Four quick points: 1) I agree that SH is an excellent science communicator on topics with broad consensus, and within her training. 2) I observe that she is a disaster when addressing topics outside of her expertise. In particular, her videos on AI have been shallow, naive, and uniformed. 3) She is correct that most of academia is bullshit, but I believe this is a superficial and naive observation. Most things, in or out of academia, are bullshit. Maybe she's an idealist who believes universities are noble institutions where cerebral monks sequester themselves to seek enlightenment through the scientific method. Who knows? In any case, it's good for her *and* academia that she's self-employed because no institution, academic or otherwise, would pass her purity tests. I.e. she lacks meaningful context. 4) Science progresses funeral by funeral (w.p.), so relying on the eminence gris from various fields to put down the young turks is a fraught approach. Sadly, that's all we have until they're dead.
I have very much the same feel about her. I do watch her videos because when it actually something she knows about, they tend to be pretty good. But there are clearly areas where she is not so well versed. I mean we all have areas like that so that is not odd. But that is where humility is needed. And one thing I find interesting is that her critique of academia has a lot to do with our economic model we are operating under. A model she seems to actually be in support of, so it is a bit weird that she is both against the BS in academia, yet not against the system that made it emerge. At least that is how I see it. I have not watched all of her videos, but I do feel she is not presenting much of an alternative either.
@guyg.8529 The public wants only that scientist to be a problem solving entity when and where that will arise. Until then they will solved the problem in other ways more suitable for them by economically and social mean like globalism. So unfortunately they don't care to much about the academics narratives and their sophisticated language. Some time they even laugh of them .
How has physics advanced in the last 75 years? The main problem is that the public believe scientists know, with a high degree of certainty, what they're talking about (when it's actually just speculation). Without a false belief in science, Covid wouldn't have been the fiasco it was. Where's the vaccine safety monitoring system now that all cause mortality is 25% above normal and rising? Where were the scientists when the world's leading intellectuals were calling for the unvaccinated to be starved? Or how about the global warming fiasco? Miami was supposed to be under water by year 2000.
She is so right about 2; naive is someone who thinks stochastic gradient descent can make a parrot made of sand suddenly 'intelligent', whatever this word means anyway, we don't really know
It goes without saying I can't really know what's inside her head or her actual intentions, but there are, to my view, some pretty alarming signs if you look at her UA-cam channel's history. I don't think it's a coincidence her viewership has catapulted almost as soon as she started with not only the anti-science, but also controvertial (I'm being generous here) videos about topics that are outside of her expertise, like the ones about trans issues and Capitalism, just to cite two of the most eggregious ones. This seems like a consorted effort to expand her channel viewership, likely in search of a bigger financial return. It can't be a coincidence that she happened all of a sudden to mimic many of the alt right talking points, while trying to keep the facade of being reasonable (so she would not lose too much of her previous audience either). And it makes her particularly hipocritical when she complains that Academia is all about making money and then proceeds to make a sophomoric, outdated video about how Capitalism is great, while cashing in with her new alt-right, conservative audience. It seems to me she's very successfully taping into all sorts of "single issue" audiences, and you can clearly see that from all the comments defending her. Most defend her because she voices their own discontent with Academia, warranted or not, no matter all her other faults. The same can be said of people who have been drawn to her because of he stances on politics or economics - they don't really care about how good her science is or isn't , as long as they see her as an ally. I once subscribed to her, aside from what I thought was for the most part good science communication, because of her silly videos dancing and singing - I thought it was nice to see someone in the field that seemingly did not take herself too seriously. But as I saw her reactions to the increased and well reasoned criticism, I started to doubt her sincerity in regard to that as she is apparently incapable of aknowledging when she makes a blunder, constantly resorting to the motte-and-bailey method mentioned in the video - it's always that other people misunderstood her, never that she actually made a mistake. In the end, that made me start to doubt even her takes on her field of expertise, until I finally unsubscribed. What I think is something she does not mind at all, considering how well she's doing with her new public. Cheers!
Sabine's view on Science is quite simple- there is a lot of BS research that is funded unnecessarily and people mostly rely on the quantity of papers and the number of citations that a person has rather than a few extraordinary works. And when she means that science or Physics is halted or has not made any progress, she simply means that we haven't had any major breakthroughs. She single-handedly knocks down the pseudoscience surrounding physics. What's the problem with that?
So now science has to make major breakthroughs every single set amount of years or it should be discarded for something else? Progress is progress even when small and incremental, just because there haven't been major breakthroughs it doesn't mean science is halted
The problem is 1) It's incredibly unintelligent statement to make and 2) what is the point? what is her alternative? and 3) who made her the great judge of what is BS and what is extraordinary/pseudoscience? All she is is a contrarian/antiestablishment grifter with an oversized ego to match. She can call me when she releases her next "world changing" discovery, or is it more likely she will claim "why should I do research if academia/the establishment will conspire against me?" The answer is obvious. And does anyone honestly think she was fired back in her academia days because she "spoke truth to power" and they retaliated against her? Kind of like in jail, everyone is innocent and no one committed any crimes. Sure, Jan, but maybe we should hear the other side of the story and not just yours.
Well summarised. The "experts" seem to think everyone else is dumb. We _(the public)_ don't automatically believe everything we hear, in a kind of "whoever gets to our ears first wins" game. We actually process the information. ...hence the massive loss of trust in the scientific institutions. Ppl aren't dumb.
Sabine claimed atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude because gravity decreases with altitude. She is a paid influencer who turns off her brain and promotes lies dressed in a lab coat … for the money. Sabine is dishonest
Sabine and I both worked with Walter Greiner. He was "special", especially with women. To be fair, there haven't been many to get used to, and still are not. Her life wasn't easy for sure. Some people hate that Sabine takes their illusions away. Illusions like independent science that doesn't care if there is funding for a topic, isn't willing to work towards expected results, doesn't "tune" results to be published in mainstream journals that tend to filter what they publish heavily. Illusions like scientists would give up a topic they can still get funding for, just because it's not going anywhere. I think she deserves respect for this, not hate. Science isn't democracy, consensus doesn't play a role, but hard, provable data. This is being forgotten, Sabine is right to remind us of it.
I don't like her not because she takes illusions away but because she sometimes forcing her own illusions without any proof. She became too opinionated, especially outside of her expertise
@Nat-oj2uc afaik nobody forces anybody to watch UA-cam videos. I don't think it's healthy to dislike people because of their opinions differing from ones own. Especially as Sabine makes clear what is her opinion or assessment and what the facts are.
@Nat-oj2uc I don't agree with everything Sabine concludes from the facts available to her. I treat her channel like every other source of information. I consider it's bias and filter, and use it to create my own flawed picture and theory of the world. That's all we can do, isn't it?
I am in the middle of a Ph.D. in beyond-the-Standard-Model physics (BSM), trying to figure out what dark matter is from the perspective of particle physics and cosmology. I started this journey with the goal and illusion of becoming an academic, but as time progressed, I realized I was just getting burnt out and not achieving my goals, given that, as we know, theoretical physics is a highly competitive environment with little funding. Then, I encountered Sabine's content and resonated a lot with it, especially with the fact that BSM physics is stagnating due to the lack of technology to test the overabundant theoretical proposals. It came as the slight impulse that made me realize that pursuing an academic path is not worth it for me, and I will always be grateful to her for that.
I get where she's coming from. I made the same choices, but far earlier in my career. I was offered the chance to get a PhD and be a professor -- essentially becoming like the people I was working for. I didn't want to do that. That wasn't my calling. So I finished my Master's degree and thanked them for the offer of a PhD, but I knew it wouldn't make me happy. Now that I'm retired, I'm absolutely sure I made the right choice. It's a tough choice. There's this illusion that you can "have it all" -- work, career, marriage, children. But the truth is you have to prioritize what is important to YOU. Otherwise you may end up with a lot of nothing.
I don't think this is a very effective critique of Hossenfelder. Some of her videos are magnificent, how she manages to explain extremely complex subjects. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and scientists argue about stuff all the time. Saying that she is "anti-science" because of the clickbait thumbnails is not a strong argument. Perhaps she should allow contrary viewpoints in her videos more, considering the size of her audience. Her argument with Penrose looks like one of those spats between scientists that one reads about years later. I assume Penrose is right since he got the nobel prize, but I'm certainly not able to check the math to see which of them is right... I actually really love Penrose's kooky ideas he came up with more recently. Anyway- it's good that we have science communicators like Hossenfelder.
"Saying because she is "anti-science" because of the clickbait thumbnails is not a strong argument". She clearly panders to the "anti-mainstream' conspiracy theory-minded people with those thumbnails and titles, but it's not just that - as professor Dave's video explains some of the stuff she said in her videos is very much driving the "science is failing/doomed" narrative and not just for some areas of science (like theoretical physics, whether that's true or not) but just in general.
@@TheCabIe Sabine Hossenfelder wants science to adhere to the highest standards of rigor. Anti-mainstream people will find zero support for their views in her videos. Her viewers are pro-science. "Clickbait" works in the complete opposite way. You see a video that looks possible anti-science, so you click on it, wondering "Has Sabine lost her mind??", and when you watch it, you realize, "No. She hasn't."
@@dannylad2774 but when her own standards of rigor are not existent by spewing ideology, clickbaiting, and fundamental mistakes in most of her videos, then it is very much in doubt, if she may even claim standards for others, let alone for all of science. I talked with viewers of this show and i can confirm, that most of her viewers have the physics knowledge of an infant. And theres always a huge amount of science deniers under them. Your assertions have been rejected.
u are relativising abject failures in the fundamental understanding on the topics she discusses. She is not a science communicator, shes a stain on the community. Also u are committing a fallacy by strawmanning the argument. She is not anti-science because of some clickbait, shes anti-science because she claimed to be in much of her content.
The actual fallacy is the UA-cam algorithm promoting this AI-voiced video because it extracts a lot of watchtime from keeping viewers expecting the video to say something of consequence for 20 minutes straight. And these comments (mine included) also show this video drives engagement
He described a rhetorical device that she uses ("motte and bailey argument"), and then gave very specific instances where she used it (black hole information paradox, Penrose's Nobel Prize).
I agree with Dr. Sabine sometimes and disagree with her at other times-that’s exactly what scientists do (or should do). In fact, I think it’s fantastic that she’s publicly expressing her theories online, where they can be critiqued. This public discourse can encourage scientists-who sometimes struggle to communicate their findings effectively-to engage with a broader audience. Science can be a force for both good and evil, but overall, it’s one of humanity's most valuable things. People often get anxious when dissenting views or criticisms are expressed, and they immediately assume such critiques undermine science. However, most people are capable of making reasonable judgments, and when presented with different arguments, we should respect their autonomy and their right to make their own decisions and the ability to accept the consequences. Reasonable people don’t undermine science; they challenge weak arguments. Even the smartest people and scientists I know sometimes make flawed arguments, but what sets them apart is their willingness to adjust when new information shows their reasoning is off. I also think science sometimes paradoxically risks doing harm by insisting too rigidly on “do no harm.” Life inherently involves risk. For example, driving a car enhances our daily lives, yet we accept the possibility of injury or worse every time we get behind the wheel. Progress often requires accepting these risks and navigating them thoughtfully.
I mostly agree, except that reasonable laypeople can be easily influenced into the wrong conclusions simply because they don't understand what is being discussed. I guess the solution is for more scientists to be more active in communicating to the public, and even then channels like Sabine's will always have more viewers than some professor who makes in depth videos about topics within their field.
"Most people are capable of making reasonable judgements" Umm most people are NOT capable of making reasonable judgements about different theories of the fundamentals of physics. She is cleatly cultivating a community of anti-establishment science denying viewers. For money. It's a grift. Sure, she still has some good videos from time to time, but as an ex subscriber of hers, I don't miss it and can get good physics content elsewhere
Pointing out that modern "science" is unscientific bunk that is untrustworthy is a defense of real science. The idea that "science" is a sacrosanct thing is dangerous cultism that undermines actual science. It's a form of "my mother, drunk or sober".
@@cameronmclennan942 Funny, I too unsubscribed about a year ago, but for a different reason. I started getting this feeling that it was not just her anymore, making videos about what she's passionate about, but that there was now a "team" behind her. Mostly I noticed it in the subjects of her videos, not about physics and/or more "socially/politically relevant" themes (usually showing how shallow her knowledge was on these); and also on the little jokes, it felt like it wasn't her humor anymore but some younger, edgy assistance writing them... In short, it didn't feel genuine anymore, unless it was about physics, and then you got the old Sabine back. In some videos you could almost feel her unease about being there. Since unsubscribing I watch the occasional video too, but only if it's about physics, the other ones just make me uncomfortable, like I'm watching a hostage video.
Science deniers quote Sabine when they can take a statement out of context to support their own beliefs. We already know they do that. It doesn't make her statements wrong or even misguided.
How do you distingish between Penrose being right and Sabine being wrong? You can't just ask Penrose if he's right about his thesises, right? As much as I like Penrose and his work, you didn't provide good arguments for this situation. I believe anyone will defend his life long projects, right?
Penrose has some pretty wacky ideas these days bordering on pseudoscience both conformal cyclic cosmology and especially Orch Or with that highly annoying Hameroff.
