but its scope has been blown completely out of proportion. Not only that, but the way science has responded to the crisis has actually been very promising. The "crisis" largely affected psychology, but the burgeoning field of behavioral economics also relied heavily on that research and so was also affected. This isn't the end of the story, as lots of the research has been thrown out, and a new field of science, "meta-science" has risen to specifically check research. The replication crisis, and the response from the scientific community, would make for a great video.
I love this. It’s 100% meat, no bone. Meta-science for the win (okay, more like for the slow, gradual, two steps forward one step back, hard won progress).
Saying that "you cut out context" is such a popular excuse these days. I see countless people use it to defend the straight up BS people they like say.
Much of the time I see the context claim they basically just want them to reproduce the entire argument before saying anything. It's a time wasting tactic oftentimes.
and it works so well because there are indeed many cases where this behavior is problematic, so people are primed to believe that anyone would do it
@@Flexy59 actually I think it more the case these people believe everyone would take stuff out of context etc because that what they would do.
@@mattm8870 Accusations being a projection 101.
It's a refuge of the scoundrel. What else are quotes, if not out of context? :D Absent malicious distortion (or even accidental) it's a ridiculous charge.
Anti-intellectualism has won, for the foreseeable future
And climate will kill us all before it gets better
It will cost them dearly in the future
@@EpicSmasher2 And it'll cost us and the rest of the planet
It's because intellectualism went off the rails. Take responsibility for your own failure.
@cs3818919 what does that even mean? 😂 let me guess, something about trans people existing.
As for person who claims almost all publicly funded research is bullshit she herself is very eager to bullshiting in many of her videos about fields in which she isn't specialist. It's classic example of criticizing her own faults and weaknesses mainly in others and never admitting to them herself, to veil herself in the aura of moral and intellectual superiority that makes her so popular and fuels her feelings of grandiosity and importance. The same trick on which religious authorities are based upon, ie. they mainly criticize various immoral behaviours of others to hide the fact all their own activity is basically a scam and abuse. Before her response to your video I gave her benefit of doubt, but now I ceased to have any.
Science is gradual and boring until it’s exciting people need to get used to that.
Science isn’t boring, it’s beautiful.
@@Monsterhunter16 nah it's boring 90-95% of the time
It's a process that's tedious and slow, with a great payoff
@@juannaym8488 then maybe you aren’t interested in that field of science because for me, no matter how much I learn in any field of science it feels like I am closer to the universe. I can’t get enough of it. I will admit the only boring thing is the part of doing work(I’m lazy)the interesting part is learning.
@@Monsterhunter16 you're not understanding the main point here though.
He's talking about the perspective of people who aren't innately intrigued by the mundane learning part of science. Mainly the general public. They don't care for or find interest in the day to day things scientists do that are important in the long term. Most people only care when attention grabbing headlines are put out there and then they feel like it's cool and important.
@ I understand most people don’t care for science because it’s boring, I was just saying I find it interesting.
You’d think the fact that scientists change their positions upon new information would be a point of praise.
Nobody is perfect the first time around, and even if one aspect of science proves to be a dead end that does not mean it’s worthless and taught us nothing.
A lot of Freud’s ideas are considered nonsense nowadays but he still founded the field of psychotherapy
Hell, Lamarck got his concept of genetics wrong but then he got somewhat vindicated because we figured out epigenetics are similar to his hypothesis. Dude was lost in the potato field, but he intuited a pattern that turned out to be there on a different scale.
Yeah we moved on because he is dead. It's astonishing how people think scientists change their minds so easily. Usually the shifts are more generational than individuals changing their minds. Scientists are probably better than the average person, but wouldn't overestimate their ability to put their biases aside.
@@drustvism2029 these people start with the magical thinking of religion and since education was never great and has been largely gutted, they dont comprehend the process of science on a basic level, to them it is just an institution beyond their comprehension like any other. The discourse is hard to notice if you dont expect it and somewhat specifically obscured so the same critical thinking wont be applied to their leaders. Its their solution to the kids getting turned woke by school. And they dont seethe connection to all of technology and all of the conveniences we have and all the ways we *dont die*. Which, ofc, proves its works.
Her criticism is that they don't change their position after spending decades trying the same thing with minor variations.
