The crux of the issue is that, originally, Sabine had an exclusive audience with a strong scientific background. I’m a researcher myself, although from a distant field of interest. And what she says sound good to me, because I 'm struggling every day with the problems of today's academia. But this will never jeopardize my trust in science because, well, its my job. I know the goods ans the bads of what happens. Then her audience grew massively thanks to her success, and now she likely has viewers who know far less about the research profession. And yet, she still adopts a direct and unfiltered tone, much like someone you’d overhear at the coffee machine in a lab. This is indeed questionable. She hasn’t adjusted her tone to match the evolving level of scientific literacy in her audience (actually not exactly scientific literacy but rather some kind of meta knowledge about how scientific knowledge emerges and evolves within the academia), which is likely a mistake. However, in the context of a research lab coffee break, what she says remains entirely valid and even appreciated.
OL9245 has a good point. I am a pot head high school drop out who used to listen to her. Her tone has actually shifted into much more yelling of her opinions away from reasonable discussion. Her opinions do not interest me, except as they threaten the acceptance of scientific enquiry by "the great unwashed" which I identify as. She may do more harm than good with people like me. Also... it is as if her feelings have been hurt. Is she bitter? Emotional? Is it rather sad? 😢
@@OL9245 You have it exactly backwards. Her tone is what attracts here uninformed audience. But the problem is that she gets things wrong. The worse colleagues in the lab are the ones who are both abrasive AND scientifically unsound.
I've thought over time she's falling into the content trap. She has to generate more and more content until it becomes less quality and more about the grift.
with 1.59M subs odds are the marketing team is assisting her in doing it... perhaps there is evidence of a "change" after she reached 250K subs or 100K subs or whatever milestone represents the prevalence of a significant change?
I don't think she meant leave up to the public. That's not a position I've every heard her claim to be in. Rather, she says to leave it up to the people doing research instead of the people funding research.
Yes, because people are absolute morons... Right? Rather than present them with the truth, mocking and manipulating them to "do the right thing" is much better. Right? No government ever used science in the same way as some used religion to justify murdering millions. Just saving them from themselves and their own immoral stupidity.
It seems to me that you committed a fallacy fallacy. At least point out the fallacies you see before making such claims, otherwise it just sounds silly.
You should see his first one. People pointed them out and this one simple doubles down on the first, supplying more Penrose to prove she is wrong about Penrose (someone she knows a little and has always said she admires fwiw).
@@mattlewis5095 He brought Penrose back to make the point that using Penrose as an atuhority on Penrose theorem was not an appeal to authority fallacy, something many were accusing him of. Everyone can then judge whose assessment you believe more, a serious and respected scientist and expert on the field, or a youtuber who has to churn out videos of varying quality on daily basis.
@@hubbeli1074 Sabine is also a serious and respected scientist, your attempt to disparage her notwithstanding. I am not familiar with her disagreement with Penrose, but with regards to her disagreement with Tim Maudlin she is 100% correct. But the video still just assumed that Tim is right because Tim is an authority. I've read both Tim's critique of statistical dependence and superdeterminism, and I've read Sabine's response to this critique, and Sabine makes a significantly stronger argument. Of course, the video included Tim's critique but not only omitted Sabine's response but never even mentioned that she has a response.
It doesn't make any difference if it's called 'Penrose Theorem' or not, it's still tautological to use Penrose in this way. And he was clearly used as a fulcrum to substantiate all the surrounding attacks on Sabines integrity. They two people actually know each other (Sabine has always supported Penrose as deserving of his belated Nobel) and I can't believe he would be happy with the way he was used here. Re your second paragraph, as long as we all know who is who! Mr Verse seems to be students who make about a video a month, and I can't find anything on them because they simply don't provide any info! (KAC students?). I'm guess they got 21K subs through these kind of hate videos.... but hmmm most of their videos only get around 70 likes though, so the subscription figure is likely to be BS in my view. I might check it out on Social Blade. Sabine on the other hand is certainly respected by a great many in her field and more and more outside it too (not string theorists so much admittedly!)
German Ph.D. student here. You have grossly missrepresented what Ph.D. students get paid in your text. There is no distinction between subjects, of hiw much you get paid for full time work as a scientifi worker. They are all on the payscale of the same collective bargaining. agreement. However, most Ph.D. students don't get official full time employment. While of course they are expected to do more than full time work. This is mentiined in the post you showed, but ignored in what you say. The post are also uncompairable. The first post talks about the individual situation of one Ph.D. student in physics and the other post says between 75 and 100% is what you typically get in Computer science. I could not find a statistics if how many hours different sciences get paid on average. But you need to provide evidence if your claim is that the average Ph.D student gets 50% wheras the average Computer Science student gets 100%. This is what the text of your video claims. And its most likely wrong
What is your Ph.D. in? I am also PhD student in Germany, and what he says is correct. Avaerage theoretical physics PhD starts at 50% position, while it is rare for CS students starting below 75%.
@@kiranadhikari4192i am doing economics. I would think as a social sience we have it worse than any hard sience. But as I say I couldn't find any source or data for differences. Unfortunatly in your reply you haven't provided any either. Still even if you are right, your claim is very different than the video. As you talk about starting contracts rather then average ones and he calculates with 100% for CS whereas you claim it to be 75%. Either way he should provide proper sources to make such a big claim. I find it plausible that most applied fields (engineering, cs etc.) Would have better conditions, because they might get more non-state funding (Drittmittel). Being more applied is more interesting for companies. However, as I say he needs to provide evidence if he refers to exact numbers like that.
@@kiranadhikari4192unfortunatly my reply was deleted, I think I was perfectly friendly so I don't know why. Basically you made a much weaker claim then the video does and also haven't provided evidence. I understand the text of the video as saying that its a rule that physicist make much less money and used for the calculatiin 50% vs 100% contracts. I am in social science and my gues is that we have it worse than the hard sience, but I also have no evidence for that. My gues again would be that any applied sience get more third party funding as companies want to give them money. Unfortunatly that plays a big role in German research landscape. So intuetily it makes sense that engineering subjects get better coditions than fundamental research. However, if he makes such a claim he should provided data to the fact. And at least explain how the system works alittle bit. He makes it seem like the official goverment policy is like: "physists should get half as everyone else, because we don't like them."
I found her interesting at first, but then she starting broadening beyond her scope of knowledge into stuff I knew really well, and that is really where I noticed how bad she can be.
Same. I was recommending her to people, then shortly after she made a few cringe videos in a row. I was so embarrassed for having recommended her channel. She used to be weird/quirky, then went full-elon. Unsubbed years ago, and now the only time I hear about her is that she's still doing the same shit or worse.
I find Sabine interesting but very . . . well, almost jealous? Not sure that's quite right. She is very quick to call those who participate in scientific as paper pushers just writing down words for a salary or grant. She has some insightful things to say here and there - and she's certainly more expert in physics than I am - but also has some strange blind spots when it comes to theory and research. You'd be hard pressed to find an area of scientific research that - despite many calling it pointless - that didn't end up teaching humanity something valuable about the Universe. And I've always found it odd, considering her profession, how she disparages theoretical work as "pointless" or "useless" when it's in the theory we discover so much, and figure out ways to test the theory's in the physical world by applying the theory we have. Some of the things she declares useless are just not testable YET, and things like information loss of black holes usually leads to insights that do give us ideas of how to test the underlying reality of the Universe. So, she's usually interesting but, I think, carrying a lot of sour grapes.
I appreciate you tried to present Sabine's view fairly but, in my opinion, you failed to represent her main argument. You mentioned issues in academia but made no mention of her contention that physics has given up on the need to base theories on physical evidence rather than pure maths. You can disagree with that position but it's hard for your viewers to even assess whether her view is reasonable or not when you haven't presented it. There is absolutely nothing anti-intellectual about her position. She talks contantly about useful reasearch in all sorts of areas.
Her position refers to over-reliance on applied math. And what about all the other stuff she talks about outside her field? You don't think she should answer for getting so much so wrong in a way that just happens to profitably coincide with the beliefs of her q-anon/conspiracy/anti-science audience?
@@marca9955 its actually pretty easy to spot scrips she wrote herself (actually quite few) and make the distinction from the rest written by her staff. Quite impossible to maintain quality high and steady with daily videos but she has fallen in the trap. Now, she has paychecks to sign for her team at the end of the month. Making views and Paying her guys must be more important for her than being picky on quality.
I have not quite understood the problem Sabine has with "reliance on math" as this approach has produced many discoveries, such as the Higgs boson. It would be helpful to understand what would Sabine like theoretical physicists to study instead?
@@marca9955the key word you’re glossing over is theoretical physicists. Many time theoretical physics becomes applied physics when ways to test and quantify the theories becomes available. A great example would be the LIGO detectors. Back in the ‘70s and ‘80s who would have thought that there would be a physical means to test for gravitational waves, let alone triangulate their origin. They were just mathematical constructs in the theory of relativity. The same goes for entanglement. Even Einstein dismissed that. Now entanglement is being used to develop quantum computing. Sabine stating that this or that field of study is useless is akin to the Commissioner of the US Patent Office telling President McKinley, that the office should be closed because everything that could be invented, had been invented.
@@thenonsequitur That bad methodology has held a stranglehold over "science", such as remains, for almost a century. It's the cause of the several "crises" in physics/science today.
At 5:15 you moved the goalpost from Theoretical Physics to Science. The headlines themselves say science, but it is clear that this is just clickbait and/or just simplifying the title for the audience and that the actual focus is on theoretical physics. She is simply critiquing the random creation of new models of physics from pure creativity. Science should be empirical not creative. Not that it cannot be both, but unlike theoretical mathematics where the creative solutions are inherently empirical, theoretical physics is not always empirical.
@@jemborg No, it really is. But it's not due to anything science related, it's due to our banking system and its perverse incentives. It's a deep dive, but needless to say, if you don't understand that you are currently enslaved by banks through mechanisms like fractional reserve lending, you need to read more about economics.