@@DavidKolbSantosh That's scientific progress for you. One has to push the boundaries of 'wackyness' to see if it is indeed wacky. Wegener's continental drift theory (back when) was roundly laughed at and regarded as 'wacky', but it appears that Wegener had a little more comprehension than others (okay, dissenting geologists aren't renowned for progressive thinking, but...). Most of the ideas will be wrong, but just occasionally one makes a breakthrough. It's good to think outside the box now and then.
He also didn't have any way to distinguish whether Tim Maudin critique of superdeterminism was valid or not (it's not). Video was straight up using appeal to authority
@@Disillusioned-k1s I get what you mean, but today the situation is a bit different. Sabine is talking about hypothesis with zero data to support them, and especially those that already made predictions, failed, changed up their theory just to fail again. Take string theory fir example. Since at least 30 years they predict stuff that is never found. Then they "adjust" the theory, so that even more energy is needed in experiments, always slightly outside the current range. That money could be spent a lot better. Wegener had enough evidence to convince me, but at that point in time his stuff sounded whack. Drifting continents? Seriously? And there was the church, which still had a lot of influence back then. They didn't like that one bit, i bet... Two totally different cases.
I don't find appeal to authority to be a very convincing argument in this context. Her entire position is that some of the authorities are wrong, so cutting to a video of one of those authorities saying "No, she's wrong" doesn't really help us resolve whether she is correct.
@@TripDerve Sabine has already very extensively responded to Tim Maudin's critique of Superdeterminism. In her 2020 paper, "Rethinking Superdeterminism", she explained exactly why Statistical Independence is not a necessary precondition of doing science. Seems unfair that this video presented Tim Maudlin critiquing her viewpoint on superdeterminism without including Sabine's response to that critique. I've actually read the full arguments from both Tim and Sabine and I find that Sabine's arguments are more persuasive.
Ar around 3:00 Quantverse highlights why Sabine once got fired and called her petty. What Sabine spoke of is very true. Post docs write most of the books and papers while Sr. Professors put their name on it. Your attempt to slander Sabine is what is actually petty. Sabine rightly calls out what academia and science have become. Over bloated paper machines seeking more and more grant $ with little return on investment. This Quantverse video is nothing more than a hit piece on Sabine.
This is a channel for nobody, ran by a nobody. If he gets backlash and changes his channel name right after it, then it surely is a credible source of videos.
The basis for science is scientific method. That you have to take as a given. The results of science, be that hypothesis, theories, conjectures etc. you of course can challenge. You can device your own test to disprove any one of them or come up with a better ones that predicts reality better. That's how science works. If you want to understand how reality works, your best bet is to look what is the scientific consensus on a given topic. Of course you can challenge it, but unless you are the next Einstein you would be fool to think you know better than the scientific consensus. The fact that people do believe they know better when it comes to vaccines for example, causes huge harm in our society. So in a way, for a layman, you kinda are supposed to trust science. There is nothing better out there.
It is not sensible to trust conjecture or hypotheses or theories that are almost purely speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence. Theories such as String theory or the Many Worlds interpretation fall squarely into this category, for example. I guess I have only seen her complain about these sort of theories, which have no consensus among physicists. There is nothing anti-science about pointing out the theories that have no substantive evidential support, so that lay people don't get misled into believing these theories have any empirical basis, when they only qualify as science in a strictly theoretical sense. This is exactly where skepticism is most appropriate in science.
@@NondescriptMammal Science often finds itself with hypothesis that take a long time to verify. It took decades to centuries for Quantum Theory, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory for disease and many others to be accepted as correct from the time they were first proposed. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in studying stuff like String Theory even if we cannot empirically prove _at this time_ it is correct. Obviously when you talk about String Theory one should make clear it is a hypothesis which while matching with all of our existing observations does not produce future testable predictions and as such we don't have good evidence to say it is correct. This is not skepticism, this is just a fact and everyone in physics would likely agree. If you say something else, you are just a poor communicator and that's not the fault of science or scientific method. It is different thing to say String Theory is BS because we can't prove it now (see my first paragraph) and complain that something else should be studied without clarifying what that something else should be. Also, Sabine does hold positions that cannot be empirically verified, such as her take on superdeterminism mentioned in the video. As of now, there is no way to either prove or disprove this hypothesis either.
@@NondescriptMammal Science often finds itself with hypothesis that take a long time to verify. It took decades to centuries for Quantum Theory, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory for disease and many others to be accepted as correct from the time they were first proposed. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in studying stuff like String Theory even if we cannot empirically prove at this time it is correct. Obviously when one talks about String Theory one should make clear it is a hypothesis which while matching with all of our existing observations does not produce future testable predictions and as such we don't have good evidence to say it is correct. This is not skepticism, this is just a fact and everyone in physics would likely agree. Saying something else would be just poor communication and that's not the fault of science or scientific method. It is different thing to say String Theory is BS because we can't prove it now (see my first paragraph) and complain that something else should be studied without clarifying what that something else should be. Also, Sabine does hold positions that cannot be empirically verified, such as her take on superdeterminism mentioned in the video. As of now, there is no way to either prove or disprove this hypothesis either.
Maybe if you just listened to her explain herself when she is being critical it's all spelled out why, with reasoning, logic and often evidence. Not "science is bad" but "bad science is ..." various versions of how counterproductive and wasteful it is. Good message because it's ok to be cynical and check if things are valid in science.
Yup. My impression is that she calls out bad science, but we all know that some scientists don't take kindly to such criticism because it can be perceived as 'anti-science', or more often are too wrapped up in their own egos.
@@Disillusioned-k1s If skepticism is anti-science then science itself is anti-science. These big names need to stop thinking of their discoveries as prophesies in a scientific religion. Way too much ego
I do love Sabine. As a former academician, though in biology, I can agree with almost everything she says about academia. "Publish or perish" has created a mountain of paper with little significance that is barely worth the money spent on the paper (if that). In my field of the biology of aging, millions have been spent, yet there has been no useful result that might actually work to ameliorate, stop or reverse aging because the whole field is based on basic assumptions which are false, but endlessly repeated as they are necessary to get grant money. Yet, as a recent report by the AAAS, the nation's top authority, well-known scientists in aging research can't agree on what aging is, what causes it - and what direction to proceed, in except for trying (yet again) to prove their own direction is the correct one. The biggest advances in understanding aging came from outside the field. So, when the most important objective of the scientist is to boost her career, increase her income, gain fame, rather than truly understanding phenomena pertinent to human well-being (and not how many angels can dance of the head of a pin, or whether information disappears in a black hole (based on the axiom of "the conservation of information", required by quantum mechanics but sounds dicey to me).
@@kimmotoivanen most people who care to install the ext miss the one useful facet of dislikes functionality, namely - the "BS-meter". Since this video does grossly misrepresents both her character and intentions - there are a lot of ext-users who did dislike it. so the ratio is most probably higher than if it would be, if the dislikes were a core-thing. yet it is telling nevertheless.
I don't understand all this, but I understand her view that revealing the secrets of the universe requires empirical evidence, not just mathematical modelling.
Well good luck observing empirical evidence from e.g. colliding galaxies - it can take _really_ long time even after you find one in progress. I hope you reserved enough tea and biscuits to share with her 😉 (Odd-looking galaxies were explained, with computers and mathematical models, for the rest of us) Without theories and models explaining *how* , empirical evidence of *what* doesn't always tell us *why* . Curiosity should be a good thing in general. Without mathematical modelling and computers and theoretical science, I wonder how far back in technology we would be. At most transistors, but hey - no internet 👍
@@kimmotoivanen "Well good luck observing empirical evidence from e.g. colliding galaxies" - and if I had a hypothesis that could only be tested by observing colliding galaxies, that would be a real problem for me.
@@kimmotoivanen Your counter argument sounds quite plausible too, but with sufficient hauteur you could persuade me to believe just about any scientific idea given my low level of understanding of physics and maths.
@@MrCodlin Be it secrets of the universe or secrets of physics, there will be problems that cannot be tested (without e.g. needing particle accelerator close to the size of the universe). Do we give up on "difficult" science and _force others to stop_ their studies? To me that sounds too deep dystopia (possible under control of religious or dumb dictators) to want. It's not about everyone needing to understand sciences, and it never can be! (I'd rather _cast away_ with a good person than a good scientists 🤨) It's about basic skill (hunch, reading person, whatever it can be called) of getting what's true / trustworthy / plausible, and what's fake or tries to use you. It's not always easy (I'm not going to politics, but lots of BS there 😅) but it can be done. It's not about who arguments the best, it's about who has supported facts (I'm not going to climate change, but vast majority of researchers lean on one side 😉). Asking questions is always good 👍 Questioning needs some facts to back up 🙂 I could recommend Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson (and _Lord_ Nice, what a couple) for different view on cosmology and smaller things.
@@MrCodlin Well, that's the issue that made her so famout in the first place. She sounds very plausible on a surface level. But if someone wants to convince me of anything, I'd first ask, why they would want to do that. Is it really to inform the public or could there be other intentions? In her case: She uses her own scepticism to weaken the foundation of our scientific construct. Why? Maybe because she did not find her place in the system and now has a bit of a bias against it because of that. Not to say that the system is flawless - far from it - but blindly tearing it all down is going from one extreme to the other. Then there is the chance she gets a lot of money out of this. She is a prolific author and her shockingly regular videos (which increases the chance she didn't do much research herself) get millions of views and often have a promo link. If her goal was truly to inform, her content wouldn't be seen so controversial, from people that follow her and automatically oppose anything or anyone that's in conflict with her, over those that just mock those like our dear Dave, to people like Mr Verse that are worried about this polarising development.
An imbedded ad hominem... Hm... The fallacy of sabine = the fallacy she uses. Ad hominem referrs to the irrelevance of a response to an argument that focuses attention on a person over the argument, often the person making the argument, so that it appeals to the emotions of people to then dismiss their argument. I dont see that happening here.
Praising her with faint criticism? It's pretty normal for scientists to be wrong. It's pretty normal for teachers to be wrong. It's pretty normal for bold and confident statements to be wrong. She states her opinions and makes assertions as fact just like a normal scientist or teacher. I disagree with her or am skeptical of her views often but I don't have a problem with it because _that is normal_! If you expect never to disagree with your sources then you have serious problems with your approach to information. She should keep doing it her way and her audience should be skeptical, because that is a healthy relationship.
She's not the only physicist who says it's a waste of time to discuss the Information Paradox for black holes. Since we'll never be able to measure it, it'll be untestable. It's a "Yeah, may be".
Mr. Verse claim seem to be that since it's (currently) impossible to test, it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Could be a fair point, but it would be a better idea to leave it for now until we discover ways to test it, and spent our resources elsewhere for now. Otherwise it's just (random) maths.
If the paradox can tell us something new (possibly fundamental) about universe, it's well worth examining. It's not her money, after all. You never know where the next breakthrough comes from. Can you give example of science or research that needs so much resources that we should ignore other areas? (Climate change would be wrong answer: we already know why it happens (CO2), we know what will happen (generally worse than better, and worsens as we drag our feet) and what to do (stop using coal and oil). Now we just need to *do* something)
@@j.p.ijsblok5304 QUANTVERSE. Just like "professor" dave is not a professor, this is not MR verse, it's some VeRsiE69-nobody. This channel got renamed right after negative backlash from this video. He deleted the next video (which was about some science breakthroughs of 2024) where he got some more "feedback" from this video, too. >Being untestable< and >being "unable to test"< something is two COMPLETELY different statements - you not realising that is why people like dave and versie have any following whatsoever.
Althoug I am on Penrose's side on that argument, Sabine's criticism is ABSOLUTELY NOT simply ignorance of Penrose's thoughts or a lack of fact checking. She has her reasoned arguments. I can't say i fully understand them - and the reason I agree with Penrose is simply because I fully understand him. But Penrose is a pure mathematician at heart, as am i. Different mindsets bring different priorities to the analysis of complicated thought experiments. You do make some going points in this video, but I think the characterization of the dispute with Penrose as being the result of ignorance or lack of basic fact. checking is not fair at all.
Perhaps Sabine's usefulness is in trying to keep the science community accountable. Anyone dealing with reviewing scientific papers will tell you how much bad science, as in flawed process, is being done. Having a science qualification doesn't guaranty you'll follow the scientific method.
what is the point of this kind of smear? wtf is with that idiotic overdubbing of Sabina at the beginning. Do you want people to not take you seriously?
Yeah sorry but she's right about Ph.D's in this century. I've been an engineer for decades, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of theses written this century that I found useful and applied in my work. But I can tell you of entire LEGIONS of "doctors" whose ego is exponentially disproportionate to their actual competence. The fact is, the more science progresses, the harder the questions become, but human intelligence doesn't grow on the same curve. So what's a Ph.D student to do ? Spend half his career working on a complex problem that can benefit everyone, with no hope of actually finding an answer ? Or find a question no one yet had found important enough to answer, and just waste three years of their lives on it ?
The guy at the end makes a terrible point. We research far more fundamental assumptions like the problem of deduction but somehow an assumption of statistical independence is untouchable? What??????
Tim Maudlin? He´s not even physicist, but philosopher, and this guy calls him one of the greatest experts of quantun mechanics😂I met maudlin personally at an lecture in London a year ago and had a short talk with him. He´s incredible biased "fighter" for non locality.