Further that this is caused by certain buzzword theories being more fundable.
And that getting grants for research has become the primary determinant of employment success in academia.
@@mutawi but, they do change.
Scientific change is gradual and soemthing that a lay person is not going to see.
Can you name me one specific aspect of a theory in any field of science that has been repeatedly disproven beyond a reasonable doubt that scientists hold on to?
No you cannot
Very glad to see this followup. The comments were missing the point massively
Wow. I didn't realize it was this bad or she'd double down. Your last video was excruciatingly clear. Im not a PhD in anything and I understood the message.
Long before your video on Sabine, I was really upset with the way she spoke almost like a science denier. She uses language she shouldn't and I did unsubscribe because what she said in her videos made me angry at her.
The future is so goddamn bleak... Thank you for doing what you do Dave, and please never stop fighting against these anti-intellectuals.
Calling Sabine anti-intellectual is pretty nuts tbh
It's always been bleak, we're just more exposed to it and weak willed. And there are legitimate concerns around the social sciences as well, but people who don't trust natural sciences are frankly, morons indeed.
At least it's not going to be bleak for long.
it's really not bleak at all. Life, as a whole, is improving universally
@MyWorldIsSquare Cool another deleted comment, I love this platform
Why are people so mad at this? It’s a valid criticism.
Scientism
I think that many are desperate to believe that the scientific community is unreliable because if many scientific consensuses are true, a lot of people have done horrible things. Climate change is doing a huge amount of harm to the entire world and a lot of people are responsible. A lot of people got others sick during the pandemic because of their irresponsibility so they need to believe that nothing we did worked, they need to believe that their opposition to gender-affirming care didn't cause harm, etc. Bad people needing to believe lies to pretend they're not bad people.
@@noisemagician Nope
It isn't though
@@noisemagician That word boils my blood. Like, please any science denier, use time machine and go back to 4000BCE.
Sabine Hossenfelder just thinks she has all the knowledge and the whole world should follow her ideas. This is, of course, not the case. I've been spending some time watching her videos until I finally stopped when she came to that point when she wanted to make the world believe that SHE knows everything and she is more clever than the rest of the scientific community.
crazy how Dave acts the exact same way
No, it's worse than that. She knows very well she's bullshiting the public but she's bullshiting anyway, rationalizing it with conviction that it's normal and others are certainly worse than her. It's not like with the case of people who are either stupid or insane, and because of that make their antirational claims laughably ridiculous. She knows that to go with this content to the mainstream she needs to be mild enough to cross the usual bullshit detector of average person, and gain from their confusion, uncertainty and cognitive dissonance. In other words, she's just trolling.
@ Andrew: crazy that fanboys like you spread such falsehoods.
Saïd a Dave’s fanboy.
%100 agree with you! I’m sick of “science communicators” trashing science in order to get clicks or get notoriety. Equally, those who state of-the-cuff opinions and pass it off as fact.
Hi Phil. I agree wit you 100%. I gave up watching Sabine long long ago when she made three major errors in her physics in just two videos. Since that time, judging by her a small selection of her thumbnails (I blocked her in my feed), she seems to have completely gone off the rails.
Please, all Sabine defenders: Watch the whole video and listen before you write up your response.
They did not.
But.. if they don't respond immediately how will they be sure *their* opinion is seen before everybody elses?!
Again: you confuse the isssue on multiple levels. I have literally no skin in the game and no need to *defend Sabine*. What I have issue, is self-appointed professor doing click hunt, being told in comments under his video by people actually IN THE SYSTEM how what he "thinks" - isn't. Not to mention: she's right.
@@piotrd.4850 Your vehemence certainly indicates you have skin in the game. Are you IN THE SYSTEM?
@@piotrd.4850 For some reason calling himself "professor" is perfectly fine. Instead of sticking to the usual mentally ill flat earthers he now quite aggresively attacks one of the most interesting science communicators on youtube. Talk about fueling science denial...
She's being intellectually dishonest for clicks, it's a lack of integrity, her credentials mean nothing if she doesn't have integrity.
Yeap. So, let's listen to self-appointed professsor who lacks such credentials.
@@piotrd.4850 do you not know that Dave has a chemistry degree and has taught chemistry to students at the university level? Or are you just deliberately ignoring that fact because you hate Dave?