Mr Verse next videos : Sabine is so over Sabine is finally done The Sabine situation is crazy Sabine is finished I swear This time Sabine is finally over
An appeal to authority is a fallacy, when the person's authority is irrelevant? No, an appeal to authority is a fallacy, when a person's opinion is used as evidence, simply because that person is an authority or famous.
Wrong. An appeal to authority is when an entity does not have the required expertise to be used to convey evidence on a matter. Also, facts can be opinions. An opinion is not automatically wrong.
@@sciencedaemon Opinions without evidence, are simply opinions, even if that opinion is from an expert. That's why it is a fallacy. Facts require evidence. Understand?
@@Bill-ni3es And? You aren't saying anything that isn't already known. The fact is that people often assume an opinion cannot be based on facts, especially when they want to disagree with others. In reality, everyone has opinions based on facts or not. It is not all or nothing black and white thinking, as you display.
I have no problem with Sabine being blunt - and sometimes rude - but that doesn't mean she's always right! Far too many people are sucked in by her sophistry. She certainly knows that being controversial is a surefire way to get more views...
Sometimes you should actually try to get more views in order to change things that need to be changed. She is controversial because the mainstream thought isn't really aligned with the truth. So maybe check yourself.
7:35: I find it amusing that physicists relate that debate between Mach and Boltzmann on the existence of atoms as having been finally settled by Einstein in his explanation of Brownian motion. It doesn't take anything away from Einstein to note that CHEMISTS had been interpreting their work using not only atoms, but molecules too - molecules with complex structures and they understood the some of the role of stereochemistry as a way to interpret the behavior of compounds, i.e., the molecules. (See, for example, the work for which Emil Fischer was awarded the Nobel Prize - done in the preceding decades - in 1902, three years before Einstein's paper on Brownian motion.) Let's just say it, if Mach had paid any attention to what was going on in chemistry, he would have known he was pretty far out on a limb of the crackpot tree to deny the existence of atoms at all in the latter part of the 19th century. As a comparison: Darwin and other biologists in the many decades after the Origin of Species (and even before) buried the Biblical Story of Creation, we didn't need to know the structure of DNA, even as much as knowing the molecular basis of evolution enriches our understanding of evolution. Brownian motion didn't establish the concept of atoms - chemistry had already done that.
It's absolutely true that the chemists had it right and the physicists got it wrong about atoms. It was not just Ernst Mach either. The British Royal Society shamefully rejected the earliest atomic theory papers by Thomas James Waterston [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Waterston]. Lord Rayleigh later apologized to history for this stupendous stupidity. The "shut up and calculate" era in physics in the 20th century rivals this earlier rejection of atomic theory by physicists, as Sabine Hossenfelder rightly points out. One can argue that it was excessive devotion to empiricism that led to these rejections though, rather than striving for beautiful mathematics.
I found it interesting that Darwin recognized that inheritance has to be discreet/digital in order for evolution to work well before anyone had any idea how it actually could be that way. That's the sign of a good theory: predicting something that nobody has thought to even measure yet.
@@darrennew8211 Exactly - Darwin had no idea of the mechanism of evolution, but once the virtually universal genetic code had been worked out and inevitability of occasional, but relatively rare, errors in 'copying' DNA, Darwin's "common descent" became totally logical. Superb theory!
That may be the case, and if it is, then it's totally okay, and even necessary to it to point that out and raise awareness where you can. Anyone who understands Bailey to Motte (or the general idea) will be less susceptible to it, harder to manipulate and more likely to arrive at their own, sound and logical conclusion. If everyone were immune to Bailey to Motte, then such content would no longer be rewarded and would slowly disappear. The fact that there is so much Bailey to Motte content on RUclips indicates that it is still effective, and proves to the need to raise awareness.
The fallacy has nothing to do with whether the person is actually an authority. The appeal to authority fallacy has to do with any claim that does not address the argument with a counterargument of reasoning and evidence but instead invokes the authority of an institution or individual. People well-versed in a subject don't always agree with others well-versed in the same subject. That's why the individual's authority doesn't really matter. It's the arguments themselves and counterarguments, the reasoning and evidence that matter. Additionally, an entire discipline can be wrong for long periods of time about a particular process or other fact. That was the case with surgeons prior to the acceptance of germ theory. It was also the case with geology prior to the acceptance of plate tectonics.
Your point is well made, but keep in mind that he applied it to what Roger Penrose said about Penrose's own ideas. Those ideas may be right or wrong, but he is an almost unchallengeable authority on what his ideas are.
@@Inkling777 Noone is an unchallengeable authority on their own or anyone else's ideas. Even whether the idea is their own is challengeable. All claims are subject to challenge, review, revision, and correction. Well established concepts tend to withstand those tests, but even they may be revised or overturned.
@@Inkling777 What ideas of Roger Penrose are "unchallengeable"? He is no different than any other physicist. Could say the same about any other physicists, and there exists hundreds of them
This is incorrect. An appeal to authority is when one cites another entity as an authority on a subject they are not an expert in. For instance, doctor X says that this phenomena in physics works a certain way. Doctor X has a medical degree, not a physics degree. It is completely valid, not an appeal to authority, to cite an entity with the required expertise on a subject.
12:00 - my issue with Dave was that in his second video, he started by claiming that the only reason why he got any criticism was because people didn’t watch his first video in full. It wasn’t that his video may be lacking or be unclear in some points; no, it was the audience who were too lazy to watch the whole thing. Further, from my interaction with him in comment section, I could only conclude that he is an asshole not worth anyone’s time since his immediate reaction was to throw swear words and insult people.
Oh, he is an asshole, but that's because he's usually right. And he is definitely right about Sabine. He's a guy who is often debunking anti-science rhetoric. And that crowd tends to be more than just misinformed, but actually arrogantly confident in their misinformation. His style is addressing their contempt for science. And while his style might be a bit much, its due to his audience and I would even say its fairly well deserved.
@@Robert08010, being right is not enough to efficiently communicate science. If I thought that everything Sabine said was correct, his videos and interaction I had with him would only entrench me in that position.
@@Robert08010 Yeah Dave is a complete douchbag, and there's no way his communication style isn't damaging to science. Also in his videos about Sabine, he made a huge number of mistakes and mischaracterizations in his analysis while at the same time arrogantly spewing these opinions as vitriolically as if he was talking about a flat earther rather a respected science communicator. His attitude is a total joke, and he has some pretty shit takes on science and academia.
@@Robert08010 The ironic thing is that despite positioning himself as a cheerleader for science, Dave's attitude directly contradicts that motive. People with his approach and attitude towards science is a part of the reason the general public is losing trust in science.
The only part I disagree with is about the clickbait portion. I think we have normalized misleading clickbait in an unhealthy way. I understand it's the RUclips meta, but it still taints a video essay if the contents of what you discuss don't line up with the title. There is a middle ground to be found of accurate titles that grab your attention. I wish people got criticism more for overuse of clickbait, tbh. I think we like to believe we are immune to things like clickbait and think they don't influence our opinions. But when we try to think back to a topic of the thousands of videos people watch every year, when you constantly see titles that are to an extreme, it distorts your opinion of what is actually important information. So at the very minimum, titles should be accurate to the information that is presented. I don't know what the solution is to it, but it is a systemic problem to RUclips, and I am disappointed to find the practice infecting science channels and political channels that often have actual good content. But great video, nonetheless. The more grifters that get good faith critique, the better. I used to watch Sabine and it's frustrating because she definitely has moments of great education. But I have been disappointed by moments where she just has irresponsible practices as a science communicator and seeing people finally call her out on it has made me feel valid for my negative opinions of her content that started forming around 2022 or so.
@@duncan.o-vic i dont agree with either of those statements. to talk about the first one, the example of roger penrose calling her out on not understanding his theorem is an example of her just being wrong about something in a pretty cut and dry way. for the second one, that is just silly. how does a video that critiques someone in a direct way hurt critical thinking? people that are correct should be able to hold up to scrutiny. if you refuse to critique someone that you like then i would argue you are doing more to hurt critical thinking by putting blinders up.
Couldn't agree more. Clickbait is one of those seemingly small concessions that in reality is contributing towards a serious problem IMO - the value of saying things (or at least _trying_ to say things) that are true is being eroded in our society. Because it _seems_ "harmless" i'd argue it's actually more insidious than "big ticket" lies like rewriting history, anti-vaccination claims etc. - we're on guard against those in a way a depressing number of us seem _not_ to be with "deliberate misrepresentation for profit" (which is all clickbait really is given an attention economy - a type of lie to make money that as a society we have, for instance, tried to control and regulate against in _other_ forms of "advertising" but online seem to just blithely accept as "how things work now").
@@cjkenney This is not how scrutiny works. This is just bunch of unfounded accusations with no proof. The Penrose thing is the only founded claim, but still full of fallacies. Penrose being the authority on his theorem still doesn't mean he is right. Whether he is, is something that should not be excluded from any debate. Critical thinking is not blindly criticising a critic, it is about substantiating your claims or proving their claims wrong. There is plenty of fallacies in her videos, none of that was shown here, just the same hearsay, strawmen and flawed opinions.
She is falling for the idea that market will regulate research through demand. That's BS. Markets don't regulate themselves toward efficient distribution of resources. Otherwise, there would not be populations with wants. Also people would not decide what would be researched, but a few individuals and groups with money to direct research as they see fit. That's the definition of privilege and corruption. The problem she sees with grants would be perpetuated by the private sector.
She is not arguing for the markets to sort out research direction, nor to give control of it to the general public. She is arguing to give control of research direction to the researchers themselves.
The markets have been the best mechanism to alleviate wants, but it can't change the basic law of thermodynamics in that there are more people demanding their rights than there are people wishing to shoulder responsibility. Every right is also an imposition.