The system of funding and university ranking has pervert effects in all domains of science. That is wat Hossenfelder says. The industrial production of academic papers has nothing to do with science are knowledge sharing, but with university ranking, hence with funding. If you want references to your paper, you should also refer to your academic friends, so you get reciprocal referrals. It has become a void system comparable with the recommendations on linkedin. Physics has been a science that described and explained what we saw in nature. Now physics must describe and explain that what we cannot see, it becomes a world of phantasy, living in an ivory tower, this should be avoided, but has contaminated many domains of science.
Good for Sabine! She’s a disrupter. She keeps lazy institutional scientists on their toes. If she’s wrong, what’s the big deal. You say that because she has so many followers, she has a "responsibility". No. She has so many followers because she's an excellent disrupter and she knows her stuff. She opens a space for us to assess all information. Go Sabine! We love you❤
Obviously she does not know always her stuff, but she likes to talk about it nevertheless. It is one thing to communicate science, it is another of judge it in the public without having any reputation or credibility. The time of Leibniz and Gauss is long gone, guys who could easily shine in different topics of math, physics and applied science. „Schuster, bleib bei Deinem Leisten“ oder „Weniger, aber dafür Reifes“, liebe Sabine!
"Love her or hate her, we have to learn to live with her." The best way to learn to live with her is to produce better scientific arguments and, above all, produce experimental results to validate those arguments. Jaw-jawing is just half of science. Experiment-experimenting is the other half. "The experimentalists must close the loopholes."
So around 11:00 Prof. Dave says her arguments are "tasteless" and so on. But that is not an argument. Are we talking about taste or something tangible? Very poor choice of video to motivate the argument. I hope the full video being quoted actually has something more substantial. But this one fails to prove certain things by choosing parts of other video that don't actually bring anything to the discussion. Finally, as someone else observed, how does the fallacy of appealing to a higher institution of Maudlin help bringing down her arguments? If it's supposed to show her fallacies, it would be better not trying to fall into other fallacies while trying to do so. It really weakens the argument.
@@JosefK-ud8io Inappropriate - in what way? Does every dave follower have this fallacy of thinking that she should actively try to "decrypt" their badly-made points just to help you cope with reality? Dave is clearly a nobody, just like a guy who changes his channel name after first wave of backlash (Quantverse -> mrverse -> Professor Verse? what comes next?). His opinion is worth nothing, just like his "support" for the case of dishonesty.
this is completely beside the point. No one needs to present equal numbers in supporters and defenders of a theory, except those who want to impartially report on that particular subject. But please read the title of this video. Its not about that theory and no one is obligated to portrait unproven (and ridiculous) fringe hypotheses in the same light as established theory.
Less that's she's right and more that she's asking the right questions about scientific matters too long considered sacrosanct. And, what bothers them the most, is she doesn't do it for social reasons, but scientific ones. So out come the personal attacks and bandwagons.
BS. I watched some videos of her, and i found in every single one of them fundamental failures in understanding, fallacies and im not even counting the many inaccuracies.
@@shadesmarerik4112 Great!!!! Listen to what she says on a subject. If it make sense. Great. If not that great too. Call it BS, ignore it, and move on to the next topic. If every time you listen to her she says something that is BS to you then stop listening to her. Call her crackpot if you wish. But as a scientist the absolute worst sin you can make is to dismiss a fellow scientist because the pack bayed crackpot. Unfortunately this is SOP in academia. Listen and make your own independent assessment.
@@williejohnson5172 thats not how science works. Its not how rationality works. And u are strawmanning by implying that "academia" is committing "sin" by dismissing a "fellow scientist" because reasons that u cant even articulate.
@@shadesmarerik4112 Here we go. Another ignorant sheep gossiper whose only affiliation with academia is serving toast in a school cafeteria. You keyboard scholars keep proving my point. You and your ilk immediately go for the ad hominem instead of focusing on the science. It is no accident that Sabine has such a large following because she sees, as does those of us who have retained our common sense, that "academia" has lost its way. It had better find its way soon because AI sweeps with a very new and very broad broom.
I have no issue with anyone challenging any of Hossenfelder's positions. I'm in no position to take sides on any of this stuff. However wackos will glom onto anything that ostensibly seems to support them, and I don't think that she's at all responsible for said folks. It's really up to viewers to decided how they feel about positions presented in her videos, and I don't think her larger viewership give her any added responsibility. She should be free to state her positions in any way she likes, the same as anyone else.
If she increases controversy and plays by science-deniers to gain more followers and money, I'd say she takes responsibility. She has options to choose how she phrases and presents her claims. Freedom of speech is never without obligation and responsibility.
@@kimmotoivanen I've seen no evidence she "plays by [sic] science-deniers to gain more followers and money". That's pretty subjective. You may disagree with her. She may even be completely wrong on some things. But that's the nature of this medium. In fact, that's the nature of free speech.
@@kimmotoivanen What a terrible take! you should be held accountable for that comment, too, until the end of your life, if someone misinterprets it (and the channel grows to 500 million in 10 days) - I'll be the first person to call you a "science denier".
She is very intelligent and more importance she 'questions' all these scientific papers that seem to come out like weeds on a hot summer day are are full of all kinds of suppositions. The one thing she does which is very important is to question theories that provide no observable proof. She also explains her beliefs.
Unnecessary. If you are in these fields, then form your own opinion. If not, then this is as spurious as the claim vs. Hossenfelder, because you are not in a position to evaluate the critique.
Sabine Hossenfelder is an extraordinary science educator overall, and a refreshing breath of fresh air and honesty that I literally never thought I would ever see. All the bull dung areas she exposes about science, research and academia are things I saw first-hand studying sciences at Berkeley then working in technology R&D, development, sales and marketing for many years. She is weak outside of her area as @nostooge observes, but she is the first scientist to expose in public what I saw going on behind the scenes a good number of times. Kudos to her. There are too many party-liners like "Professor" Dave who don't want embarrassing truths told about science and scientists because it shatters the image of 'always objective analysis' they want to keep intact -- which doesn't exist past certain points -- while they criticize religion for doing the exact same flawed things they themselves do so often. Every discipline has faults, flaws, ignorance, weaknesses, blindness and phonies -- including religion AND science. Whatever her weaknesses in some areas, she's strong in her field and does a great job explaining what is solid science, what is speculation and what is gamesmanship and even fraud. That's necessary for every area -- including science.
You can tell Sabine isn't really committed to Superdeterminsm. It's just a logically defensible alternative to showing favor toward any of the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, not to mention the only way left to nullify Bell's Theorem. Superdeterminsm is a perfectly unassailable premise - once you admit the possibility of predestination, nothing short of magic is off the table.
'only way left to nullify Bell's Theorem'. Not sure what this means. But if it is about locality. There is two ways, for a local quantum reality, Many Worlds and Superdeterminsm. And nether of these in any way, nullify Bell's Theorem, as they are solutions, like non-locality to Bell's Theorem.
@@yziib3578 Bell's Theorem makes the assumption of Measurement Independence, i.e. that an experimenter is free to make measurement choices that cannot be statistically correlated with any previous event. Superdeterminism violates this assumption, nullifying the predictions of Bell's Theorem. Many Worlds claims that no experimenter is able to make any specific choice, which I suppose is par for the course with MWI.
@@QuicksilverSG Bell's Theorem is based on 3 assumption and you described one of them,. And based on the experiments one of them has to be wrong. Based on your logic, non-locality nullifies the locality assumption. So there is now 3 ways , may be more, to nullify Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Superdeterminsm and Non-locality. I prefer, using solution, instead of nullifies.
@@yziib3578 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Bell's Theorem lists both of these loop holes as "Supplementary Assumptions", i.e. taken for granted in the main body of the theorem, which is primarily concerned with matters of locality and causality. The Superdeterminism and MWI exceptions aren't targeted specifically at Bell's Theorem, they have broader implications that undermine the validity of the scientific method in general.
Magic has no explanatory or predictive power, scientific theories should have both, and that's why magic is not scientific. Your position is basically asserting that there exist no superdeterministic theories that have both explanatory and predictive power. What is the basis for this conclusion?
The real problem is not what Sabine says, but how it is perceived by various parties. I totally understand that the way she communicates makes it very easy to get triggered if your world view is built around those positions she criticises, but in none of her videos she claims that she is right and everyone with a different opinion is wrong. That said, I think it is very important that we hold ourselves accountable for our claims and therefor I think this video is very important, but the criticism towards Sabine in this video feels a lot like emotionally driven than fact based. Just saying "that's stupid", "that's insane" or "that's misleading" is not a scientific way to deal with criticism.
I think there is a lot of hate towards her because people love living in illusions that she ruthlessly destroys time after time. Even her anti-scientific notions come from a place of clear materialism, pragmatism and realism. If she criticizes science you can be always sure that it comes from a place of care and her desire for science to stay science.
I completed my Ph.D. in 2012, not in physics but in computer science. When her mentor demanded that she do his work for him, she was justified in her frustration. This happens to many Ph.D. students. I have even published papers where I should have been the sole author, but that was not deemed acceptable. She is also correct about the crisis in science. Issues such as the rise of predatory journals, fake citations, and the repeated publishing of the same work with little to no additional value contribute to this problem. Moreover, the farther east you go from Germany, the more frequently you encounter fake researchers employed full-time at universities, treating their academic roles as merely another source of income (often smaller than what they could earn in the private sector). As a result, even the value of university degrees is experiencing inflation (beside the best universities in top 500). But to be honest, even people in US that studied in IT have now big problems to get a job. 10 or 15 years ago it was a different story.
I believe the biggest reason for believing her position on academia is the saturation of academia. There's an old saying that carries alot of truth. "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Many years ago in school teachers and professors did research after their job, which was teaching. Now they have grad students and assistance teach while they do research, with grants, of course. You very seldom see a research professor in class. That's what I believe she is partially trying to say. Having a grant for the purposes of research is one thing, doing research for the purposes of grants is quite another.
I don't understand - why the hit piece? There's loads of science communicators out there and she's very much one of the better ones. She speaks her mind, that's good.
Because he needed to change his channel name, so he created this dogpiss, waited for obvious negative backlash and then renamed his dogself to mrverse.
you kind of lost me with statement regarding "anti vaccine movement". I mean this is a discussion about scientific approaches, how to communicate them and the purpose of communication. In retrospective the "anti vaccine movement" had some very good arguments which have been dismissed by unplausible scientific approaches. I think it's fair to discuss about those things. And obviously this is neither a statement against vaccination in general and also not covid vaccination specifically
Im not antivax but my wife had very severe side effects (18 months off work) from the covid vaccines. Some of her friends in their late 30s also had some bad side effects that lasted a few months. The only people that helped my wife were her cardiologists, her General doctor was afraid to discuss or even report the issue with her. To this day I dont think anything was learned (but I hope Im wrong) because many side effects were unreported because they were an inconvenience at the time when we needed "herd immunity". My other fear is that the uptake of safe childhood vaccines will now drop in future due to the dismissal and poor treatment of covid vaccine injuries.
Why are most clips of her taken out of context and very short, one sentence clips that could be easily misunderstood? Because this channel wants to discredit her. Why? Money. It's always money.
your video raises some valid points about the responsibility that comes with having a large platform, but many of your criticisms seem to fall into the same traps you accuse Hossenfelder of - oversimplification, provocative framing, and selective interpretation of evidence
You think that real damage is that brilliant prople will stop wasting their time on failure that is string "theory"? By what logic you reached that conclusion? And how do I ban the channel so I will avoid seeing even more such nonsense in the future?
Just to return to this again. Who are you Mr Verse? Sabine is very open about her career and you are....? A pseudonym that puts out a hit piece to gain engagement perhaps?
dave should stop teaching highschoolers and try tasting a bit of the academia horrors before commenting on sabine. Sabine isn't always right and consistent but she is very true about the injustice being done to science by these capitalists.
Sabine has not made it 🤣 in fact, i can't really think of a greater parody of their former and better self. So at the least, she deserves some mockery. A bit! At least as much as she's (literally) baiting and asking for :P
@Zantsak - Right…like Sabine’s absurd wannabee claim that Roger Penrose is wrong. Thanks for illustrating that point. I appreciate much of what she says, but her inability to understand complexity (as in _complex systems_ ) seriously affects her perspective on many subjects, especially consciousness and climate change. Her negative experience in academia is undeniable, and she’s right about string “theory”, which has never been more than a hypothesis.
I think Sabine Hossenfelder's marketing is clever. I've seen at least 2 channels criticizing her in a way that would drive more views and subscriptions to her channel. This video has many links to her videos. From my experience, her videos are pretty additive. You have been warned! 🙂
A lot of half educated YTers hopping on the "we debunk Sabine" - train currently, begging fro clicks from her famous name. But Sabine is not only a great scientist and leading mathematician, she´s a very foxy communicator too. I love it.
19:34 Although I enjoyed your video in general, this is a section in which you failed miserably. If you wanted to show Maudlin's reaction, you should have also delved more deeply in Sabine's papers first. While you claim in your title Sabine is committing a fallacy, here you actually fall into a deep fallacy by dismissing her arguments with someone's opinions on her ideas. I don't care if he's an expert, that's a fallacy by authority.
I was going to complain about not a professor dave cause he’s a total moron but now I gotta ask Does this guy know the difference between a fallacy and just being wrong? I don’t think he does.
oh yea... ignore the arguments in this video and just spread emotion-based assertions. Where is the video disingenuous? Since the videos quotes several of SH's videos its quite interesting that u >feel< that it discredits SH. I think so, too. Her own videos discredit her, no other videos are needed for that purpose alone.