@@piotrd.4850 You know, except a master's in science education from CSU Northridge and a history of having taught science courses at a university.
I don't know why but watching this video felt like a huge weight falling off my chest. I'm so glad to see someone properly adressing the topic of anti-science misinformation. Videos like this truly feel like a blessing
I'm so so scared for the future of my country.
😔
Leave! It's going to be nothing but poverty and death camps
😂😂😂
There is no future that isn't rife with dark times.
Get out if you can, keep your head down if you can't.
Don't be scared, be stoically angry. And when the anti-science, anti-expertise side blunders something, point it out, and make it clear to people how the bad effects are direct consequences of their policies.
PLEASE do a video debunking RFK 😭🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
+1 on this one
There are some videos doing that. IIRC, Dr. Wilson made some very good ones.
Robert Evans on his Behind the Bastards podcast did a multi-parter on him earlier this year. It is jaw dropping. RFK Jr is absolutely insane.
The channel "Debunk The Funk" run by Dr Dan Wilson has made a series on RFK (specifically his book) if you are interested.
This is one of the most astute observation about science communication, it cannot be stated more clearly.
In Brazil we are having the exact same problem with regard to science denial and fascist candidates... Our former president was exactly that... and the guy who has the most amount of papers published in Brazil is a quack who promotes young earth Intelligent Design... Btw Professor Dave, that guy specifically quoted your debate with James Tour (obviously being biased and saying you lost). It's a shame that this is happening both in politics and science
Yes. You mention about an incredible problematic character. If we lived in a reasonable world he would be stripped from academic titles. He is an idiot of higher degree,
Dave, Im tired of people hating on FLUORIDE. They focus on fluoride,' as if there aren't hundreds of other issues that can actually affect reasoning ability and brain health.
Still my favorite point from Sabine was "there's so much math in physics, it's out of control". Like maam, what discipline do you think you got into?
That's hilarious! In which video did she say that?
@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta She wrote a book about it!
Actually that isn't her take. Her take is more of mathematical beauty is regarded as more important than anything
I am assuming you didn't see/understand the rest of the video then. There is a difference in the mathematical approach and the scientific approach. In mathematics, (very vaguely explained) you make sure the equations are correct. That's it. As long as the equation is correct, you are good to go.
Whilst in science, you need to come up with theories that can be experimentally tested, that is what science does. By coming up with untestable theories, it does not advance science as it cannot be proven or unproven, nor can it be useful. She clearly knows what math is and its purpose. Some of you are acting like she doesn't have a PhD and decades of experience in the foundations of physics.
Physics and math aren't the same field.
Professor dave i love you. You have helped me so much throughout college and i love your debunking vids.
I would be careful on the future now that our government has been captured by the people you regularly oppose
While I agree with the sentiment, professor Dave isn’t some one who will be cowed just like that. As he said, he’s a warrior and he will fight. I only hope it’s not too late.
You can give up if you want but I'm willing to die on this hill.
@@Muongoing.97cFor 1.2 million during the P. it is too late.
That's what she doesn't realise, her video are being used to destroy.
Dave- I can't thank you enough for the moral clarity you bring to these issues. I watched her response and was a bit shocked by the "you're not my dad" tone. I find myself stressing constantly about the complexities of bad faith tactics, narcissistic avoidance techniques, audience capture, and how these can all sound identical to anyone with a desire to believe something and lack of familiarity with abuse dynamics. Your work has a big impact on my mental health- thank you for being a consistent tether to reality.
We need a science UA-camr tier list
Dave is S Tier
Angela Collier and Simon Clark are both great
@@roadrollerdio565
yes.
Jeff Nippard for Hypertrophy Science
Thanks for you video clarifying it again. I am sorry that detractors did not get it. Sabine is being careless and dangerous, certainly not responsible. I wrote Sabine to let her know about her perhaps unintended consequences. I asked her to stop being a weapon for science deniers. I am scared about the prospect of RFK being incharged of anything. Thank you for your initial video and for not giving up and making this follow up video - it is too important not to make it clear. I hope more scientist will amplify your videos.