While I somewhat sympathised with her possession on academia all I'll say is that I unsubscribed about 9 months ago as the general tennor of her context in the months prior was less about reporting on new scientific discoveries.
I'm please to find that I'm not alone in my views of SH. In the beginning, I enjoyed watching her debate with specialists like her. She was on Bailey mode and, even if I didn't understand every technical issues, I could see what she what pointing at and what the debate was about. That was interesting. Then I began to watch her RUclips channel. At the beginning it was very good : science news, digested for non specialists. Then it turned more and more "ideological" to the point when it was insufferable. What you accurately called her "anti-intellectualism" began to get on my nerves. One day, under one of her video called "science is dead" or something like that, I told her in the comments that I didn't know of her little corner of the little part of fundamental physics in which she was a specialist, but I pointed out to her how fast other fields in science in general, and other fields of physics, were doing more than well and that she should stop feeding arguments to the pseudo-science and con men lot. After a while I unsubscribed. Then later I blocked her channel to stop the YT algorithm to feed me her BS.
I don't know much about advanced math or theoretical physics. But when Ms Hossenfelder does talk about something I'm qualified to assess, I've found that she sis prone to significantly (even badly) overestimate her own understanding of the topic, and confidently asserts as inevitable and incontestable conclusions of fact, positions that are arguable, or dubious, or simply wrong. And of course, aside from the very characteristic motte-and-bailey thing, there is her implicit presumption that opinions differing from her own on controversial topics are by definition misguided and wrong... and the ignorant presumption (endlessly contradicted by the history of science) that things that don't seem useful right now are in fact useless... and (again endlessly contracted by the history of science) that things we don't know how to test or measure today, we will never find a way to test or measure, etc. (In other words, another of her favorite fallacies is _Argument to Incredulity_ , presented as incontrovertibly definitive, logical conclusion -- she can't imagine how it might be accomplished, therefore it obviously never will be, and simply never can be.) When I first encountered her videos, I thought she was an thought-provoking iconoclast, worth paying attention to, but it quickly became clear that she is actually a crank -- a crank with a very high IQ, but still a crank.
@@iminabrons @iminabrons Well, actually... I _did_ use the word 'fallacy' -- it 's just that I used it in the plural. In fact I referenced _two_ fallacies that Hossenfelder is prone to (ie. the informal Motte-and-Bailey fallacy that was referred to in the videos, and also the Argument to Incredulity fallacy), as well as other criticisms* of her arguments and presentations. At first I thought that, with Hossenfelder's background and style, she'd be a an informative and thought-provoking addition to my YT viewing, but I quickly became rather disillusioned with the actual substance of her presentations. Her frequent fallacious reasoning was a major part of that. *) Not to mention, the occasional typo.
I first encountered her in her book and found it refreshing. The criticism of appeals to beauty and attempts to quantify beauty as an way of assessing physics theories was quite interesting. The In topics that I am familiar with I have seen her do a pretty job, what is your area that you have seen her do a bad job on? I don't think she thinks that things that don't seem useful now are useless, I think she is saying almost the opposite, that scientists should be free to work on actual science that they think progresses scientific knowledge instead of pretending that they are going to find some new amazing thing that has uses. She is absolutely interested in finding new ways to measure things, but she thinks that until we find a way to actually measure and test things that speculation about possible ways physics could work is more pure mathematics than actual science and that if you take away constraints then you can make any model "work". I think she is also absolutely right that is it misleading for physicists to say they want bigger colliders because they have no real reason to think that anything will be discovered in that energy range except that some of the models say there might. But some models also say they won't find anything interesting until orders of magnitude bigger, besides that it would be really cool if they did.
She does not use any fallacy. Rationalism is a very tempting method in abstract fields but it’s the wrong method. Of equations are telling you there are twelve dimensions and it’s not possible to measure or even detect such a phenomenon, put the pencil down and come back to reality. You are too far gone at that point. You yourself are sneaking in a fallacy, “Just because something is not useful today doesn’t mean it’s not useful tomorrow.” This is cliché thinking. You have to provide evidence of something about an idea that is promising. That gives it an unliking of possibility or probability. And there is nothing if the kind in these cookie theories. And she keeps bringing back the correct point if you cannot test it out, there is no point rambling on. Find a way to test it find some clue on where to start or don’t pursue further because you’re not tied to reality. It is this rationalistic error that makes people forget reality and start thinking it’s reality with the problem. Like Heraclitus did when he said, his theories lead to a world of change and everything is flux, yet the direct evidence of the senses being is absolute things not flux. So what does he do? Throw away reality and sense perception because the theory is above reality. That is NOT what any modern scientist (Heraclitus is at least innocent in this since he didn’t have the knowledge unlike a modern man ) should do or even have the excuse of doing
It's a shame that she's gone a bit contrarians, as she used to point out things (I felt were) legitimate concerns about scientific culture. Now what I'd like to know is your take on Alexander Unzicker. He seems to communicate the science pretty well but also shows more than a little …uhm, "critical concern" about physicists too.
@@youtubesucks1885 If you're going to make these sorts of statements, it would be useful if you were to then point out a competing figure who does present valuable opinions. Otherwise as a layperson looking at these comments everything you're saying seems like spiteful contrarianism.
@@redmanone Clickbait is when you choose a headline that makes a sensational promise about a piece of content, and do not deliver on the promise. This author described his problems Sabine Hossenfelder's videos in great detail and has a video title that conveys that. If I had discovered a theory of everything, and then I made a sound and logical video explaining my theory of everything, it would not be clickbait to say "this is my theory of everything". However, if I had made a much smaller breakthrough, and at the end said "and this might have implications for the theory of everythign", then the title "theory of everything" would be clickbait. Case in point: what title would you give this video, the explains the problems the author has with Sabine Hossenfelder?
People think to quickly when they get their feelings hurt... (apparently criticizing sabine really hurts people's feelings from some silly reason) Then they start misappropriating fallacies in your general direction. The fact is Sabine far-too-often goes outside of her own field of expertise, to inserts criticism(Like in contexts of mental health, politics).... (an actual authority fallacy, if you her on face value) But then people will wrongly attribute the authority fallacy, to actual experts in a field --- and furthermore, will listen to sabine, while she IS ACTUALLY, outside of her own field, without questioning a thing l (because i guess they feel an emotional connection to her angsty attitude) It's all very cute. Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy, when the authority is extrapolated into contexts that are outside of a persons field of expertise. Otherwise, its actually reasonable. Yes some of Sabine's criticisms have validity, but that's not enough when she is incapable of acknowledging the actual issues in her epistemology. If she is doing this on itinerary, and with awareness, then she is a malevolent actor... who can't see beyond her own ego. If she is just doing this as an epistemic habit/defense mechanism, then she is just simply, not very good at doing her job. (communicating information) Either way, it's not a very good strategy, if the purpose is actually to educate people or spread information. But if the purpose is to spread faulty reasoning under the guise of some counter-authority, then she is doing a wonderful job!!!!
I have to say that your videos and Professor Dave's made me consider my own bitterness towards academia. As a ex-researcher I collected a lot of resentments towards the 'academic system' and some of those are, I think, well sustained: the 'publish or perish' policy, the way monetanization and profit become the main goals, etc. All that is toxic and the source of a great deal of disappointment and frustration. Nevertheless we should not throw the water of the bath and the baby. Just like in the more broad political reality, an emotional knee-jerk reaction would be (I mean, 'is') the perfect soil for populism to grow and thrive.
"throw the water of the bath and the baby" ahahahahhahaha :D funny way to put it. And completely right I think. We cannot allow these misgivings to lead to the kind of populist conspiracy theories that the general public so frequently latches on to. Its dangerous and also tiresome. These youtube celebrities really need to display a little more nuance in their thinking and present both sides of the argument
You make the assumption that populism is bad. When you do that you implicitly divide society into two, the Elites....which you place yourself in and the Plebs. When you consider yourself separate from the common man, then you become part of the problem.
There are problems in funding and "publish and perish" - mentality, but I am finding it hard to figure out how an alternative approach could be implemented. The reason why academia works like it does is because of outside pressure as society wants metrics to determine who to give money for example. Thus any solution is not something academia can do alone.
@hubbeli1074 you see academia as "for The People?" Are you sure? Everything in this modern world is a push towards greater profit otherwise trans social studies wouldn't be a thing!?
Although being quite inclined to S. Hossenfelder I kind of resonate with your critic. Science is not a straight path to value. That's engineering which is based on science. If we quit going wild with new crazy ideas, science will end. If young scientist are deterred or defunded, because their first ideas have no value or are faulty, then ... game over. Wild ideas sometimes take > 2000 years to evolve and to create value: Demokrit, Eratosthenes. Or hundreds of years: Kants ideas about perception, Leibniz wild monade theories leading to modern computer sience and information processing. In my optinion modern physics is not stuck in the rut, it just takes more time (like before). May be in 100 years a highy-intelligent kid will combine the seeming faulty approaches of quantum gravity and add the final jigsaw peace. And suddenly all parts fall into the right place and 500 years later we have the warp drive.
>If we quit going wild with new crazy ideas, science will end Where does Sabine ever says we shouldn't pursue them? It's like you haven't watched her videos. Her whole critique of string theory is that is neither new, nor crazy idea, and it has failed to get an evidence repeatedly. Same with some other big things in science. And her whole argument is that there should be new approaches considered instead of old wrong ones. Her other critique is presenting areas of science which are economically unfeasible, in the early stages or with unknown prospects like they are ready for inductrial scale, and only need a couple of years to right the kinks. It's also not an attack on new crazy ideas.
@@quantummechanic2634 It depends I guess. In the case of flat-earth or creationism the case is clear. But with stuff like twistor theory or constructor theory not so. And there is also the case of effective theories like classical mechanics. It is obviously wrong, but works with certain boundaries.
@@nathanliteroy9835 I guess it lies in the eye of the beholder which theory is old enough to be dumped or regarded as failed (or parts of it). TIme will tell. The universe is complicated and crazy isnt' it. May be we should all be more patient and open-minded. Me included.