The biggest watershed moment in recent history showcasing the cracks/failure of the academic system was when actual A.I. generated images managed to “some how” make it through peer review and into actual science textbooks, completely exposing that things are getting rubber stamped through peer review without being…reviewed by peers. 🤷🏽♂️
The great and incomparable "Professor" Dave was dragged out for polemical weight against Sabine Hossenfelder. Absolutely surreal, what rabbit hole have I fallen in? Does this video prove parallel universes, or merely the null hypothesis of its own thesis?
i'm very happy this video exists. i once really liked her content, but i've been having this feeling that she is consistently becoming more and more controversial, to the point i can't believe in her anymore, at least when it comes to controversial topics... But idk, maybe i'm just too easy to influence, but i was starting to think i'm crazy, so it's nice that there's someone to actually do this research and put everything together. Thank you dude
what kind of a comment is that, "dude"? xD You are happy that some unrealised jobless person roasted some creator on the internet (that you don't like now)? "fallacy of sabine" or "biasness of every single dumb person who has nothing to say", what's more apparent here? Also, that seems like a generic comment because you praise the quality of research and editing, like what the fk? There is not even a poll needed in the comments to see, that he had no real points and the quality of visuals was subpar. I'd love your answer. YT admin
Well, I like watching Sabine - just to move the question out of the way who's side I'm on. But what I want to tell here is that you're also committing a fallacy: Argument by authority. That is just as invalid as other things you're accusing Sabine of. And for my personal opinion: Especially Penrose seems way past his prime. He was a disrupting genius once but I don't see how he can have for example any evidence to provide for his theory that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon especially at a time where we seem close to build either a philosophical zombie or the real thing. Being vehement on that matter just shows a lack of flexibility.
It’s called freedom of speech. Sabine is not perfect as all of us. Sabine was forced to media because of issues with academia. Now that she’s successful you’re still not satisfied.
@@Aikman94 It´s attacked though by a lot of hate spreaders, who hop on the "We debunk Sabine"-train currently. Either they want to benefit from her success or they are fearful of her growing influence, that´s obvious.
@@Thomas-gk42 Surely, u are aware that those people criticizing SH have freedom of speech, too? Freedom of speech is attacked by exercising freedom of speech? What clown argument is this?
@@shadesmarerik4112 Everyone has free speech, right? My personal problem is not criticism but lies, quotes out of context and insults, the matrix of this video and the following.
She meets the needs of her audience - who may not all be completely scientifically literate. There are worse UA-cam channels and I suspect there are many people, like myself, who benefit far more than they lose by watching her videos. If any one UA-cam channel had all the answers there would be little point watching the rest. I am not aware such a channel exists and we all have the option to take an alternative opinion as and when we choose. After your video some people may well do that but, ultimately, it doesn't change much.
@@Thomas-gk42 Counting the number of replies you did nearly to every post that is critical about her lets me wonder, if it is not you who has a big crush on her.
@@vietvooj Haha, who knows, but I´m bored in hospital, so why not use my time for something useful, like debunking suckers? Yes Dr. Sabine does an important job, honest, smart and couragous. She´s a gift for humanity in this world gone mad.
Parsimoniousness in good science requires you to start with underreaching, not overreaching, which you can then amplify by more good evidence, if any shows up.
@@bookashkin how many scientist-hours went down that rabbit-hole for fear of doing something 'less promising'. I was blown away to hear Susskind's admission that String Theory had, in summation, underwhelmed, and had not even proven it was relevant. That DeSitter Space statement was flat out damning. A definite Red-Pill.
The Motte and Bailey "fallacy" is what ought to happen when people overstate the case and listen to critiques, acknowledge the critiques as reasonable, and so amend their position to a restrained position that is closer to the truth. Isn't that what people are supposed to do when confronted with new evidence or strong counter-arguments? The contrary attitude to double-down seems to be the greater fallacy. In fact, neither doubling down, nor retreat, themselves are necessarily logical fallacies, but perhaps are psychological biases. Still, it seems that the Motte and Bailey fallacy is probably a better rule of thumb to follow than stubbornness. Of course, it depends on the quality of the counter evidence and counter arguments proposed, but probabilistically, it is more likely to be the strategy that results in getting closer to the truth than stubbornness. If the Motte and Bailey Fallacy is in some way significantly different from what prudent but open-minded discourse is, please correct me. I'm open to that possibility. EDIT: Upon looking up the Motte and Bailey Fallacy, yes it is a fallacy when equivocations and straw men are involved. I do feel the reason it is a fallacy wasn't adequately explained when mentioned in the video.
My thoughts exactly. I've never heard of this "fallacy" before watchin this dumb hit-piece. I don't see any bias in this, that's a procedure that a sciency-person would use to assess reality. Yet it is listed as a fallacy, so in my ignorance (not checking throughly on the web) I thought there is some way a non-smart person can be made sure it is real. Main point for smart ppl: WE KNOW HOW STUPID WE ARE. That's why we Dunning-Kruger ourselves and let IDIOTS control so many areas of life. Like, we make it acceptable for an idiot dave to make another hit-piece when he is clearly outgunned and never had a single measurable argument. I don't like the world we live in.
Gravity cannot be quantized because gravity is not a force, and there is no such thing as a singularity. Nobody has physically demonstrated singularities to exist. There is no reason to believe that singularities exist, not even in black holes, because curvature of space is caused by the non-zero presence of matter. Gravity is merely and ONLY curvature of space; gravity is not a force but merely redirection or reflection of kinetic energy. NOTHING is inside a black hole, not even existence of space or spatial dimensions; all of its matter that cause curvature of space is contained in its event horizon surface. Time effectively stops at the event horizon surface, so nothing can "fall" inside the black hole. As matter gets nearer to the event horizon surface, it decelerates extremely requiring trillions of years to move a few centimeters. The curvature of space is concentrated at the event horizon surface due to time dilation. The outside of the black hole is a sphere, and the inside is an inverted sphere that pushes outwards the incoming matter. There is no loss of information, because all of the matter that causes curvature of space is contained in the event horizon surface. The event horizon surface of the black hole is an "edge" of the universe reality. Gravity is merely the curvature of space as it is "pushed out of the way" by matter. Gravity is not a force, but only the reflection or redirection of kinetic energy that is already in the matter. That's why objects of unequal mass will accelerate at the same rate under the influence of gravity. If gravity was a force that was imparting its energy into objects, then the objects of differing mass would not accelerate at the same rate. For objects of differing masses to fall at the same acceleration rate, they must be invested with differing kinetic energy relative to their masses by lifting the objects. Where did the original "lift" of kinetic energy come from? Cosmic inflation (also known as the "Big Bang") provided the original "lift" to invest the kinetic energy that is now in all matter in the universe. The question is whether cosmic inflation, which happened faster than the speed of light, was sufficient for the "escape velocity" to prevent future gravitational collapse of the universe? It seems to me that cosmic inflation was not an inertial frame of reference, so "escape velocity" has not happened, because it only applies to inertial frames of reference. The universe will ultimately collapse, causing an unending series of births and deaths. The universe is finite, unbounded, and eternal.
Wait you actually listen to anything "Professor" Dave says? I'm not even going to entertain the rest of this garbage video. Do something better with your life pal 👍
I really enjoy Sabine's videos. Sometimes she make statements that are too strong. Too bad, I leave a comment to that effect and continue to enjoy the rest. I love academia, being surrounded by smart people who are doing their best to make a better world for all through science and technology. The problem is that research is very inefficient and very competitive for funding. Sometimes this brings out the worst in people's characters. Our lifestyles today are a testament to the success of science. Sabine had some rather unfortunate personal experiences, and that accounts for some of the negativity. Her criticisms should always be welcome, even if sometimes incorrect.
10:23 There is zero evidence to suggest that the jab had any beneficial effects whatsoever. Anyone who says otherwise is going off of the assumption that it would have been worse without the jab, but there is zero evidence to suggest that either. This is all recorded data that is publicly available, and some people have been trying to raise awareness to this fact. Please do look into this, if you think that I'm wrong.
It is seductive to be contrarian and downright addictive to be contrarian about topics you know nothing about. Because not only does it allow you arrogance : 'thinking for yourself', it also wipes away any negative feelings about not being good at something yourself. All we ever see is top athletes, beautiful people and people that always seem to find the right words on the media we consume. Sometimes us mere mortals want to feel special too. Contrarianism provides this.
I have observed pettiness within academia first hand and while it is unnecessarily obstructive it does not invalidate the work performed under it. I do not enjoy Sabine's videos as much as anymore, sometimes skipping them all together, even though she still does have valuable insights to convey.
what is the point of this 20 + min. post.? if you disagree with Sabina just produce your own counter arguments, don't just stoop to shooting the messenger, just produce your counter arguments and see who we believe.
The scientific orthodoxy is no different from religious orthodoxy. Both are insane when you keep getting results that you don't like. Sabine is a beautiful woman in more ways than one.
@jamaljohnson2414 "sabine is a beautiful woman in more ways than one" wrote a guy on the internet to a lady he will never meet and who will never even read it...and then mentioned something about emotional needs
Hey, Sabine falls for fallacies, because she is human… like he who instead of looking at her papers quote some random dude ranting about random stuff… seriously, the first 90% of your videos I thought you were being honest 😂
The major problem I see is that she makes statements about how academia is broken, but she is not referring to academia as a whole, but physics in particular. She should level her critique specifically to physics - she has little knowledge about other branches of science. I guess physicists believe that physics is the one and only true science, but I beg to disagree.
Four quick points:
1) I agree that SH is an excellent science communicator on topics with broad consensus, and within her training.
2) I observe that she is a disaster when addressing topics outside of her expertise. In particular, her videos on AI have been shallow, naive, and uniformed.
3) She is correct that most of academia is bullshit, but I believe this is a superficial and naive observation. Most things, in or out of academia, are bullshit. Maybe she's an idealist who believes universities are noble institutions where cerebral monks sequester themselves to seek enlightenment through the scientific method. Who knows? In any case, it's good for her *and* academia that she's self-employed because no institution, academic or otherwise, would pass her purity tests. I.e. she lacks meaningful context.
4) Science progresses funeral by funeral (w.p.), so relying on the eminence gris from various fields to put down the young turks is a fraught approach. Sadly, that's all we have until they're dead.
I have very much the same feel about her. I do watch her videos because when it actually something she knows about, they tend to be pretty good. But there are clearly areas where she is not so well versed. I mean we all have areas like that so that is not odd. But that is where humility is needed.
And one thing I find interesting is that her critique of academia has a lot to do with our economic model we are operating under. A model she seems to actually be in support of, so it is a bit weird that she is both against the BS in academia, yet not against the system that made it emerge. At least that is how I see it. I have not watched all of her videos, but I do feel she is not presenting much of an alternative either.
@guyg.8529 The public wants only that scientist to be a problem solving entity when and where that will arise. Until then they will solved the problem in other ways more suitable for them by economically and social mean like globalism. So unfortunately they don't care to much about the academics narratives and their sophisticated language. Some time they even laugh of them .
How has physics advanced in the last 75 years? The main problem is that the public believe scientists know, with a high degree of certainty, what they're talking about (when it's actually just speculation). Without a false belief in science, Covid wouldn't have been the fiasco it was. Where's the vaccine safety monitoring system now that all cause mortality is 25% above normal and rising? Where were the scientists when the world's leading intellectuals were calling for the unvaccinated to be starved? Or how about the global warming fiasco? Miami was supposed to be under water by year 2000.
She is so right about 2; naive is someone who thinks stochastic gradient descent can make a parrot made of sand suddenly 'intelligent', whatever this word means anyway, we don't really know
It goes without saying I can't really know what's inside her head or her actual intentions, but there are, to my view, some pretty alarming signs if you look at her UA-cam channel's history. I don't think it's a coincidence her viewership has catapulted almost as soon as she started with not only the anti-science, but also controvertial (I'm being generous here) videos about topics that are outside of her expertise, like the ones about trans issues and Capitalism, just to cite two of the most eggregious ones. This seems like a consorted effort to expand her channel viewership, likely in search of a bigger financial return. It can't be a coincidence that she happened all of a sudden to mimic many of the alt right talking points, while trying to keep the facade of being reasonable (so she would not lose too much of her previous audience either). And it makes her particularly hipocritical when she complains that Academia is all about making money and then proceeds to make a sophomoric, outdated video about how Capitalism is great, while cashing in with her new alt-right, conservative audience.
It seems to me she's very successfully taping into all sorts of "single issue" audiences, and you can clearly see that from all the comments defending her. Most defend her because she voices their own discontent with Academia, warranted or not, no matter all her other faults. The same can be said of people who have been drawn to her because of he stances on politics or economics - they don't really care about how good her science is or isn't , as long as they see her as an ally.
I once subscribed to her, aside from what I thought was for the most part good science communication, because of her silly videos dancing and singing - I thought it was nice to see someone in the field that seemingly did not take herself too seriously. But as I saw her reactions to the increased and well reasoned criticism, I started to doubt her sincerity in regard to that as she is apparently incapable of aknowledging when she makes a blunder, constantly resorting to the motte-and-bailey method mentioned in the video - it's always that other people misunderstood her, never that she actually made a mistake.
In the end, that made me start to doubt even her takes on her field of expertise, until I finally unsubscribed. What I think is something she does not mind at all, considering how well she's doing with her new public.
Cheers!