Making laymen understand that the good work put in by scientists outweigh the occasional bad ones, is the most important thing. Good presentation 👍
Thank you Dave for everything you do, really. I've come across your content on so many separate occasions and it's always been good. Hope you can keep it up while ignoring all the hostility from the internet
There are many problems with the current way to fund academic work. One part of it is that hunting for grants from the private sector (including non-commercial funds) take time and effort that could be used to further the research, it is currently just as important to be a good sales person as a good scientist to keep your position as a professor and your department funded.
Another part is potentiel bias, of course.
As for Sabine, I decided not to watch any more of her videos simply because she is no longer a science communicator. But she will not notice, as there are at least four science deniers to replace me as a viewer.
Reminds me of that research saying fat was bad, but in reality it was sugar that was the problem. Coincidently it was funded by big sugar.
That's why public funding is so important. May i remind y'all mRNA vaccine has been researched for over a decade, and almost all of the funding comes from the public?
@@villager736 But i can say the sugar studies were actually funded by big fat. it never ends bro, its all a giant hole funded by big-ception 😭
@@hanifarroisimukhlis5989 It got so bad that they had to take the original vaccine off the market because it was so dangerous.
@@hanifarroisimukhlis5989 The problem is that it was rushed too quickly
Thank you very much for the effort you have put into this video. I'm one of those non-academics who couldn't fully comprehend some of your points in the last video, so I'm very grateful for this addition.
What effort would that be? I've never seen someone skim across the surface of topics so quickly without acknowledging deeper complexities.
@boredom2go Phrasing a statement like that in an interesting way and then recording and editing it takes effort in my world. If it wasn't to your satisfaction, I'd say...well, bummer for you I guess?
Very unfortunate. I Unsubscribed from Sabina right after seeing that click bait video title yesterday.
Hopefully future science educators don't follow in Sabina's footsteps.
I’m so thankful for the time and energy you put into these videos! You’re one of the grounding voices out there that I think a lot of us will continue to learn from. My two girls hear your videos all the time. I want them growing up listening to voices like yours.
I think the problem is that Sabine never worked outside of academia. She sees all the problems in science/universities, but what she doesn't see is how thinks are outside of academia. I'm sure Sabine would get a heart attack if she would work at some big company and would see the realities there. If someone thinks that the average paper is garbage, that person should read a few patents and see the insanity there.
As a Ph.D. biologist who has publicly debated creationists, I endorse this video.
Why would you ever do that?
@@boredom2go Because if you are creationist, you deny basic biology. And teaching basic biology will stop them believing in nonsense.
I started watching your videos for help with my physics degree. I miss the days when all I had to stress about in the world was midterms and problem sets. What the hell is happening in the world.
Yeah - I think Sabine's channel is going downhill faster and faster and faster. She's talking some serious BS about physics too...
I mean, "I think we can go faster than light"... Geez... Ok - let's talk about what would happen, but... no... that isn't remotely orthodox Physics that you're promoting...
@professordaveexplains shout out for the two videos. I'm a fan of Sabine's divulgation videos, and I was captured by her bluntness as I was by yours in your debunking videos. But I've felt more and more unease about her undiscriminated carpet bombing, wild claims and rethoric against academic science. Or rather "science", as she's now even dropping the "academic" qualifier altogether...
You've put words on my feelings, and even better you've shown by exemples how criticism can be voiced without the need for unfounded apocalyptic extrapolation.
Best regards from a gravitational wave experiment analyisis PhD, today scientific computation engineer working on planetary spectroscopy in space missions.
I'm watching and enjoying her videos since 2 years or so. Now as a german I am feeling like science denial is pretty much a big deal in our country. Good video, I agree with you.
The same thing happened in India in 2014. And now people eat cow dung and cow urine to cure cancer.
I appreciated your point (and agreed with your points that she's gotten clickbait'y)... I like Sabine but think what she's doing is airing academic dirty laundry without considering how joe 6-pack (or more dangerously, politicians grifting joe 6-pack) will willfully (or ignorantly) misinterpret it.
I'm borrowing the phrase "joe 6 pack" thx
I’ve always disliked Sabine because she just doom and glooms constantly and acts like she had the answer for everything. Academics shouldn’t be stating things as absolute fact; it’s irresponsible.
Sabine has learned what to say to get VIEWS and CLICKS and to make INCOME from youtube for herself. She also gets off on the power of having followers.