@@DrMax0 I like simultanious sitting on 2 chairs here - Sabine does want new crazy theories instead of baseless ones that failed to deliver evidense, and suddenly you want to be patient instead. Nice one
If certain areas of science are "failing" , by not producing sufficient progress, it may well be because further progress is hard. The low hanging fruit gets picked first. Discovering new particles takes increasingly higher energies, which means hugely expensive colliders. Creating a unified theory may require another genius like Einstein. However, there obviously is a danger as with all institutions that science just becomes a self-serving way to employ scientists. But science is perhaps one of the least worst things to waste money on.
Looks like Sabine Hossenfelder is doing something right. Getting attacked for one's opinions is always a good sign. But I do fail to understand your arguments against her. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what she says, but she's only doing what I expect any good scientist or academic would do, she asks questions and criticises until she gets answers. If that puts off some from going into the sciences, maybe they are the wrong people to go there anyway. We have too many individuals milking the system to the detriment of hard working scientists. About time they got called out and shamed. Keep up the good work, Sabine.
Being attacked by experts in the thing you are supposedly talking about is not a good thing. Science does not work like opinion polls or social media. Thank goodness.
She may just be interested in money from RUclips, she doesn't behave like a scientist as a rule that scientists go by is you never say "never" and this is almost the first thing she does in every video. Sure you're supposed to have skepticism but there are videos where she does it and people in the comments or videos tell her how she got the physics or math wrong and she doesn't take down her videos. It's weird, she seems like a misinformation and keep people on a poor science track; bot.
Scientists routinely say "never" - it is a fundamental part of the various conservation laws as just one example. Almost all of maths and most of physics, chemistry and biology are laws that are "never" to be broken. This is what scientific laws are.
@@mahonjt You don't understand science then, science as we know it is ever evolving, always changing, this is why science is always updating: Here are some recent examples of scientific theories or laws that were later proven wrong or modified: 1. Ulcers Caused by Stress (1980s) Doctors believed stomach ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. However, Australian scientists Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered many ulcers are caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori. 2. Neanderthals as Dim-Witted and Unsophisticated (1990s-2000s) Initial studies portrayed Neanderthals as unintelligent and uncultured. However, recent discoveries suggest they had sophisticated tools, art, and even interbred with early Homo sapiens. 3. Dark Matter as a Simple Particle (1990s-2000s) Scientists initially thought dark matter was composed of a single type of particle. However, recent studies suggest it may be more complex, comprising multiple particle types or even a fluid-like substance. 4. The Proton Size Anomaly (2010) Measurements of the proton's size seemed to disagree, sparking debate. Later experiments resolved the discrepancy, confirming the proton's size. 5. BICEP2's Gravitational Waves (2014) The BICEP2 experiment claimed to have detected gravitational waves from the Big Bang. However, subsequent analysis revealed the signal was likely caused by dust in the Milky Way. 6. The Wow! Signal as Alien Life (2016) A strong, narrowband radio signal was detected in 1977 and attributed to extraterrestrial life. However, recent studies suggest it may have been caused by a natural phenomenon, such as a comet or exoplanet. 7. The Tabby's Star Dimming as Alien Megastructure (2015-2018) Unusual dimming patterns in KIC 8462852 (Tabby's Star) sparked speculation about an alien megastructure. However, further analysis revealed the dimming was likely caused by dust and other natural astrophysical processes. That said in science it's never good to call something a "law" as there may always be a missing piece or it may be a never ending puzzle. The reason why is if you think everything is solid, a set of laws that are already here and there is no more too it people will not innovate and go beyond them.
It seems that it is SO difficult for many to maintain academic humility and not fall into anti-intellectualism to feed the dogmas and far-right audiences today.
Are you being ironic? It is perfectly easy to maintain such humility. Maybe it's hard to be humble while deliberately building an audience of anti-science right wing males.
Sabine makes her living with a peculiar form of "scientific outrage" theater. She reminds me of certain political channels out there... The comments section of her channel is a giant self-suck of like-minded whiners. Emotion sells, what can I say.
You nailed it. I think she has a personal beef with academia, and also some valid criticisms of things like "publish or perish" mentality, but just based on "reinforcement learning", she discovers that people like to watch her whining about science in general. And like everyone she has bills to pay, so.... The irony is that she has now become a cult personality figure who people believe just because she says so.
Yeah... I don't disagree with many of her points. But it's the tone and dismissive smugness that sells the channel. We humans are a cantankerous lot and it seems we love nothing more than some good old righteous anger. Well, maybe bacon.
It would be helpful if Sabine would give concrete suggestions how to change academia and how to go about the change. Changing how funding works would certainly require changes on societal level as well, as that's where much of the funding comes from. Same for criticizing what to study. If you want something else to be studied, at least name what that something else is.
It was a great segment - like this one! Thank you for your good work exposing charlatans like Hossenfelder has become! More power to you! Glad to have found your channel! Hossenfelder used to be better before her sour grapes grievances took over. I'm listening to her less and less as the grievances begin to supplant ever larger portions of her science talks and her appeal to science haters and fanciers of the contrafactual grows. I am sure that it was the faction of these conspiracy theorists with an aversion to facts that trolled your comment section.
After a couple of sufficiently frustrating personal experiences, including an alleged confrontation with a research senior, she has had to quit science as a participant and, in my personal opinion, struggle with the psychological effects of tossing off a life so-far devoted to it. This parallels some events in my life in physics, though I never wound up walking away. It is my informed speculation that any subject matter that comes close to that in her previous employ is now subject to attack and even fodder for the burn pile. Mr. Verse seems to have sensed this, especially with her new-found utilitarian attitude to science. Notice from her publications lists that she seems to have had no problems up until recently with doing some heavy-strength theoretical work herself related to cosmology...practical for anything? I will stop writing after speaking for myself when I say that I feel personally offended by the idea that "real physics" has stopped because 'string theory has failed', 'theory is just a useless playground', or she just simply hates it now. Just in physics, there is are vast areas to explore in condensed matter studies, subatomic studies (QCD), atomic physics (Rydberg atoms and cold traps) etc, etc., and the absence of the revolutions she craves do not mark the end of science somehow. regards, DKB
You're strawmanning Sabine's argument, she was never saying that theoretical physics or astrophysics is useless and the only worth pursuing is "prarctical" or applied one.
@@nathanliteroy9835 Annegajerski seems to understand precisely what is happening with Sabine. She's frustrated and jealous. Frustrated because she was "rejected" and jealous of other people who still make it.
Where has Sabine said that 'real physics' has stopped because string theory has failed??? She is no fan of string theory at all and is all about exploring in other areas!!!
@@mattlewis5095 I've been following her for many years now. I still subscribe to her channel. But I'm considering to unsubscribe for quite awhile now. And I probably will.
Where's your proof that 'public opinion on science has a direct consequence on its funding'? "Overly negative comments towards academia drive the young people away from science." Citation, please?
We have an existing increase of anti-scientific movements, ranging from Flat-Earthers, Creationists and let us not forget, that the elites require under-educated and anti-scientifc people to vote for their puppets. Not saying that Sabine is sitting with them in the same boat, but her use of words is overly drastic and dismisses everything pretty much indifferently. It is not that I do not see the problems with academic institutions, but I would say that alot of the issues within the academic field and the opinion of the public are definitively linked, since society, politics and the economy work under market-rules when it comes to funding.
@@dirkjenkinz595 I only can refer "anecdotally" that the amount of people "yapping" all those sentences like "mainstream science is lying", "evolution is not real" and such is increasing as online as in real life. You and I might be able to differ between the legitimate critique that Sabine and those people from the field in the comment section are sharing from that pure anti-scientific people who just jump onto a bandwagon. But those anti-scientific people do not make differences and they vote. Trump is about to become president. I do not know if I need "proof" of a fire burning then I see it burning. But I guess there is still free roam for hope and interpretation. As far as we can infer there might be no danger to the funding of theorists so soon.
I think there is perhaps an important point that many people are missing here. There is the accusation that Penrose is being trotted out just because he is an authority, and therefore this is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy. I think the point that's being missed here is that in the clips, Penrose gives a precise, logical argument, and not just an opinion. He doesn't just come out and say, "That's wrong", without giving a reason. I think the appeal to authority fallacy can sometimes be taken too far. I recall a discussion/argument I had with a person in the comments section of a RUclips video, where I tried to explain why a certain movie about a black hole was definitely not a good movie (I have a background in the subject). At one point the person responded with (paraphrasing), "Well, has Stephen Hawking or Kip Thorne ever been to a black hole?! So they might know as much as the cat down the street!". This is an example of what Issac Asimov called the "my ignorance is equal to your knowledge" argument. (Sadly, this is the environment we are living in right now, when some of the "do your own research" people trust manifestly ridiculous conspiracy theories over the opinions of experts. In a few weeks, we'll have a cabinet full of such people.)
Over two almost identical videos here, the authoritative figure Sir Roger Penrose (who Sabine actually knows a little) has been used as a fulcrum to attack Sabine in general. On top of that, more Penrose has been used to validate Penrose himself! But this whole thing is an edited construct, and the reason for all this is purely to belittle Sabine. Who actually are Mr Verse? Some students it seems, who got half their channels attention from the first video on this nonsense. And they call Sabine a 'grifter'?
@@mattlewis5095 I think you are missing the point that I made, or perhaps I was not clear enough. What counts is the validity of the argument, i.e., Penrose's argument, whether Penrose himself makes it or anybody else. His argument is not nonsense, but a reasonable technical argument. (One can also view the entire video here: ruclips.net/video/foq4nVAwEao/видео.html.The link to this video is given below Mr. Verse's video.) Whether Sabine knows or respects Penrose is beside the point. What matters is the physics argument, not the personalities involved. Many points in Penrose's argument can be found in standard textbooks on General Relativity. I do not know who Mr. Verse, nor do I care.