Sabine's view on Science is quite simple- there is a lot of BS research that is funded unnecessarily and people mostly rely on the quantity of papers and the number of citations that a person has rather than a few extraordinary works. And when she means that science or Physics is halted or has not made any progress, she simply means that we haven't had any major breakthroughs. She single-handedly knocks down the pseudoscience surrounding physics. What's the problem with that?
I agree with your comment.
So now science has to make major breakthroughs every single set amount of years or it should be discarded for something else? Progress is progress even when small and incremental, just because there haven't been major breakthroughs it doesn't mean science is halted
The problem is 1) It's incredibly unintelligent statement to make and 2) what is the point? what is her alternative? and 3) who made her the great judge of what is BS and what is extraordinary/pseudoscience? All she is is a contrarian/antiestablishment grifter with an oversized ego to match. She can call me when she releases her next "world changing" discovery, or is it more likely she will claim "why should I do research if academia/the establishment will conspire against me?" The answer is obvious. And does anyone honestly think she was fired back in her academia days because she "spoke truth to power" and they retaliated against her? Kind of like in jail, everyone is innocent and no one committed any crimes. Sure, Jan, but maybe we should hear the other side of the story and not just yours.
Well summarised.
The "experts" seem to think everyone else is dumb. We _(the public)_ don't automatically believe everything we hear, in a kind of "whoever gets to our ears first wins" game. We actually process the information.
...hence the massive loss of trust in the scientific institutions. Ppl aren't dumb.
Sabine claimed atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude because gravity decreases with altitude. She is a paid influencer who turns off her brain and promotes lies dressed in a lab coat … for the money. Sabine is dishonest
Sabine and I both worked with Walter Greiner. He was "special", especially with women. To be fair, there haven't been many to get used to, and still are not. Her life wasn't easy for sure.
Some people hate that Sabine takes their illusions away. Illusions like independent science that doesn't care if there is funding for a topic, isn't willing to work towards expected results, doesn't "tune" results to be published in mainstream journals that tend to filter what they publish heavily. Illusions like scientists would give up a topic they can still get funding for, just because it's not going anywhere. I think she deserves respect for this, not hate.
Science isn't democracy, consensus doesn't play a role, but hard, provable data. This is being forgotten, Sabine is right to remind us of it.
Thanks for your perspective.
I don't like her not because she takes illusions away but because she sometimes forcing her own illusions without any proof. She became too opinionated, especially outside of her expertise
@Nat-oj2uc afaik nobody forces anybody to watch UA-cam videos. I don't think it's healthy to dislike people because of their opinions differing from ones own. Especially as Sabine makes clear what is her opinion or assessment and what the facts are.
@@BlueSideUp then nobody forces you to believe the illusions she's trying to take away. You simping
@Nat-oj2uc I don't agree with everything Sabine concludes from the facts available to her. I treat her channel like every other source of information. I consider it's bias and filter, and use it to create my own flawed picture and theory of the world. That's all we can do, isn't it?
I am in the middle of a Ph.D. in beyond-the-Standard-Model physics (BSM), trying to figure out what dark matter is from the perspective of particle physics and cosmology. I started this journey with the goal and illusion of becoming an academic, but as time progressed, I realized I was just getting burnt out and not achieving my goals, given that, as we know, theoretical physics is a highly competitive environment with little funding. Then, I encountered Sabine's content and resonated a lot with it, especially with the fact that BSM physics is stagnating due to the lack of technology to test the overabundant theoretical proposals. It came as the slight impulse that made me realize that pursuing an academic path is not worth it for me, and I will always be grateful to her for that.
I recommend to read her excellent book "Lost in Math", if you didn´t.
I get where she's coming from. I made the same choices, but far earlier in my career. I was offered the chance to get a PhD and be a professor -- essentially becoming like the people I was working for. I didn't want to do that. That wasn't my calling. So I finished my Master's degree and thanked them for the offer of a PhD, but I knew it wouldn't make me happy. Now that I'm retired, I'm absolutely sure I made the right choice.
It's a tough choice. There's this illusion that you can "have it all" -- work, career, marriage, children. But the truth is you have to prioritize what is important to YOU. Otherwise you may end up with a lot of nothing.
Can you imagine how pursuing a theology degree must feel? " due to the lack of technology to test the overabundant theoretical proposals"
mikefinucane6687
Don't be ridiculous
@@mikefinucane6687 Buddy, that is so stupid. To bring that into a physics chat under the premise of a PHD is just banal.
I don't think this is a very effective critique of Hossenfelder. Some of her videos are magnificent, how she manages to explain extremely complex subjects. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and scientists argue about stuff all the time. Saying that she is "anti-science" because of the clickbait thumbnails is not a strong argument. Perhaps she should allow contrary viewpoints in her videos more, considering the size of her audience. Her argument with Penrose looks like one of those spats between scientists that one reads about years later. I assume Penrose is right since he got the nobel prize, but I'm certainly not able to check the math to see which of them is right... I actually really love Penrose's kooky ideas he came up with more recently.
Anyway- it's good that we have science communicators like Hossenfelder.
"Saying because she is "anti-science" because of the clickbait thumbnails is not a strong argument".
She clearly panders to the "anti-mainstream' conspiracy theory-minded people with those thumbnails and titles, but it's not just that - as professor Dave's video explains some of the stuff she said in her videos is very much driving the "science is failing/doomed" narrative and not just for some areas of science (like theoretical physics, whether that's true or not) but just in general.
@@TheCabIe Sabine Hossenfelder wants science to adhere to the highest standards of rigor. Anti-mainstream people will find zero support for their views in her videos. Her viewers are pro-science.
"Clickbait" works in the complete opposite way. You see a video that looks possible anti-science, so you click on it, wondering "Has Sabine lost her mind??", and when you watch it, you realize, "No. She hasn't."
@@dannylad2774 but when her own standards of rigor are not existent by spewing ideology, clickbaiting, and fundamental mistakes in most of her videos, then it is very much in doubt, if she may even claim standards for others, let alone for all of science.
I talked with viewers of this show and i can confirm, that most of her viewers have the physics knowledge of an infant. And theres always a huge amount of science deniers under them. Your assertions have been rejected.
u are relativising abject failures in the fundamental understanding on the topics she discusses. She is not a science communicator, shes a stain on the community. Also u are committing a fallacy by strawmanning the argument. She is not anti-science because of some clickbait, shes anti-science because she claimed to be in much of her content.
@@dannylad2774 how you seen the amount of climate change deniers in her comment section? Its like 90% of her comments by now lmao
What’s the fallacy? What was your point? You took over 20 minutes to say absolutely nothing of consequence about her.
He just gave a fancy name to the Argument from Authority fallacy 😅
The fallacy is that UA-cam video titles have something to do with their content.
The actual fallacy is the UA-cam algorithm promoting this AI-voiced video because it extracts a lot of watchtime from keeping viewers expecting the video to say something of consequence for 20 minutes straight. And these comments (mine included) also show this video drives engagement
That is fitting as she rarely says anything of consequence.
He described a rhetorical device that she uses ("motte and bailey argument"), and then gave very specific instances where she used it (black hole information paradox, Penrose's Nobel Prize).
I agree with Dr. Sabine sometimes and disagree with her at other times-that’s exactly what scientists do (or should do). In fact, I think it’s fantastic that she’s publicly expressing her theories online, where they can be critiqued. This public discourse can encourage scientists-who sometimes struggle to communicate their findings effectively-to engage with a broader audience. Science can be a force for both good and evil, but overall, it’s one of humanity's most valuable things.
People often get anxious when dissenting views or criticisms are expressed, and they immediately assume such critiques undermine science. However, most people are capable of making reasonable judgments, and when presented with different arguments, we should respect their autonomy and their right to make their own decisions and the ability to accept the consequences. Reasonable people don’t undermine science; they challenge weak arguments. Even the smartest people and scientists I know sometimes make flawed arguments, but what sets them apart is their willingness to adjust when new information shows their reasoning is off.
I also think science sometimes paradoxically risks doing harm by insisting too rigidly on “do no harm.” Life inherently involves risk. For example, driving a car enhances our daily lives, yet we accept the possibility of injury or worse every time we get behind the wheel. Progress often requires accepting these risks and navigating them thoughtfully.
I mostly agree, except that reasonable laypeople can be easily influenced into the wrong conclusions simply because they don't understand what is being discussed. I guess the solution is for more scientists to be more active in communicating to the public, and even then channels like Sabine's will always have more viewers than some professor who makes in depth videos about topics within their field.
"Most people are capable of making reasonable judgements"
Umm most people are NOT capable of making reasonable judgements about different theories of the fundamentals of physics. She is cleatly cultivating a community of anti-establishment science denying viewers. For money. It's a grift. Sure, she still has some good videos from time to time, but as an ex subscriber of hers, I don't miss it and can get good physics content elsewhere
Pointing out that modern "science" is unscientific bunk that is untrustworthy is a defense of real science.
The idea that "science" is a sacrosanct thing is dangerous cultism that undermines actual science. It's a form of "my mother, drunk or sober".
@@cameronmclennan942 Why cause she talks about how particle physics is a dead end and how we should stop spending so much money on bigger colliders?
@@cameronmclennan942 Funny, I too unsubscribed about a year ago, but for a different reason. I started getting this feeling that it was not just her anymore, making videos about what she's passionate about, but that there was now a "team" behind her.
Mostly I noticed it in the subjects of her videos, not about physics and/or more "socially/politically relevant" themes (usually showing how shallow her knowledge was on these); and also on the little jokes, it felt like it wasn't her humor anymore but some younger, edgy assistance writing them... In short, it didn't feel genuine anymore, unless it was about physics, and then you got the old Sabine back.
In some videos you could almost feel her unease about being there.
Since unsubscribing I watch the occasional video too, but only if it's about physics, the other ones just make me uncomfortable, like I'm watching a hostage video.
Science deniers quote Sabine when they can take a statement out of context to support their own beliefs. We already know they do that. It doesn't make her statements wrong or even misguided.
It does not make her assertions correct either, but it does explain why she makes so many videos, and they succeed in clicks.
Do u really want to contest that SH is a science denier, despite contrary evidence out of her own mouth?
How do you distingish between Penrose being right and Sabine being wrong?
You can't just ask Penrose if he's right about his thesises, right?
As much as I like Penrose and his work, you didn't provide good arguments for this situation.
I believe anyone will defend his life long projects, right?
Penrose has some pretty wacky ideas these days bordering on pseudoscience both conformal cyclic cosmology and especially Orch Or with that highly annoying Hameroff.
@@DavidKolbSantosh That's scientific progress for you. One has to push the boundaries of 'wackyness' to see if it is indeed wacky. Wegener's continental drift theory (back when) was roundly laughed at and regarded as 'wacky', but it appears that Wegener had a little more comprehension than others (okay, dissenting geologists aren't renowned for progressive thinking, but...). Most of the ideas will be wrong, but just occasionally one makes a breakthrough. It's good to think outside the box now and then.
He also didn't have any way to distinguish whether Tim Maudin critique of superdeterminism was valid or not (it's not).
Video was straight up using appeal to authority
@@Disillusioned-k1s I get what you mean, but today the situation is a bit different. Sabine is talking about hypothesis with zero data to support them, and especially those that already made predictions, failed, changed up their theory just to fail again. Take string theory fir example. Since at least 30 years they predict stuff that is never found. Then they "adjust" the theory, so that even more energy is needed in experiments, always slightly outside the current range. That money could be spent a lot better.
Wegener had enough evidence to convince me, but at that point in time his stuff sounded whack. Drifting continents? Seriously? And there was the church, which still had a lot of influence back then. They didn't like that one bit, i bet...
Two totally different cases.
@ True, and understood. String Theory is a prime example of a theory with no evidence 🙄.
I don't find appeal to authority to be a very convincing argument in this context. Her entire position is that some of the authorities are wrong, so cutting to a video of one of those authorities saying "No, she's wrong" doesn't really help us resolve whether she is correct.
Agreed here. Sabine is annoying but so is appeal to authority. So it goes.
"Instead of reading her papers..." then cut to Tim Maudin just saying he thinks it's crazy without giving an explanation.
@@TripDerve Sabine has already very extensively responded to Tim Maudin's critique of Superdeterminism. In her 2020 paper, "Rethinking Superdeterminism", she explained exactly why Statistical Independence is not a necessary precondition of doing science. Seems unfair that this video presented Tim Maudlin critiquing her viewpoint on superdeterminism without including Sabine's response to that critique.
I've actually read the full arguments from both Tim and Sabine and I find that Sabine's arguments are more persuasive.
Ar around 3:00 Quantverse highlights why Sabine once got fired and called her petty. What Sabine spoke of is very true. Post docs write most of the books and papers while Sr. Professors put their name on it. Your attempt to slander Sabine is what is actually petty. Sabine rightly calls out what academia and science have become. Over bloated paper machines seeking more and more grant $ with little return on investment. This Quantverse video is nothing more than a hit piece on Sabine.
That's why the guy is no longer Quantverse but Mr Versiettoo69420 :) Very credible channel and a very quality content.
"In my view, the real damage is that young people are no longer drawn to string theory" - well, that's the true potential of education for you.
I have seen 9 minutes and that is enough for me to say that this is not the channel for me.
This is a channel for nobody, ran by a nobody.
If he gets backlash and changes his channel name right after it, then it surely is a credible source of videos.
I quite agree.
You are not supposed to trust science, you are supposed to question it. That is science.