Problem is, Sabine USED to do fairly good mediation of science for lay people, but somewhere down the line got lazy/greedy/fed up.
Now - in multiple videos - she's looking at a VERY narrow subjects and use the conclusion indiscriminately for a whole field. It's not becoming.
She seemed always on the fringes of mainstream or at least gave that sort of rhetoric. Wasn't she saying the big bang didn't happen? I forget what she actually says because she starts making it seem like she denies mainstream science but then seems a little more sensible when you go further along.
I think she above all veered outside of her area of expertise and got a Nobel effect after gaining success
That’s exactly what Dave said this first video that she actually is a good science communicator, when she communicates science. the problem is when she started spewing ant science rhetoric for clicks.
Here to watch the vid, but also to check the comments saying that they have watched the entire 32 minute video within 5 mins of upload. Can see some already.
I am a Tongan dealing with the fallout of the replication crisis in my field, and this video was fantastic and cathartic to watch, there are problems in academia but communicators like her are apart of it. Faith in empirical evidence over deferrence to local church leaders has been a difficult battle in my nation, clickbait such as this makes it more difficult to build local trust in medical institutions and achieve health equity for the most vulnerable
As soon as I saw her double down on the the new video/title I knew she was cooked. She doesn't care about science anymore, only clicks.
I used to watch Sabine when she made her science information videos, then she started to transition to the 'dark side'.
I know some Climate Science communicators on YT have also made reply video to her comments.
It seem that in order to build her following, she produces attack videos.
Thanks for your work Prof, I find it very useful and informative.
"Climate Science" stopped being Science some 40 years ago. To the point, that people negate nuclear power, cherry pick fact and - say, Simon Clarke - found new enemy: people stating obvous fact that 120ppm of CO2 won't remove themselves in any reasonable timeframe, and that our 'green policicies' are accelerating the change increase emissions ( now alsmost 2ppm/year accordign to Manua Loa observatory).
I cannot overstate my appreciation for you Dave, it feels like the entire world is going fucking mad most days, and I try to do my part with what knowledge I possess, but damn it's good to have a guy as intelligent, capable and eloquent as you in the corner of rationality and reason ❤
Passing along a friends thoughtful comments on this video. This friend is going through a lot, and BOTH of your channels really helps them get through it all:
"I don't want to see this escalate. It seems like there’s a growing division between your channels, with people being motivated to pick sides-Team Dave vs. Team Sabine. I don't think this tribalism was initiated by you on purpose, but it's inevitable... because the Internet.
I understand your frustration with Sabine’s content, particularly her titles, and I agree with the core criticism that some of her content can be misused by science deniers. However, I think the tone you took in parts of this video, while effective against charlatans and real science deniers, may be unnecessarily harsh when directed at Sabine. I don't think she's a bad actor, and I think a continued constructive, collaborative tone (even if you don't think she's doing the same) would be more productive for science communication, especially between two people who are ultimately on the same side. At this point, there's no way she can NOT be defensive, but one of you has to break the cycle.
With the resurgence of theocracy and fascism, and the growing threats to science, reason, and democracy, I believe we need both of you in the fight. This back-and-forth risks escalating, and that makes me sad. As someone who learns from and supports both of your channels, I’d love to see you both engage in a way that builds each other up rather than feeds division. We’re all on the same side when it comes to fighting for science and a better future, and I think we can do better than fueling polarization.
Written communication is often insufficient, and attention spans are short, but please see the spirit of what I'm saying here.
Thanks for your work, and *PLEASE* keep doing what you do-it matters!
Remember, WWCS! (What would Carl Sagan do?)"
No joke, no irony - God bless you, Professor Dave. Thank you.
Dave the sience communicator calls out bad sience communication...and gets a boat load of bad science communication in response, literally making his point for him.
Thanks for your work dave, you are one of the few people on the internet making us look like an intelligent species.
When someone says something is out of context they should have to say what the missing context was that changes the point. Because "out of context" is one of the most transparent technique folks use to run cover for bullshit! Keep rocking Dave, you're doing important work!!
I stopped subscribing to Sabine only because you allowed me to step away from my gut instincts and actually see the big picture.
Any scientist who is hooked on clickbait should choose another profession.