@@bobtimster62 *Obviously* Sabine and Penrose's disagreement over the science/maths (though it has little to do with the video in many people's opinion) will eventually come down to the strength of the various arguments and nothing else (we should all agree on that), but I'll ask you again: what have you actually seen here other than some over-dramatic and biased editing? You know, I knew this 'arguments only please...' dictum could be a potential repost here (sadly I was on my phone and had to re-write it twice due to my app constantly refreshing and losing my text), but you really-are ONLY taking Penrose's position here - having frankly seen only more Roger Penrose presented in support of Roger Penrose. You haven't really seen Sabine's argument in any detail because it wasn't properly given, and this whole 'discussion' is essentially a fabricated one - ie as it is presented here. They are not in the same room and they don't even know what is going on here. Would Roger Penrose be happy being used like this do you think? Given the way these videos are? Also, do you really understand all the points involved - Sabine's specifically - from all of this? What did this video actually genuinely 'prove'? That Sabine is 'grifter'?? That what it is meant to all prove, and it's a nonsense. The point you missed here (and if you please, the one that I am making) is that the whole 'bouncing off authority' issue (or however it was phrased by people) which you feel people have misunderstood, is to many people clearly the most accurate reading of this video. Clearly this 'Mr Verse' guy (and you absolutely *should* care who he is imo, as he constructed this presentation) is using Roger Penrose's status in physics to underpin a brace of videos that are clearly all about belittling Sabine in a very broad way indeed. I urge you to watch both videos again (putting some very backhanded 'compliments' about her within them to the side). Mr Verse is doing all of this off the back of someone else who did it recently - the 'Professor Dave' he admits to watching this time (who, if you care, isn't actually a professor at all - he's a youtuber who 'specialises' in swearing like a drunken sailor at climate deniers, which of course isn't even a thesis it's just an extremely easy thing to do.) The Mr Verse channel is imo simply joining-in a classic internet 'attack' on Sabine - who is supposedly now a 'friend' of said climate/science deniers due to her sometimes sceptical comments and 'tone' - though this aggressive comradery from Mr Verse is largely (in my opinion) for the guaranteed 'likes' and 'subscriptions' that bandwaggoning on this one was guaranteed to bring. I have to say the stats have pretty-much doubled for this channel since all of this - hence this entirely-unnecessary double-helping surely.
Yes, but it's unscienfitic. She runs a SCIENCE channel. Clickbait is like writing a BS abstract that makes different arguments to the paper it summarises. To claim to be a science communicator should mean being held to a higher standard than the slop that she is helping the web become. Lazy comments are another culprit.
@@jkaryskycoo She doesn't even personally claim to be a science communicator. She just thinks of herself as a person with a RUclips channel. She just happens to be so good at communicating science that other people have labelled her a science communicator.
In defense of Sabine on one point, when she criticizes a career in academia, her comments are full of people who had bad experiences working in academia. Has the creator of this video ever discussed what career advice he gives students who are interested in physics? I’m under the impression there are too many physics PhD’s chasing too few academic positions so career advice/suggestions would be helpful.
Yeah, citation definitely needed for this claim. I have never once seen a flat earther in Sabine's comments section. Not much sign either of science denialism or grifting, mostly it's just people talking about science.
PLEASE stop makin this kind of criticising videos and have an actual argument on real time. I have seen some critics of 2 hours and many times are based on exagerating comments that people says, people talk as it is and says wrong things all the time (or medioum wrong) but on an argument on real time you can tell the other person instantly what you think and they'll usually correct themselves, that's it. I have major respect for Sabine and I don't think she has a problem at all and I think these (hate) videos only make the problems (differences) bigger instead of helping. That's it.
Never really cared for her channel. I watch a lot of knowledge-based channels and always felt hers came off very biased and egocentric. I dont really care about someone opinion unless I am asking for it. She tends to only give opinions even when she is making a video for recent news. Has just always given me vibes similar to a lot of these guys that say a new revolutionary technology is coming out every week.
In one video Dr. Hossenfelder said that the money required for a new CERN collider would be more profitably applied to fixing the general circulation climate models. As someone who studied fluid mechanics for my two postgraduate engineering degrees, I am inclined to agree with her.
And a teacher would say money would be better spent in building nicer schools. It isn't surprising that experts of their domain want money spent in what they study or work in. Not saying you are right or wrong but indeed where to spend our tax money is one of the toughest and most impactful problems our societies have.
No she hasn’t ! She is a documented liar about other scientists and never names any of the supposedly guilty people she supposedly knows about. In that regard she is complicit in any wrongdoing she claims to know is happening. She didn’t even say if she had ever made a formal complaint about any specific people to any responsible authority. She is a cowardly joke!
Ignoring both the RUclips algorithm forcing her and you to choose horrible angles and Grothendieck arguments about fundamental research not increasing global happiness makes your video loop on itself
@3:15 there is a much more pertinent reason, which is she needs the attention to get revenue from her channel. All professional youtubers suffer the same phenomenon, they almost have to Motte and Bailey. I don't begrudge them this, it's just their need to take money off advertisers. You have yourself performed a Motte and Bailey, or at least a Bailey claiming Hossenfelder is saying "scientists with whom you disagree are con artists " - she might have truly terrible takes on some topics, like capitalism, but she doesn't go to that extreme, clearly, since as you say she always has the Motte.
I disagree. She is now fanning the flames of anti-science, contrafactualism, the penchant for conspiracy theories and distrust of science among impressionable people abd betraying the trust of the large platform she has. She is actively doing harm to society by undermining the value of facts and the scientific community. If she is doing it for money, all the worse!
There is zero need to pander and submit to outrage click bait to produce quality conflict. Technology Connections consistently puts out quality videos with none of this
She seems burnt out, bitter, and jaded. I think I saw only one video out all i watched of hers where she actually liked something - her videos did not used to be like this i think she is distressed, and not by the state of academia or physics.
@@Giantcrabz Why? Most of what Sam does is invite people on who are more knowledgeable than him in order to make the best possible case against pro-Trump grifters.
Oh the drama lol. What do you think is distressing her then? I try and keep on top of all her videos and a number are purely positive (and I haven't really noticed any change in the ratio over time either), but her thing is to be critical in a world she finds reason to be critical of, so she is. She doesn't look distressed to me, she looks fine and interacts really well with people too. She's still got her killer sense of humour that's for sure. If she looked really off I think the many people out there who cared about her would notice. I think she is more than sensible enough to give youtube a break if she was, too.
Dude, you can't refute her claims with Boltzmann, it is completely different things. Atoms are and were important, black holes not so much. You yourself are spraying fallacies and again, fail to show evidence of her fallacies. Your income is also irrelevant since the whole point of clout chasing is to increase it. I comment before finishing the video because your bs starts to pile up early in the video. There is plenty of proven fallacies she's guilty of, yet you tend to stick to unproven ones. Penrose being the authority on his theorem still doesn't mean he is right. Whether he is, is something that should not be excluded from any debate. Just because something could be useful in a thousand years doesn't mean it should be prioritized over saving lives right now. Just beacause there is non-zero chance of god being real, doesn't mean we should spend money on researching god. Your personal opinion that we should be optimistic about science is wrong. Science is provably in crisis, and it is not scientific to hide the truth. Most of the science is bs, which jeopardises entire science, economy, society etc. Things need to change. By science, no one means the scientific method, but rather research. She is only wrong about the reasons and ways to fix it. She's right about the scope of the problem. She is not responsible for idiots misusing semantics and taking things out of context. Just beacause someone is using bold semantics doesn't mean you should take it literally. Just like If you call someone an idiot, it is an insult, not a statement about person's literal IQ level. But I'll keep things brief...
So a few minor points i feel like i have to bring up here, Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, her expertise is mathematics and physics which she understands very well, she is also an individual with her own thoughts and ideas about the field in general. However her channel has been around for a long time so its not at all strange to see her talk about other fields as well where she by default will have less knowledge because she hasnt studied it for as long, where her thoughts and ideas will also be shown because she is human and it is her style of videos. Is it a grift? Not at all, its just how humans behave, does she do it for money, yes partly. At best i can descibe it like this, her problem is the following, she says things you disagree with.
In summary, I understand Mr Verse's complaint to be that Dr. Hossenfelder makes bold, controversial statements that jive with the new wave of science skepticism, hurting science. Especially in her video titles and thumbnails - which she would probably do because they're effective click-bait.
Unfortunately, it appears her difficulties in academia combined with social media algorithms have really turned her into an attention bore. Cultivating her acolytes, who appear to be young, relatively poorly educated conspiracy theorists, is not doing her any good either.
I rather enjoy her vids, and I'm firmly anti-conspiracy theory and middle aged. Granted, I'm only MSc, so you're right about relatively poorly educated.
To speak sensibly about "underfunding" of a field from government, it's necessary to have some sort of criteria about what would constitute adequate funding. From what you've said here, it sounds like one necessary criterion is something like "all graduate students in said field are paid adequately". Is that accurate? But really I'm not sure why one couldn't attribute grad students' low pay to poor allocation of research funds, or any number of other causes. Having been involved in scientific research proposals, it's pretty clear that the competition for research funds indicates that no matter how large a sum of money the government supplies to, say, HEP, more funding could always be used. Honestly there's nothing easier in the world than spending someone else's money. It's even easier when the supplier of those funds holds the monopoly on the use of force in the country.
If you think Sabine’s opinion on theoretical physics is exaggeratedly dismissive, just wait to hear her opinion on my field of science: experimental physics and quantum technology. Basically is her being jealous we get funds instead of whatever her research was.
Off the bat, the appeal to authority fallacy is not avoided by consulting the source of the idea. It pertains to the type of argument criticism advanced, surely you get that? We can’t wait for people to dispute their own theories.