Trust the method, but question the results.
The basis for science is scientific method. That you have to take as a given. The results of science, be that hypothesis, theories, conjectures etc. you of course can challenge. You can device your own test to disprove any one of them or come up with a better ones that predicts reality better. That's how science works.
If you want to understand how reality works, your best bet is to look what is the scientific consensus on a given topic. Of course you can challenge it, but unless you are the next Einstein you would be fool to think you know better than the scientific consensus. The fact that people do believe they know better when it comes to vaccines for example, causes huge harm in our society.
So in a way, for a layman, you kinda are supposed to trust science. There is nothing better out there.
It is not sensible to trust conjecture or hypotheses or theories that are almost purely speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence. Theories such as String theory or the Many Worlds interpretation fall squarely into this category, for example. I guess I have only seen her complain about these sort of theories, which have no consensus among physicists.
There is nothing anti-science about pointing out the theories that have no substantive evidential support, so that lay people don't get misled into believing these theories have any empirical basis, when they only qualify as science in a strictly theoretical sense. This is exactly where skepticism is most appropriate in science.
@@NondescriptMammal Science often finds itself with hypothesis that take a long time to verify. It took decades to centuries for Quantum Theory, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory for disease and many others to be accepted as correct from the time they were first proposed. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in studying stuff like String Theory even if we cannot empirically prove _at this time_ it is correct.
Obviously when you talk about String Theory one should make clear it is a hypothesis which while matching with all of our existing observations does not produce future testable predictions and as such we don't have good evidence to say it is correct. This is not skepticism, this is just a fact and everyone in physics would likely agree. If you say something else, you are just a poor communicator and that's not the fault of science or scientific method. It is different thing to say String Theory is BS because we can't prove it now (see my first paragraph) and complain that something else should be studied without clarifying what that something else should be.
Also, Sabine does hold positions that cannot be empirically verified, such as her take on superdeterminism mentioned in the video. As of now, there is no way to either prove or disprove this hypothesis either.
@@NondescriptMammal Science often finds itself with hypothesis that take a long time to verify. It took decades to centuries for Quantum Theory, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory for disease and many others to be accepted as correct from the time they were first proposed. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in studying stuff like String Theory even if we cannot empirically prove at this time it is correct.
Obviously when one talks about String Theory one should make clear it is a hypothesis which while matching with all of our existing observations does not produce future testable predictions and as such we don't have good evidence to say it is correct. This is not skepticism, this is just a fact and everyone in physics would likely agree. Saying something else would be just poor communication and that's not the fault of science or scientific method. It is different thing to say String Theory is BS because we can't prove it now (see my first paragraph) and complain that something else should be studied without clarifying what that something else should be.
Also, Sabine does hold positions that cannot be empirically verified, such as her take on superdeterminism mentioned in the video. As of now, there is no way to either prove or disprove this hypothesis either.
Maybe if you just listened to her explain herself when she is being critical it's all spelled out why, with reasoning, logic and often evidence. Not "science is bad" but "bad science is ..." various versions of how counterproductive and wasteful it is. Good message because it's ok to be cynical and check if things are valid in science.
*skeptical (not cynical), but yeah.
Yup. My impression is that she calls out bad science, but we all know that some scientists don't take kindly to such criticism because it can be perceived as 'anti-science', or more often are too wrapped up in their own egos.
@@Disillusioned-k1s If skepticism is anti-science then science itself is anti-science. These big names need to stop thinking of their discoveries as prophesies in a scientific religion. Way too much ego
Ah yes, she's only trying to call out "bad science" which is why she's actively trying to destroy all of physics.
I do love Sabine. As a former academician, though in biology, I can agree with almost everything she says about academia. "Publish or perish" has created a mountain of paper with little significance that is barely worth the money spent on the paper (if that). In my field of the biology of aging, millions have been spent, yet there has been no useful result that might actually work to ameliorate, stop or reverse aging because the whole field is based on basic assumptions which are false, but endlessly repeated as they are necessary to get grant money. Yet, as a recent report by the AAAS, the nation's top authority, well-known scientists in aging research can't agree on what aging is, what causes it - and what direction to proceed, in except for trying (yet again) to prove their own direction is the correct one. The biggest advances in understanding aging came from outside the field. So, when the most important objective of the scientist is to boost her career, increase her income, gain fame, rather than truly understanding phenomena pertinent to human well-being (and not how many angels can dance of the head of a pin, or whether information disappears in a black hole (based on the axiom of "the conservation of information", required by quantum mechanics but sounds dicey to me).
in case anyone wonders, this video has 4.1K/3.8K like/dislike ratio using an extension rn (4 days after the upload).
4.9/4.8k ratio now
What does that tell us? How many, in each category, are her followers?
@@kimmotoivanen it tells us the like/dislike ratio. Any inference you make from this is your own problem.
@@kimmotoivanen most people who care to install the ext miss the one useful facet of dislikes functionality, namely - the "BS-meter". Since this video does grossly misrepresents both her character and intentions - there are a lot of ext-users who did dislike it. so the ratio is most probably higher than if it would be, if the dislikes were a core-thing. yet it is telling nevertheless.
How does one go about installing that extension? Seems like the ratio is important information.
I don't understand all this, but I understand her view that revealing the secrets of the universe requires empirical evidence, not just mathematical modelling.
Well good luck observing empirical evidence from e.g. colliding galaxies - it can take _really_ long time even after you find one in progress. I hope you reserved enough tea and biscuits to share with her 😉 (Odd-looking galaxies were explained, with computers and mathematical models, for the rest of us)
Without theories and models explaining *how* , empirical evidence of *what* doesn't always tell us *why* .
Curiosity should be a good thing in general. Without mathematical modelling and computers and theoretical science, I wonder how far back in technology we would be. At most transistors, but hey - no internet 👍
@@kimmotoivanen "Well good luck observing empirical evidence from e.g. colliding galaxies" - and if I had a hypothesis that could only be tested by observing colliding galaxies, that would be a real problem for me.
@@kimmotoivanen Your counter argument sounds quite plausible too, but with sufficient hauteur you could persuade me to believe just about any scientific idea given my low level of understanding of physics and maths.
@@MrCodlin Be it secrets of the universe or secrets of physics, there will be problems that cannot be tested (without e.g. needing particle accelerator close to the size of the universe). Do we give up on "difficult" science and _force others to stop_ their studies? To me that sounds too deep dystopia (possible under control of religious or dumb dictators) to want.
It's not about everyone needing to understand sciences, and it never can be! (I'd rather _cast away_ with a good person than a good scientists 🤨)
It's about basic skill (hunch, reading person, whatever it can be called) of getting what's true / trustworthy / plausible, and what's fake or tries to use you. It's not always easy (I'm not going to politics, but lots of BS there 😅) but it can be done.
It's not about who arguments the best, it's about who has supported facts (I'm not going to climate change, but vast majority of researchers lean on one side 😉).
Asking questions is always good 👍
Questioning needs some facts to back up 🙂
I could recommend Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson (and _Lord_ Nice, what a couple) for different view on cosmology and smaller things.
@@MrCodlin Well, that's the issue that made her so famout in the first place. She sounds very plausible on a surface level. But if someone wants to convince me of anything, I'd first ask, why they would want to do that. Is it really to inform the public or could there be other intentions?
In her case: She uses her own scepticism to weaken the foundation of our scientific construct. Why? Maybe because she did not find her place in the system and now has a bit of a bias against it because of that. Not to say that the system is flawless - far from it - but blindly tearing it all down is going from one extreme to the other.
Then there is the chance she gets a lot of money out of this. She is a prolific author and her shockingly regular videos (which increases the chance she didn't do much research herself) get millions of views and often have a promo link.
If her goal was truly to inform, her content wouldn't be seen so controversial, from people that follow her and automatically oppose anything or anyone that's in conflict with her, over those that just mock those like our dear Dave, to people like Mr Verse that are worried about this polarising development.
You headline is an embedded ad hominem, not a strong start. You literally say that Sabine (as a person) is a fallacy.
An imbedded ad hominem... Hm... The fallacy of sabine = the fallacy she uses. Ad hominem referrs to the irrelevance of a response to an argument that focuses attention on a person over the argument, often the person making the argument, so that it appeals to the emotions of people to then dismiss their argument. I dont see that happening here.
@@JosefK-ud8io Maybe implied would be the better word.
This is obviously a hit piece that goes nowhere...
Thanks checking-out 👍
Sabine is a hit piece that goes nowhere so at least it's consistent
Praising her with faint criticism? It's pretty normal for scientists to be wrong. It's pretty normal for teachers to be wrong. It's pretty normal for bold and confident statements to be wrong.
She states her opinions and makes assertions as fact just like a normal scientist or teacher. I disagree with her or am skeptical of her views often but I don't have a problem with it because _that is normal_! If you expect never to disagree with your sources then you have serious problems with your approach to information.
She should keep doing it her way and her audience should be skeptical, because that is a healthy relationship.
She's not the only physicist who says it's a waste of time to discuss the Information Paradox for black holes. Since we'll never be able to measure it, it'll be untestable. It's a "Yeah, may be".
Mr. Verse claim seem to be that since it's (currently) impossible to test, it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Could be a fair point, but it would be a better idea to leave it for now until we discover ways to test it, and spent our resources elsewhere for now. Otherwise it's just (random) maths.
If the paradox can tell us something new (possibly fundamental) about universe, it's well worth examining. It's not her money, after all. You never know where the next breakthrough comes from.
Can you give example of science or research that needs so much resources that we should ignore other areas?
(Climate change would be wrong answer: we already know why it happens (CO2), we know what will happen (generally worse than better, and worsens as we drag our feet) and what to do (stop using coal and oil). Now we just need to *do* something)
@@j.p.ijsblok5304 QUANTVERSE. Just like "professor" dave is not a professor, this is not MR verse, it's some VeRsiE69-nobody. This channel got renamed right after negative backlash from this video. He deleted the next video (which was about some science breakthroughs of 2024) where he got some more "feedback" from this video, too.
>Being untestable< and >being "unable to test"< something is two COMPLETELY different statements - you not realising that is why people like dave and versie have any following whatsoever.
Althoug I am on Penrose's side on that argument, Sabine's criticism is ABSOLUTELY NOT simply ignorance of Penrose's thoughts or a lack of fact checking. She has her reasoned arguments. I can't say i fully understand them - and the reason I agree with Penrose is simply because I fully understand him. But Penrose is a pure mathematician at heart, as am i. Different mindsets bring different priorities to the analysis of complicated thought experiments. You do make some going points in this video, but I think the characterization of the dispute with Penrose as being the result of ignorance or lack of basic fact. checking is not fair at all.
Sounds like a comprehension problem.
Perhaps Sabine's usefulness is in trying to keep the science community accountable. Anyone dealing with reviewing scientific papers will tell you how much bad science, as in flawed process, is being done. Having a science qualification doesn't guaranty you'll follow the scientific method.
She's not wrong about the state of academia. It's been my experience as well.
what is the point of this kind of smear? wtf is with that idiotic overdubbing of Sabina at the beginning. Do you want people to not take you seriously?
Yeah sorry but she's right about Ph.D's in this century. I've been an engineer for decades, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of theses written this century that I found useful and applied in my work. But I can tell you of entire LEGIONS of "doctors" whose ego is exponentially disproportionate to their actual competence. The fact is, the more science progresses, the harder the questions become, but human intelligence doesn't grow on the same curve. So what's a Ph.D student to do ? Spend half his career working on a complex problem that can benefit everyone, with no hope of actually finding an answer ? Or find a question no one yet had found important enough to answer, and just waste three years of their lives on it ?
Sabine just doesn't take sides easily. That drives you and others crazy. But her attitude just is a major scientific feature.
By sides you mean tribes? Cuz clearly everyone takes a side as everyone has a belief and a belief in something is a side taken.
The guy at the end makes a terrible point. We research far more fundamental assumptions like the problem of deduction but somehow an assumption of statistical independence is untouchable? What??????
Tim Maudlin? He´s not even physicist, but philosopher, and this guy calls him one of the greatest experts of quantun mechanics😂I met maudlin personally at an lecture in London a year ago and had a short talk with him. He´s incredible biased "fighter" for non locality.
The system of funding and university ranking has pervert effects in all domains of science. That is wat Hossenfelder says. The industrial production of academic papers has nothing to do with science are knowledge sharing, but with university ranking, hence with funding. If you want references to your paper, you should also refer to your academic friends, so you get reciprocal referrals. It has become a void system comparable with the recommendations on linkedin. Physics has been a science that described and explained what we saw in nature. Now physics must describe and explain that what we cannot see, it becomes a world of phantasy, living in an ivory tower, this should be avoided, but has contaminated many domains of science.
Good for Sabine! She’s a disrupter. She keeps lazy institutional scientists on their toes. If she’s wrong, what’s the big deal. You say that because she has so many followers, she has a "responsibility". No. She has so many followers because she's an excellent disrupter and she knows her stuff.
She opens a space for us to assess all information.
Go Sabine! We love you❤
Obviously she does not know always her stuff, but she likes to talk about it nevertheless. It is one thing to communicate science, it is another of judge it in the public without having any reputation or credibility. The time of Leibniz and Gauss is long gone, guys who could easily shine in different topics of math, physics and applied science.
„Schuster, bleib bei Deinem Leisten“ oder „Weniger, aber dafür Reifes“, liebe Sabine!
"Love her or hate her, we have to learn to live with her." The best way to learn to live with her is to produce better scientific arguments and, above all, produce experimental results to validate those arguments. Jaw-jawing is just half of science. Experiment-experimenting is the other half. "The experimentalists must close the loopholes."
She made proposals foe experiments to test superdeterministic properties in quantum measurements. Nothing was funded.
I don´t get this ting of making videos talking about other scientist, or yououbers. sience is so full of egocentric vedettes
So around 11:00 Prof. Dave says her arguments are "tasteless" and so on. But that is not an argument. Are we talking about taste or something tangible? Very poor choice of video to motivate the argument. I hope the full video being quoted actually has something more substantial. But this one fails to prove certain things by choosing parts of other video that don't actually bring anything to the discussion.
Finally, as someone else observed, how does the fallacy of appealing to a higher institution of Maudlin help bringing down her arguments? If it's supposed to show her fallacies, it would be better not trying to fall into other fallacies while trying to do so. It really weakens the argument.
TASTE OF professor dave IS CERTAINLY GOOD
Tasteless = inappropriate. And it's a clearly stated opinion. The argument for dishonesty was already supported, Dave makes sure to give his opinion.
@@JosefK-ud8io Inappropriate - in what way?
Does every dave follower have this fallacy of thinking that she should actively try to "decrypt" their badly-made points just to help you cope with reality?
Dave is clearly a nobody, just like a guy who changes his channel name after first wave of backlash (Quantverse -> mrverse -> Professor Verse? what comes next?). His opinion is worth nothing, just like his "support" for the case of dishonesty.
this video was completely biased. for example, it didn't present supporters of super-determinism, or kerr's paper.
Exactly, she´s not alone with her research on superdeterministic properties in QM measurements. This video promotes the mianstream.
this is completely beside the point. No one needs to present equal numbers in supporters and defenders of a theory, except those who want to impartially report on that particular subject. But please read the title of this video. Its not about that theory and no one is obligated to portrait unproven (and ridiculous) fringe hypotheses in the same light as established theory.
Unnecessary topic. Unnecessary video. Seems just like drama for views. This is very unethical and misleading. Shame on you.
Yup
Well said, it's sad to have to resort to such tricks as making an exposé video on someone popular.
I don't think you have any room to criticize fallacies when you're committing the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy in your own argument...
Yes, but do you know where?
Everyone is judging her with her intentions and style. Not with the points she talks about. Guess why? She is almost always right.
Less that's she's right and more that she's asking the right questions about scientific matters too long considered sacrosanct. And, what bothers them the most, is she doesn't do it for social reasons, but scientific ones. So out come the personal attacks and bandwagons.
BS. I watched some videos of her, and i found in every single one of them fundamental failures in understanding, fallacies and im not even counting the many inaccuracies.
@@shadesmarerik4112 Great!!!! Listen to what she says on a subject. If it make sense. Great. If not that great too. Call it BS, ignore it, and move on to the next topic. If every time you listen to her she says something that is BS to you then stop listening to her. Call her crackpot if you wish. But as a scientist the absolute worst sin you can make is to dismiss a fellow scientist because the pack bayed crackpot. Unfortunately this is SOP in academia. Listen and make your own independent assessment.
@@williejohnson5172 thats not how science works. Its not how rationality works. And u are strawmanning by implying that "academia" is committing "sin" by dismissing a "fellow scientist" because reasons that u cant even articulate.
@@shadesmarerik4112 Here we go. Another ignorant sheep gossiper whose only affiliation with academia is serving toast in a school cafeteria. You keyboard scholars keep proving my point. You and your ilk immediately go for the ad hominem instead of focusing on the science. It is no accident that Sabine has such a large following because she sees, as does those of us who have retained our common sense, that "academia" has lost its way. It had better find its way soon because AI sweeps with a very new and very broad broom.
Where's the titular fallacy? Clickbait only.
So much for your "critical look" which is actually a pretty crude hatchet job. What's it really about? Professional jealousy?
Yes
This either seems to have gone sideways, or an amzing clickbait to get more views on this channel from another one... scientific
I have no issue with anyone challenging any of Hossenfelder's positions. I'm in no position to take sides on any of this stuff. However wackos will glom onto anything that ostensibly seems to support them, and I don't think that she's at all responsible for said folks. It's really up to viewers to decided how they feel about positions presented in her videos, and I don't think her larger viewership give her any added responsibility. She should be free to state her positions in any way she likes, the same as anyone else.
If she increases controversy and plays by science-deniers to gain more followers and money, I'd say she takes responsibility. She has options to choose how she phrases and presents her claims.
Freedom of speech is never without obligation and responsibility.
@@kimmotoivanen I've seen no evidence she "plays by [sic] science-deniers to gain more followers and money". That's pretty subjective. You may disagree with her. She may even be completely wrong on some things. But that's the nature of this medium. In fact, that's the nature of free speech.
@@kimmotoivanen What a terrible take!
you should be held accountable for that comment, too, until the end of your life, if someone misinterprets it (and the channel grows to 500 million in 10 days) - I'll be the first person to call you a "science denier".
She is very intelligent and more importance she 'questions' all these scientific papers that seem to come out like weeds on a hot summer day are are full of all kinds of suppositions. The one thing she does which is very important is to question theories that provide no observable proof. She also explains her beliefs.
Unnecessary. If you are in these fields, then form your own opinion. If not, then this is as spurious as the claim vs. Hossenfelder, because you are not in a position to evaluate the critique.
Sabine Hossenfelder is an extraordinary science educator overall, and a refreshing breath of fresh air and honesty that I literally never thought I would ever see. All the bull dung areas she exposes about science, research and academia are things I saw first-hand studying sciences at Berkeley then working in technology R&D, development, sales and marketing for many years. She is weak outside of her area as @nostooge observes, but she is the first scientist to expose in public what I saw going on behind the scenes a good number of times. Kudos to her.
There are too many party-liners like "Professor" Dave who don't want embarrassing truths told about science and scientists because it shatters the image of 'always objective analysis' they want to keep intact -- which doesn't exist past certain points -- while they criticize religion for doing the exact same flawed things they themselves do so often. Every discipline has faults, flaws, ignorance, weaknesses, blindness and phonies -- including religion AND science.
Whatever her weaknesses in some areas, she's strong in her field and does a great job explaining what is solid science, what is speculation and what is gamesmanship and even fraud. That's necessary for every area -- including science.
I know exactly what you mean. I can't stand professor Dave TBH, but I love Sabine. I also love Brett Weinstein and Roger Penrose.
You can tell Sabine isn't really committed to Superdeterminsm. It's just a logically defensible alternative to showing favor toward any of the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, not to mention the only way left to nullify Bell's Theorem. Superdeterminsm is a perfectly unassailable premise - once you admit the possibility of predestination, nothing short of magic is off the table.
'only way left to nullify Bell's Theorem'. Not sure what this means. But if it is about locality. There is two ways, for a local quantum reality, Many Worlds and Superdeterminsm. And nether of these in any way, nullify Bell's Theorem, as they are solutions, like non-locality to Bell's Theorem.
@@yziib3578 Bell's Theorem makes the assumption of Measurement Independence, i.e. that an experimenter is free to make measurement choices that cannot be statistically correlated with any previous event. Superdeterminism violates this assumption, nullifying the predictions of Bell's Theorem. Many Worlds claims that no experimenter is able to make any specific choice, which I suppose is par for the course with MWI.
@@QuicksilverSG Bell's Theorem is based on 3 assumption and you described one of them,. And based on the experiments one of them has to be wrong. Based on your logic, non-locality nullifies the locality assumption. So there is now 3 ways , may be more, to nullify Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Superdeterminsm and Non-locality. I prefer, using solution, instead of nullifies.
@@yziib3578 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Bell's Theorem lists both of these loop holes as "Supplementary Assumptions", i.e. taken for granted in the main body of the theorem, which is primarily concerned with matters of locality and causality. The Superdeterminism and MWI exceptions aren't targeted specifically at Bell's Theorem, they have broader implications that undermine the validity of the scientific method in general.
Magic has no explanatory or predictive power, scientific theories should have both, and that's why magic is not scientific. Your position is basically asserting that there exist no superdeterministic theories that have both explanatory and predictive power. What is the basis for this conclusion?
and so, your point?
The real problem is not what Sabine says, but how it is perceived by various parties. I totally understand that the way she communicates makes it very easy to get triggered if your world view is built around those positions she criticises, but in none of her videos she claims that she is right and everyone with a different opinion is wrong. That said, I think it is very important that we hold ourselves accountable for our claims and therefor I think this video is very important, but the criticism towards Sabine in this video feels a lot like emotionally driven than fact based. Just saying "that's stupid", "that's insane" or "that's misleading" is not a scientific way to deal with criticism.
I think there is a lot of hate towards her because people love living in illusions that she ruthlessly destroys time after time. Even her anti-scientific notions come from a place of clear materialism, pragmatism and realism. If she criticizes science you can be always sure that it comes from a place of care and her desire for science to stay science.
I completed my Ph.D. in 2012, not in physics but in computer science. When her mentor demanded that she do his work for him, she was justified in her frustration. This happens to many Ph.D. students. I have even published papers where I should have been the sole author, but that was not deemed acceptable. She is also correct about the crisis in science. Issues such as the rise of predatory journals, fake citations, and the repeated publishing of the same work with little to no additional value contribute to this problem. Moreover, the farther east you go from Germany, the more frequently you encounter fake researchers employed full-time at universities, treating their academic roles as merely another source of income (often smaller than what they could earn in the private sector). As a result, even the value of university degrees is experiencing inflation (beside the best universities in top 500). But to be honest, even people in US that studied in IT have now big problems to get a job. 10 or 15 years ago it was a different story.
Come to Switzerland!
The IT job market for experts here is dried out.
We also have some upsides as a nation in comparison to the US (imho) ;-)
One word: hubris. But hey, who cares when the cash is coming in? Problem is the times we live in.
I agree with her. Most tax money is poorly allocated due to perverse incentives in politics.
I believe the biggest reason for believing her position on academia is the saturation of academia. There's an old saying that carries alot of truth. "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Many years ago in school teachers and professors did research after their job, which was teaching. Now they have grad students and assistance teach while they do research, with grants, of course. You very seldom see a research professor in class. That's what I believe she is partially trying to say. Having a grant for the purposes of research is one thing, doing research for the purposes of grants is quite another.
I don't understand - why the hit piece? There's loads of science communicators out there and she's very much one of the better ones. She speaks her mind, that's good.
Because he needed to change his channel name, so he created this dogpiss, waited for obvious negative backlash and then renamed his dogself to mrverse.
you kind of lost me with statement regarding "anti vaccine movement". I mean this is a discussion about scientific approaches, how to communicate them and the purpose of communication. In retrospective the "anti vaccine movement" had some very good arguments which have been dismissed by unplausible scientific approaches. I think it's fair to discuss about those things. And obviously this is neither a statement against vaccination in general and also not covid vaccination specifically
Im not antivax but my wife had very severe side effects (18 months off work) from the covid vaccines. Some of her friends in their late 30s also had some bad side effects that lasted a few months.
The only people that helped my wife were her cardiologists, her General doctor was afraid to discuss or even report the issue with her.
To this day I dont think anything was learned (but I hope Im wrong) because many side effects were unreported because they were an inconvenience at the time when we needed "herd immunity".
My other fear is that the uptake of safe childhood vaccines will now drop in future due to the dismissal and poor treatment of covid vaccine injuries.
Why are most clips of her taken out of context and very short, one sentence clips that could be easily misunderstood? Because this channel wants to discredit her. Why? Money. It's always money.
3:20 did you really commented her experience with "petty"? What she's describing is horrible. A humungous shame for academia.
Two choices: Fix Sabine or fix science....
Guess which one the science team chose...
your video raises some valid points about the responsibility that comes with having a large platform, but many of your criticisms seem to fall into the same traps you accuse Hossenfelder of - oversimplification, provocative framing, and selective interpretation of evidence
You think that real damage is that brilliant prople will stop wasting their time on failure that is string "theory"? By what logic you reached that conclusion?
And how do I ban the channel so I will avoid seeing even more such nonsense in the future?
Just to return to this again. Who are you Mr Verse? Sabine is very open about her career and you are....? A pseudonym that puts out a hit piece to gain engagement perhaps?
Does anyone with a scintilla of sense actually take "professor " Dave seriously?
dave should stop teaching highschoolers and try tasting a bit of the academia horrors before commenting on sabine. Sabine isn't always right and consistent but she is very true about the injustice being done to science by these capitalists.
Nobody takes dave as anything more than a dog.
Sabine is my favorite scientist because she is eloquent, smart, and correct about determinism. I know that she is ahead of most scientists.
💯
and in which universe is ur favoritism and bias relevant for anyone but urself?
@@shadesmarerik4112 And your trolling on this channel in return?
@Thomas-gk42 i dont troll, but it looks like u are
Annnnd, your expertise ... is what?
Great fan video, thanks for spreading the good word about Sabine, we love her too!
yep. At my time of viewing, 2803 comments: I find I agree with most of them. Is free speech not a wonderful thing?
O mate, not a hit piece…. SIgh, what is going on UA-cam where wannabees are taking on people who have made it?