If you consider the feet of clay in science to be the published or perish culture then it is no small argument Sabine is right she's arguing a perfectly logical argument
What exactly is that ‘argument’? She is a coward who chooses to make a lot of anti science click bait headlines but runs away from ever naming names of the people she claims are bad actors. Just like you!
@niblick616 have you ever published a paper? I have... 9 in fact. She describes very accurately the process of grant acquisition (which I've also done), male centred university politics (which I have observed) and peer review. In reality, the aim of the game is getting papers out, not making real discoveries. She also states that people theorise, then do an experiment to prove the theory. This sounds great but it's hardly neutral. The best idea is to observe the world, gather data, try to explain your observations with a theory, then try to make an experiment that can falsify the theory. Currently the experimental process is s effective as saying if my theory is true I'll find blue m and ms in my packet of m and ms. It's bad science and those that know about science know full well she's right. Case in point- dark energy. Papers are coming out now suggesting it's an artefact of time dilation. She's been saying that dark energy is because someone missed something for years. Not only is she right, but time will demonstrate she is right in a host of other areas. It's all well and good saying people are actors bit from what we say and do the truth comes out. Who is the actor here? If I had 2 chicken eggs and an ostrich egg, and ostrich eggs are 5 times the size of chicken eggs, how many eggs do I have in total?
@niblick616 I have learned that very often people who make accusations, such as being actors very often are the very thing they are accuising others of. In that light are you using a real account or are you just paid to manage hundreds of fake accounts just to sow division?
It's not that you are wrong, it's just that you are shallow and think that anything and everything is worth researching. This is the fallacy of the auto-didact, the self taught who have nothing to live for.
Sabine isn't committing motte and bailey when she makes hyperbolic statements that are *from the same position* as her more reasonable sounding criticisms. The motte and bailey fallacy is conflating different positions -using position x to make a claim in bailey and then retreating to the different position y to make claims in motte. Hyperbole isn't a fallacy, it's just hyperbole.
IMHO, Sabine is not causing the public to think that science is not worth the money. To me personally, it was a message "The money is getting wasted instead of doing proper science." This can (and is hapenning) happen in any field. Especially taxes, which people still pay instead of throwing a proper revolution.
If physicists are getting grants while discarding or eliminating physical evidence, I'm glad SH is pointing this out. Sounds perfectly fine that that the scientific grants business has a watchdog.
Annnnddd, Sabine was right about String Theory. Peter Woit message: "For some reason i spent part of my time listening the summary panel discussions at String 2025, which just ended today. Honestly, this was just completely PATHETIC. The whole thing was rule by David Gross, who at 83 is entering his fifth decade of hyping string theory......There are 3 panel discussions, involving nineteen people in addition to Gross. No one had any SIGNIFICANT progress to report, or any optimistic to say about future progress".
I'm not entirely sure if this video is really going to achieve much. It's basically just reiterating the same points from before. Sure, they are more fleshed out, but if the previous didn't get critics at least interested in engaging with the content, this video will probably not look very different to them. The fact that you literally had to feel the need to show how much you earn from one video when Hossefelder keeps posting videos at a much more rapid pace while getting more views and even affiliate links in the descriptions shows that they are hellbent on defending their stance. Taking down the establishment is cool nowadays, because they are corrupt. Doesn't matter if the person that does might be even worse. And as for Dave: Don't call his approach okay. Just look at his thumbnails and how he is already mocking the opposition in those. He has to pull down his opponents instead of having some actual wit about it. And from the snippets I have seen, I don't think he would be treating those that got accustomed to that kind of thinking very kindly. It's nice that people are coming out to oppose those views that confuse criticism with not just direspect, but even malice. I just hope they won't get drowned out eventually.
I'm not an expert on Intuitionistic Mathematics, but from the little I know, I find it very interesting as a tool to connect computer programming and mathematics. Her recent video treating this subject not once mentioned the Principle of the Excluded Middle. That and other things showed me how shallowly dismissive her narrative was, at least in this case.
Put it to her on that video then, she might answer. Please don't join the nonsensical kicking here though, it's horrible and totally unmerited. Time and again people prove they don't watch her videos by telling people he is "always this" when she simply isn't. It's scary truth creation and is so far from reality it's actually somewhat distressing.
Yep, there are a bunch of her sycophants running around defending her merely because she exists, not because she is correct or ethical. As a physicist, I almost immediately felt repelled by her. She is posting junk and topics that have nothing to do with physics.
Even when research money goes toward theories that don't pan out, it's still valuable because it allows us to rule out those theories and move on to alternatives. As long as we learned something the money was not wasted.
But that's her main point: many modern theories can't be disproven. There's no way for them not to pan out because they aren't falsifiable. So there is absolutely no way to move on to alternatives.
That is called the scientific method in action which Frau Hossenfelder now trashes to lucratively generate views abd a loyal following among conspiracy theorists!
It depends on how much and who is paying. That is how money works. If science believes it does not have to justify its cost as you seem to argue, then any thinking person would reasonably conclude it is'nt worth paying for.
It's important not to confuse a RUclips title with someone's actual stance. An unfortunate aspect of RUclips and social media is that you basically have to start with an extreme stance as a hook to get people to click on your video/site/etc. Hossenfelder is kind of trapped in this cycle as she is running a popular science channel. I fundamentally disagree with this approach, but it's a reality.
Uh... no... She actually says dumb shit in her videos, regardless of the titles. I will not criticize her expertise on Physics, since I have no expertise on that matter. But when she starts doing brain farts about social or even biology matters, then that's when you see she's completely clueless and narrowminded in many of the subjects outside Physics. And that is my major problem with her. No one is entitled to uninformed opinions, much less someone that is able to reach a large audience as she does.
@@CurtOntheRadio For the algorithm. Every instance of this I've seen though, she clearly explains in the content of the video that the title is hyperbolic, which is more than fair.
My man. Spot on with the motte & bailey observation. It is pretty tragic that she says she had a ruin-you-on-academia, professor. My armchair psychology makes me guess she is trying to ruin in it for everyone because it was ruined for her.
degrees are postdocs are a pyramid scheme for universities to make money for researchers to get cheap labor. That is recent and just same old science as usual. If you go in with your eyes open to that because you hope you can make a contribution to scientific knowledge despite that, good for you, but we shouldn't be setting a trap for people leaving high school starry eyed to be predated on by the system.
It's fair to say the Motte-and-bailey fallacy is a fundamental part of the RUclips business model for how to win friends and influence people. I love the platform, but pitting creators against each other in the suggestion tab for traffic creates a ton of headlines that have little connection to the deeper content. That's one aspect of RUclips I don't love so much.
Her behavior is rooted in her inherent traditional german character. The fear being sighted as naive and incompetent causes Germans to see everything bad, cynical, try never to smile, dance only if you are forced to, talk only if you “know” what you’re talking about , wearing black suits and so on. She is not even aware of it because it’s so natural for her. I agree with this video
A former Hossenfelder watcher here. I think your attack on her is a defence of the status quo. I actually agree with her that much of modern science research now is on a level with Ptolemy. The math works beautifully, but is it an accurate representation of reality? I can't say one way or the other, and have never been involved in academia. I have been involved in government, however. As most funding is now either government or corporate in nature, I am skeptical. The map is not the terrain.
"The math works beautifully, but is it an accurate representation of reality" Then it doesn't work beautifully. You're suggesting experimentation is dead.
> on a level with Ptolemy. The math works beautifully, but is it an accurate representation of reality? Physicists are quite aware of this -- but it's the best they can do with the materials they have. That's the point of those expensive colliders, those huge subterranean neutrino detectors, gravity wave laser contraptions, string theory, and so much other stuff -- until they find the data that doesn't fit but shows the path to a more fundamental theory, they're stuck. You'll note that for all her caterwauling, Hossenfelder herself hasn't produced any new ground-breaking conceptual approaches or insights, that might resolve any of this, or open up a "useful" line of theoretical development, or inspire a new, more "fruitful" line of experimentation. Her shtickt boils down to "this stuff is complicated, and hard, and no one has solved it yet... so it's a waste of time."
As long as her activity keeps resulting in videos like these, the occasional technical error is well worth it. We need a Science Debate RUclips based around discussion of fact instead of personality and behavior.
Name a realm of science where massive speculation has yielded almost no results, for fifty years: High energy physics. Hossenfelder's has every right to critique her own field. I admire her ferocity.
I suspect Mr Verse will claim that statement was hyperbole and not itself a motte and bailey, even though his statement was in the content of his video while hers was in the title where everyone (usually) understands the concept of click bait titles.
Your claim is even more ludicrous, especially when she literally claimed she had lost faith(sic) in science. That comment alone demonstrates why she cannot be taken seriously!
What makes it even more silly to me is that in my mind she doesn't really cater for school kids (she's a bit too advanced I suspect), and it's those young people in particular that aren't taking the sciences up enough - ie in view of getting a degree (it's a perennial issue alas). I don't think that working in the field after you have the degree is such an issue tbh. It is utterly ludicrous to blame anything on Sabine just doing her own thing for her own audience while using the same click-bait as everyone else though! It's an opinion incitement fallacy, and is kind of puritanically controlling too.
Funny. She is right about all the hype regarding quantum computers, hydrogen, fusion and AI. And all you nerds here didn't have balls to do that. I don't see any meaningful arguments from this video lol.
This. Funny, all I see in this video is a desperation to keep Science on a pedestal and thus keep the money flowing into Academia. Having spent 10 years getting 3 degrees, I have seen first hand examples of the criticism SH dishes out. She is an important voice to remind the population that Science is just like any other institution or movement and is driven by greed, ego, politics, and even stupidity. Just because someone in a white coat says something, doesn't mean it is the truth.