Sabine has not made it 🤣 in fact, i can't really think of a greater parody of their former and better self. So at the least, she deserves some mockery. A bit! At least as much as she's (literally) baiting and asking for :P
@Zantsak - Right…like Sabine’s absurd wannabee claim that Roger Penrose is wrong. Thanks for illustrating that point.
I appreciate much of what she says, but her inability to understand complexity (as in _complex systems_ ) seriously affects her perspective on many subjects, especially consciousness and climate change. Her negative experience in academia is undeniable, and she’s right about string “theory”, which has never been more than a hypothesis.
@@Vito_Tuxedo What the hell are you talking about, dear? Penrose is wrong about a gazillion things in the world. "Wannabee" is you, my friend.
I think Sabine Hossenfelder's marketing is clever. I've seen at least 2 channels criticizing her in a way that would drive more views and subscriptions to her channel. This video has many links to her videos. From my experience, her videos are pretty additive. You have been warned! 🙂
A lot of half educated YTers hopping on the "we debunk Sabine" - train currently, begging fro clicks from her famous name. But Sabine is not only a great scientist and leading mathematician, she´s a very foxy communicator too. I love it.
19:34 Although I enjoyed your video in general, this is a section in which you failed miserably. If you wanted to show Maudlin's reaction, you should have also delved more deeply in Sabine's papers first. While you claim in your title Sabine is committing a fallacy, here you actually fall into a deep fallacy by dismissing her arguments with someone's opinions on her ideas. I don't care if he's an expert, that's a fallacy by authority.
I was going to complain about not a professor dave cause he’s a total moron but now I gotta ask Does this guy know the difference between a fallacy and just being wrong? I don’t think he does.
This is a bitter, and quite disingenuous video. This is not a critical look at Sabine Hossenfelder but an attempt to discredit and besmirch.
Yup
oh yea... ignore the arguments in this video and just spread emotion-based assertions.
Where is the video disingenuous?
Since the videos quotes several of SH's videos its quite interesting that u >feel< that it discredits SH. I think so, too. Her own videos discredit her, no other videos are needed for that purpose alone.
I thini this video can clasify as targeted harassment . Reported , and disliked . Blocked the chanel
Yeah, these channels are the equivalent to clout chasing.
Academia is bad, attack authority! But don't attack my authority!
What do you think about Wolfram Physics (most of which has been worked on by Jonathan Gorard, I think)?
The biggest watershed moment in recent history showcasing the cracks/failure of the academic system was when actual A.I. generated images managed to “some how” make it through peer review and into actual science textbooks, completely exposing that things are getting rubber stamped through peer review without being…reviewed by peers. 🤷🏽♂️
Smh
The great and incomparable "Professor" Dave was dragged out for polemical weight against Sabine Hossenfelder. Absolutely surreal, what rabbit hole have I fallen in? Does this video prove parallel universes, or merely the null hypothesis of its own thesis?
i'm very happy this video exists. i once really liked her content, but i've been having this feeling that she is consistently becoming more and more controversial, to the point i can't believe in her anymore, at least when it comes to controversial topics... But idk, maybe i'm just too easy to influence, but i was starting to think i'm crazy, so it's nice that there's someone to actually do this research and put everything together.
Thank you dude
what kind of a comment is that, "dude"? xD
You are happy that some unrealised jobless person roasted some creator on the internet (that you don't like now)? "fallacy of sabine" or "biasness of every single dumb person who has nothing to say", what's more apparent here?
Also, that seems like a generic comment because you praise the quality of research and editing, like what the fk? There is not even a poll needed in the comments to see, that he had no real points and the quality of visuals was subpar.
I'd love your answer.
YT admin
Please pronounce her name correctly - you pronounce it without the schwa at the end in several place.
ONly low-brows talk about other people.
People - Events/Happenings - Topics. You know the full quote ;)
Well, I like watching Sabine - just to move the question out of the way who's side I'm on. But what I want to tell here is that you're also committing a fallacy: Argument by authority. That is just as invalid as other things you're accusing Sabine of. And for my personal opinion: Especially Penrose seems way past his prime. He was a disrupting genius once but I don't see how he can have for example any evidence to provide for his theory that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon especially at a time where we seem close to build either a philosophical zombie or the real thing. Being vehement on that matter just shows a lack of flexibility.
💯!
It’s called freedom of speech. Sabine is not perfect as all of us. Sabine was forced to media because of issues with academia. Now that she’s successful you’re still not satisfied.
Now they are jealous or fearful or both.
I haven't watched the video but I don't think her freedom of speech is being questioned.
@@Aikman94 It´s attacked though by a lot of hate spreaders, who hop on the "We debunk Sabine"-train currently. Either they want to benefit from her success or they are fearful of her growing influence, that´s obvious.
@@Thomas-gk42 Surely, u are aware that those people criticizing SH have freedom of speech, too? Freedom of speech is attacked by exercising freedom of speech? What clown argument is this?
@@shadesmarerik4112 Everyone has free speech, right? My personal problem is not criticism but lies, quotes out of context and insults, the matrix of this video and the following.
She meets the needs of her audience - who may not all be completely scientifically literate. There are worse UA-cam channels and I suspect there are many people, like myself, who benefit far more than they lose by watching her videos.
If any one UA-cam channel had all the answers there would be little point watching the rest. I am not aware such a channel exists and we all have the option to take an alternative opinion as and when we choose. After your video some people may well do that but, ultimately, it doesn't change much.
What exactly is the point of this video ...
Maybe this guy has a crush on Sabine and tries to get her attention 😅? Poor little thing...
@@Thomas-gk42 Counting the number of replies you did nearly to every post that is critical about her lets me wonder, if it is not you who has a big crush on her.
@@vietvooj Haha, who knows, but I´m bored in hospital, so why not use my time for something useful, like debunking suckers? Yes Dr. Sabine does an important job, honest, smart and couragous. She´s a gift for humanity in this world gone mad.
Clicks for engagement
Views my dear man. Views
If you have an indefensible position and when pushed you moderate it...that's a good thing, certainly in science.
Parsimoniousness in good science requires you to start with underreaching, not overreaching, which you can then amplify by more good evidence, if any shows up.
@talastra yeah but then you wont publish people will pass you.
@@talastra Were under-reaching the norm, we wouldn't have string theory in the first place, seeing how there is no experimental evidence for it.
@@bookashkin how many scientist-hours went down that rabbit-hole for fear of doing something 'less promising'. I was blown away to hear Susskind's admission that String Theory had, in summation, underwhelmed, and had not even proven it was relevant. That DeSitter Space statement was flat out damning. A definite Red-Pill.
@@willkrummeck Bullshit. Or do you mean science popularizers won't publish you?
The Motte and Bailey "fallacy" is what ought to happen when people overstate the case and listen to critiques, acknowledge the critiques as reasonable, and so amend their position to a restrained position that is closer to the truth. Isn't that what people are supposed to do when confronted with new evidence or strong counter-arguments? The contrary attitude to double-down seems to be the greater fallacy.
In fact, neither doubling down, nor retreat, themselves are necessarily logical fallacies, but perhaps are psychological biases. Still, it seems that the Motte and Bailey fallacy is probably a better rule of thumb to follow than stubbornness. Of course, it depends on the quality of the counter evidence and counter arguments proposed, but probabilistically, it is more likely to be the strategy that results in getting closer to the truth than stubbornness.
If the Motte and Bailey Fallacy is in some way significantly different from what prudent but open-minded discourse is, please correct me. I'm open to that possibility.
EDIT: Upon looking up the Motte and Bailey Fallacy, yes it is a fallacy when equivocations and straw men are involved. I do feel the reason it is a fallacy wasn't adequately explained when mentioned in the video.
My thoughts exactly. I've never heard of this "fallacy" before watchin this dumb hit-piece.
I don't see any bias in this, that's a procedure that a sciency-person would use to assess reality. Yet it is listed as a fallacy, so in my ignorance (not checking throughly on the web) I thought there is some way a non-smart person can be made sure it is real.
Main point for smart ppl: WE KNOW HOW STUPID WE ARE. That's why we Dunning-Kruger ourselves and let IDIOTS control so many areas of life.
Like, we make it acceptable for an idiot dave to make another hit-piece when he is clearly outgunned and never had a single measurable argument. I don't like the world we live in.
Gravity cannot be quantized because gravity is not a force, and there is no such thing as a singularity.
Nobody has physically demonstrated singularities to exist.
There is no reason to believe that singularities exist, not even in black holes, because curvature of space is caused by the non-zero presence of matter.
Gravity is merely and ONLY curvature of space; gravity is not a force but merely redirection or reflection of kinetic energy.
NOTHING is inside a black hole, not even existence of space or spatial dimensions; all of its matter that cause curvature of space is contained in its event horizon surface.
Time effectively stops at the event horizon surface, so nothing can "fall" inside the black hole.
As matter gets nearer to the event horizon surface, it decelerates extremely requiring trillions of years to move a few centimeters.
The curvature of space is concentrated at the event horizon surface due to time dilation.
The outside of the black hole is a sphere, and the inside is an inverted sphere that pushes outwards the incoming matter.
There is no loss of information, because all of the matter that causes curvature of space is contained in the event horizon surface.
The event horizon surface of the black hole is an "edge" of the universe reality.
Gravity is merely the curvature of space as it is "pushed out of the way" by matter.
Gravity is not a force, but only the reflection or redirection of kinetic energy that is already in the matter.
That's why objects of unequal mass will accelerate at the same rate under the influence of gravity.
If gravity was a force that was imparting its energy into objects, then the objects of differing mass would not accelerate at the same rate.
For objects of differing masses to fall at the same acceleration rate, they must be invested with differing kinetic energy relative to their masses by lifting the objects.
Where did the original "lift" of kinetic energy come from?
Cosmic inflation (also known as the "Big Bang") provided the original "lift" to invest the kinetic energy that is now in all matter in the universe.
The question is whether cosmic inflation, which happened faster than the speed of light, was sufficient for the "escape velocity" to prevent future gravitational collapse of the universe?
It seems to me that cosmic inflation was not an inertial frame of reference, so "escape velocity" has not happened, because it only applies to inertial frames of reference.
The universe will ultimately collapse, causing an unending series of births and deaths.
The universe is finite, unbounded, and eternal.
this policing of other people's opinions is tiresome
Wait you actually listen to anything "Professor" Dave says? I'm not even going to entertain the rest of this garbage video. Do something better with your life pal 👍
I really enjoy Sabine's videos. Sometimes she make statements that are too strong. Too bad, I leave a comment to that effect and continue to enjoy the rest. I love academia, being surrounded by smart people who are doing their best to make a better world for all through science and technology. The problem is that research is very inefficient and very competitive for funding. Sometimes this brings out the worst in people's characters. Our lifestyles today are a testament to the success of science. Sabine had some rather unfortunate personal experiences, and that accounts for some of the negativity. Her criticisms should always be welcome, even if sometimes incorrect.
10:23 There is zero evidence to suggest that the jab had any beneficial effects whatsoever. Anyone who says otherwise is going off of the assumption that it would have been worse without the jab, but there is zero evidence to suggest that either. This is all recorded data that is publicly available, and some people have been trying to raise awareness to this fact. Please do look into this, if you think that I'm wrong.
It is seductive to be contrarian and downright addictive to be contrarian about topics you know nothing about. Because not only does it allow you arrogance : 'thinking for yourself', it also wipes away any negative feelings about not being good at something yourself. All we ever see is top athletes, beautiful people and people that always seem to find the right words on the media we consume. Sometimes us mere mortals want to feel special too. Contrarianism provides this.
You're mentally ill.
Nicely put - I especially like your opening sentence.
1:13, yeah, explore it. But without me. I can't waste time, physics is calling
I have observed pettiness within academia first hand and while it is unnecessarily obstructive it does not invalidate the work performed under it.
I do not enjoy Sabine's videos as much as anymore, sometimes skipping them all together, even though she still does have valuable insights to convey.
what is the point of this 20 + min. post.? if you disagree with Sabina just produce your own counter arguments, don't just stoop to shooting the messenger, just produce your counter arguments and see who we believe.
Professor Dave is to science what the Philosophy Tube is to philosophy, i.e. silly nonsense.
😂
The scientific orthodoxy is no different from religious orthodoxy. Both are insane when you keep getting results that you don't like.
Sabine is a beautiful woman in more ways than one.
You forgot about "cult of personality" aka "simping". Also very dangerous
@casparvvedel5607 No, I didn't forget, but I do remember that simping and trolling are born of the same emotional need. That's why I'm responding.
@jamaljohnson2414 "sabine is a beautiful woman in more ways than one" wrote a guy on the internet to a lady he will never meet and who will never even read it...and then mentioned something about emotional needs
@@casparvvedel5607 Exactly
Hey, Sabine falls for fallacies, because she is human… like he who instead of looking at her papers quote some random dude ranting about random stuff… seriously, the first 90% of your videos I thought you were being honest 😂
The major problem I see is that she makes statements about how academia is broken, but she is not referring to academia as a whole, but physics in particular. She should level her critique specifically to physics - she has little knowledge about other branches of science. I guess physicists believe that physics is the one and only true science, but I beg to disagree.
She started good but now she is just a UA-camr who'll say anything for clickbait and views
e.g.?
"love her or hate her...we have to learn to live with her." huh? You can always just ignore her.
He speaks as though he was married to her, lol.
She lives rent-free in his head, probably.
..well this video has a 50% like/dislike ratio.. That tells something... I personally am really fond of that woman.