"Insinuating that scientists with whom you disagree are con artists is the definition of anti-intellectualism." Unless they are. Perhaps I'll make some time for the video later, I'm curious. Edit: Some time later. Right of the bat, you start with colorful comments and then proceed to show the same one twice, as first and second even. Withholding judgment, let's see what you have. 0:33 You show how much you made from the previous video, blurred. Some form of macro communication? I'm missing the point. 1:16 "...overly negative comments towards academia, drive young people away from science..." Do you consider this a fact? There's a lot to say about this, but It seems the claim is more of an intuitive or anecdotal argument, rather than one supported by targeted studies. "The motte and bailey fallacy" news to me, thanks for the clear explanation. Provocation has its place. From what I've seen from Hossenfelder, she's well aware of what she's doing in this regard. Yes her titles are clickbait, irksome but it is not fully indicative of the actual videos, and sad as it is this is the way to spark interest on RUclips. When this video found its way into my feed, I expected this would be the core of your critique, which is valid. "...the viewpoint that she puts forth that the entire field of high energy physics is a waste of money, is a highly anti-intellectual one..." I've seen the video that this comment refers to. By being hyperbolic here, you're actually doing what you accuse her of. "The motte and bailey fallacy". Hossenfelder is pointing out some specific fields like string theory and others that are fully unproven. You're framing this thus: "...the ENTIRE field of high energy physics..." Which is a hyperbolic misrepresentation. I'll leave it here, thanks for your perspective, but I find that of Sabine Hossenfelder more valid and convincing.
@maartenneppelenbroek I'm afraid so. I could not agree with your points at all. FOR EXAMPLE, this is not just "clickbait for titling", she carries on her hyperbole well into the video and Mr. Verse shows this quite clearly. This is, afterall, a brief follow up video from a previous one. Professor Dave, who's life is science education, has also critiqued her as have many others indirectly including Dr. Becky. That's it from me. I'm very familiar with Hossenfelder's RUclips work, as theirs, and what they propose fits with my findings too.
@@jemborg Understandable, you seem to have more experience with this topic. I'm just passing by. Basically, my only real point is that he does the same as she does, but I guess I explained it poorly. Sincere thanks for the response this time, was fishing if you were trolling or not.
Hissenfelder is a dicumented liar who makes allegations against many people then runs away from naming any of them. She cannot be taken seriously without getting confirmation from an independent and reputable source,
I defined when an appeal to authority is a fallacy in your last video. I find it amazing how many people accuse others of this fallacy without understanding it. Appeal to authority is a fallacy in two circumstances: 1) The authority is speaking outside their field of expertise. 2) The authority is speaking within their field of expertise but is providing their personal opinion and not the consensus reached by experts in that field.
Wrong. an appeal to authority is simply a logical fallacy. It is a substitute for argument. it says nothing about who or what constitutes an authority. The founder of western philosophy - Plato - claimed to know nothing.
@@chrisgwynne1586 It is legitimate to appeal to an authority who is a recognised expert in the field expressing the consensus view. You can't know everything and you certainly cannot be an expert in everything. A layperson does not have the background to challenge such expert but can only hope to understand the conclusions thay have come to and why.
@@billbogg3857 That is incorrect. The "appeal to authority" is an *informal* logical fallacy, meaning that appealing to an authority is not always a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy only in certain circumstances. I have defined those circumstances above. That is a fact and you can confirm this for yourself by looking up "formal vs informal logical fallacy". They almost always give the "appeal to authority" as an example of an informal logical fallacy.
@ A logical fallacy does not only apply under certain conditions . A claim that x must be true because y ,an authority, says that it is true is a flawed argument .
The funding, of course, the bottom line. The motivation, the life line, the umbilical cord of academia. Can't say anything to cut off the gravy train. That's heresy.
I have given up on her because she is merely chasing popularity. She will say anything. When she blathers on about covid, or climate change, or what not that really matters she knows how to stay in the headlines without getting blacklisted for speaking the truth. I refuse to give her any more positive press.
Comments regarding Sabine are valid -- but - too bad Penrose got into quantum crankery with microtubules, a separate topic altogether. He does well with physics, but not biology or neuroscience.
Are you serious??? That's exactly what Sabine does, and that's my only pet peeve against her! She opines on subjects, she has no expertise on! I will not argue against her, when it comes to physics, but me and time again, she has expressed an uninformed opinion on a multitude of subjects which are not her domain. She should, STFU about those, and stick to her schtick.
@@jesan733 Because you understand none of them. See what political scientists, climatologists and medical doctors have to say about her dumb other videos that present like common-sense. Also see her revisions to what she got wrong and it's hard to disagree with @herlandercarvalho
There’s a simple incentives problem here, one which has already consumed grifters like Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson. Saying science is a con and a scam will pay her bills, presenting nuance and complexity will not. If you have a chip on your shoulder about how you were treated in academia, as Bret, Jordan and Sabine all do, then the next logical steps almost write themselves
The crux of the issue is that, originally, Sabine had an exclusive audience with a strong scientific background. I’m a researcher myself, although from a distant field of interest. And what she says sound good to me, because I 'm struggling every day with the problems of today's academia. But this will never jeopardize my trust in science because, well, its my job. I know the goods ans the bads of what happens.
Then her audience grew massively thanks to her success, and now she likely has viewers who know far less about the research profession. And yet, she still adopts a direct and unfiltered tone, much like someone you’d overhear at the coffee machine in a lab. This is indeed questionable. She hasn’t adjusted her tone to match the evolving level of scientific literacy in her audience (actually not exactly scientific literacy but rather some kind of meta knowledge about how scientific knowledge emerges and evolves within the academia), which is likely a mistake.
However, in the context of a research lab coffee break, what she says remains entirely valid and even appreciated.
"Adjusted her tone" - ie political correctness
OL9245 has a good point. I am a pot head high school drop out who used to listen to her. Her tone has actually shifted into much more yelling of her opinions away from reasonable discussion. Her opinions do not interest me, except as they threaten the acceptance of scientific enquiry by "the great unwashed" which I identify as.
She may do more harm than good with people like me.
Also... it is as if her feelings have been hurt. Is she bitter? Emotional? Is it rather sad? 😢
yeah, but will china wait to break bitcoin in order to fund their conquest of taiwan?
@@Rampart.X Do you have the same tone regardless of your audience? Say, at a party or a funeral?
@@OL9245 You have it exactly backwards. Her tone is what attracts here uninformed audience. But the problem is that she gets things wrong. The worse colleagues in the lab are the ones who are both abrasive AND scientifically unsound.
I've thought over time she's falling into the content trap. She has to generate more and more content until it becomes less quality and more about the grift.
she has a team to feed, it's understandable, but should stay away from topics that other youtubers spend hours discussing without a sure resolution..
100%
Yes. And starts talking about everything - not based on her own knowledge base.
You are spot on - she is a victim of her business model and her economic circumstances.
with 1.59M subs odds are the marketing team is assisting her in doing it... perhaps there is evidence of a "change" after she reached 250K subs or 100K subs or whatever milestone represents the prevalence of a significant change?
If we left it up to "the people to decide" all the research would be in UFOs, Ghosts, ESP, and Big Foot
I don't think she meant leave up to the public. That's not a position I've every heard her claim to be in. Rather, she says to leave it up to the people doing research instead of the people funding research.
How do you know? Did you conduct research or make that up just to humiliate people?
Yes, because people are absolute morons... Right? Rather than present them with the truth, mocking and manipulating them to "do the right thing" is much better. Right? No government ever used science in the same way as some used religion to justify murdering millions. Just saving them from themselves and their own immoral stupidity.
and anti-vax nonsense
@@micdaveythen she should be railing against giant gate keeping for-profit journals instead of spewing nonsense she doesn't understand
I don't have a true dog in this fight, but you drop logical fallacies left and right in this video.
It seems to me that you committed a fallacy fallacy. At least point out the fallacies you see before making such claims, otherwise it just sounds silly.
You should see his first one. People pointed them out and this one simple doubles down on the first, supplying more Penrose to prove she is wrong about Penrose (someone she knows a little and has always said she admires fwiw).
@@mattlewis5095 He brought Penrose back to make the point that using Penrose as an atuhority on Penrose theorem was not an appeal to authority fallacy, something many were accusing him of.
Everyone can then judge whose assessment you believe more, a serious and respected scientist and expert on the field, or a youtuber who has to churn out videos of varying quality on daily basis.
@@hubbeli1074 Sabine is also a serious and respected scientist, your attempt to disparage her notwithstanding.
I am not familiar with her disagreement with Penrose, but with regards to her disagreement with Tim Maudlin she is 100% correct. But the video still just assumed that Tim is right because Tim is an authority. I've read both Tim's critique of statistical dependence and superdeterminism, and I've read Sabine's response to this critique, and Sabine makes a significantly stronger argument. Of course, the video included Tim's critique but not only omitted Sabine's response but never even mentioned that she has a response.
It doesn't make any difference if it's called 'Penrose Theorem' or not, it's still tautological to use Penrose in this way. And he was clearly used as a fulcrum to substantiate all the surrounding attacks on Sabines integrity. They two people actually know each other (Sabine has always supported Penrose as deserving of his belated Nobel) and I can't believe he would be happy with the way he was used here.
Re your second paragraph, as long as we all know who is who! Mr Verse seems to be students who make about a video a month, and I can't find anything on them because they simply don't provide any info! (KAC students?). I'm guess they got 21K subs through these kind of hate videos.... but hmmm most of their videos only get around 70 likes though, so the subscription figure is likely to be BS in my view. I might check it out on Social Blade.
Sabine on the other hand is certainly respected by a great many in her field and more and more outside it too (not string theorists so much admittedly!)
German Ph.D. student here. You have grossly missrepresented what Ph.D. students get paid in your text. There is no distinction between subjects, of hiw much you get paid for full time work as a scientifi worker. They are all on the payscale of the same collective bargaining. agreement. However, most Ph.D. students don't get official full time employment. While of course they are expected to do more than full time work. This is mentiined in the post you showed, but ignored in what you say. The post are also uncompairable. The first post talks about the individual situation of one Ph.D. student in physics and the other post says between 75 and 100% is what you typically get in Computer science. I could not find a statistics if how many hours different sciences get paid on average. But you need to provide evidence if your claim is that the average Ph.D student gets 50% wheras the average Computer Science student gets 100%. This is what the text of your video claims. And its most likely wrong
What is your Ph.D. in? I am also PhD student in Germany, and what he says is correct. Avaerage theoretical physics PhD starts at 50% position, while it is rare for CS students starting below 75%.
@@kiranadhikari4192i am doing economics. I would think as a social sience we have it worse than any hard sience. But as I say I couldn't find any source or data for differences. Unfortunatly in your reply you haven't provided any either. Still even if you are right, your claim is very different than the video. As you talk about starting contracts rather then average ones and he calculates with 100% for CS whereas you claim it to be 75%. Either way he should provide proper sources to make such a big claim. I find it plausible that most applied fields (engineering, cs etc.) Would have better conditions, because they might get more non-state funding (Drittmittel). Being more applied is more interesting for companies. However, as I say he needs to provide evidence if he refers to exact numbers like that.
@@kiranadhikari4192you get what you are worth. Imaginary value doesn't justify higher pay.
@@kiranadhikari4192unfortunatly my reply was deleted, I think I was perfectly friendly so I don't know why. Basically you made a much weaker claim then the video does and also haven't provided evidence. I understand the text of the video as saying that its a rule that physicist make much less money and used for the calculatiin 50% vs 100% contracts. I am in social science and my gues is that we have it worse than the hard sience, but I also have no evidence for that. My gues again would be that any applied sience get more third party funding as companies want to give them money. Unfortunatly that plays a big role in German research landscape. So intuetily it makes sense that engineering subjects get better coditions than fundamental research. However, if he makes such a claim he should provided data to the fact. And at least explain how the system works alittle bit. He makes it seem like the official goverment policy is like: "physists should get half as everyone else, because we don't like them."
@@kiranadhikari4192all my replies get deleted, so I give up now :(
I found her interesting at first, but then she starting broadening beyond her scope of knowledge into stuff I knew really well, and that is really where I noticed how bad she can be.
Same. She then sounded cringy-naive like Elon Musk sometimes does.
Same. I was recommending her to people, then shortly after she made a few cringe videos in a row. I was so embarrassed for having recommended her channel. She used to be weird/quirky, then went full-elon. Unsubbed years ago, and now the only time I hear about her is that she's still doing the same shit or worse.
Many academics are lost in common delusions, she's not alone.
She's guilty of many things, but this video addresses mostly the things she's right about.
@@Dowlphin touche!
I find Sabine interesting but very . . . well, almost jealous? Not sure that's quite right. She is very quick to call those who participate in scientific as paper pushers just writing down words for a salary or grant. She has some insightful things to say here and there - and she's certainly more expert in physics than I am - but also has some strange blind spots when it comes to theory and research. You'd be hard pressed to find an area of scientific research that - despite many calling it pointless - that didn't end up teaching humanity something valuable about the Universe. And I've always found it odd, considering her profession, how she disparages theoretical work as "pointless" or "useless" when it's in the theory we discover so much, and figure out ways to test the theory's in the physical world by applying the theory we have. Some of the things she declares useless are just not testable YET, and things like information loss of black holes usually leads to insights that do give us ideas of how to test the underlying reality of the Universe. So, she's usually interesting but, I think, carrying a lot of sour grapes.
Oh, its very much a sour grapes mentality.
Spot on. "Jealous" is quite a nice word to describe her lately.
I do wonder if she intentionally plays up her “sour, dour, German” persona for her channel. I have heard her in other contexts and seem less extreme.
I agree with your take. I also don't like how she criticizes other sciences where she has no expertise.
She praises the wise and does not suffer fools gladly, and in theoretical physics it turns out there are more fools than many previously suspected.
I appreciate you tried to present Sabine's view fairly but, in my opinion, you failed to represent her main argument. You mentioned issues in academia but made no mention of her contention that physics has given up on the need to base theories on physical evidence rather than pure maths. You can disagree with that position but it's hard for your viewers to even assess whether her view is reasonable or not when you haven't presented it. There is absolutely nothing anti-intellectual about her position. She talks contantly about useful reasearch in all sorts of areas.
Her position refers to over-reliance on applied math. And what about all the other stuff she talks about outside her field? You don't think she should answer for getting so much so wrong in a way that just happens to profitably coincide with the beliefs of her q-anon/conspiracy/anti-science audience?
@@marca9955 its actually pretty easy to spot scrips she wrote herself (actually quite few) and make the distinction from the rest written by her staff.
Quite impossible to maintain quality high and steady with daily videos but she has fallen in the trap. Now, she has paychecks to sign for her team at the end of the month. Making views and Paying her guys must be more important for her than being picky on quality.
@@marca9955 "q-anon" Really? Really?? Really??? You think that is a meaningful part of her audience? You will be burning witches soon.
I have not quite understood the problem Sabine has with "reliance on math" as this approach has produced many discoveries, such as the Higgs boson. It would be helpful to understand what would Sabine like theoretical physicists to study instead?
@@marca9955the key word you’re glossing over is theoretical physicists. Many time theoretical physics becomes applied physics when ways to test and quantify the theories becomes available. A great example would be the LIGO detectors. Back in the ‘70s and ‘80s who would have thought that there would be a physical means to test for gravitational waves, let alone triangulate their origin. They were just mathematical constructs in the theory of relativity. The same goes for entanglement. Even Einstein dismissed that. Now entanglement is being used to develop quantum computing.
Sabine stating that this or that field of study is useless is akin to the Commissioner of the US Patent Office telling President McKinley, that the office should be closed because everything that could be invented, had been invented.
"There's a crisis in cosmology!!"
Welcome to 1950 🤦
Yes, and because the bad methodology that started with the Copenhagen Interpretation never was ended, it will KEEP happening.
@@KAZVorpal Yup, the Copenhagen Interpretation is obviously on it's a face a really bad way to interpret the data. But people can't get over it.
@@thenonsequitur That bad methodology has held a stranglehold over "science", such as remains, for almost a century.
It's the cause of the several "crises" in physics/science today.
At 5:15 you moved the goalpost from Theoretical Physics to Science. The headlines themselves say science, but it is clear that this is just clickbait and/or just simplifying the title for the audience and that the actual focus is on theoretical physics. She is simply critiquing the random creation of new models of physics from pure creativity. Science should be empirical not creative. Not that it cannot be both, but unlike theoretical mathematics where the creative solutions are inherently empirical, theoretical physics is not always empirical.
You even say it is blanket opposition of science when the tweets and videos are specifically focused on theoretical physics.
All the same science is NOT in crisis.
@@jemborg No, it really is. But it's not due to anything science related, it's due to our banking system and its perverse incentives. It's a deep dive, but needless to say, if you don't understand that you are currently enslaved by banks through mechanisms like fractional reserve lending, you need to read more about economics.
So what?
@@epicmatter3512She literally stated that she had lost faith(sic) in science! Your claim is not true.
Mr Verse next videos :
Sabine is so over
Sabine is finally done
The Sabine situation is crazy
Sabine is finished I swear
This time Sabine is finally over
Improve your grammar.
@@AHumanLivingOnEarthYou mean Mr Verse titles have bad grammar?
Wouldn't the 5th be "Sabine's comeback tour"?
did you even watch the whole video he literally said it was his last video on this topic
@@preacher066 That is obviously not what I meant.
An appeal to authority is a fallacy, when the person's authority is irrelevant? No, an appeal to authority is a fallacy, when a person's opinion is used as evidence, simply because that person is an authority or famous.
Wrong. An appeal to authority is when an entity does not have the required expertise to be used to convey evidence on a matter. Also, facts can be opinions. An opinion is not automatically wrong.
@@sciencedaemon Opinions without evidence, are simply opinions, even if that opinion is from an expert. That's why it is a fallacy. Facts require evidence. Understand?
@@Bill-ni3es And? You aren't saying anything that isn't already known. The fact is that people often assume an opinion cannot be based on facts, especially when they want to disagree with others. In reality, everyone has opinions based on facts or not. It is not all or nothing black and white thinking, as you display.
@@sciencedaemon I was just trying to clear up your confusion with an appeal to authority fallacy.
@@Bill-ni3es bahaha, you used one in your attempt and still got it wrong. LOL
I have no problem with Sabine being blunt - and sometimes rude - but that doesn't mean she's always right!
Far too many people are sucked in by her sophistry.
She certainly knows that being controversial is a surefire way to get more views...
money corrupts
@@Giantcrabz This argument could equally well be applied to the huge amount of string theory research. Whether it should be is another question.
Sometimes you should actually try to get more views in order to change things that need to be changed.
She is controversial because the mainstream thought isn't really aligned with the truth. So maybe check yourself.
String Theory is Sophistry. You are corrupt
Then That Vegan Teacher, who is great, would be super-rich.
7:35: I find it amusing that physicists relate that debate between Mach and Boltzmann on the existence of atoms as having been finally settled by Einstein in his explanation of Brownian motion. It doesn't take anything away from Einstein to note that CHEMISTS had been interpreting their work using not only atoms, but molecules too - molecules with complex structures and they understood the some of the role of stereochemistry as a way to interpret the behavior of compounds, i.e., the molecules. (See, for example, the work for which Emil Fischer was awarded the Nobel Prize - done in the preceding decades - in 1902, three years before Einstein's paper on Brownian motion.) Let's just say it, if Mach had paid any attention to what was going on in chemistry, he would have known he was pretty far out on a limb of the crackpot tree to deny the existence of atoms at all in the latter part of the 19th century. As a comparison: Darwin and other biologists in the many decades after the Origin of Species (and even before) buried the Biblical Story of Creation, we didn't need to know the structure of DNA, even as much as knowing the molecular basis of evolution enriches our understanding of evolution. Brownian motion didn't establish the concept of atoms - chemistry had already done that.
It's absolutely true that the chemists had it right and the physicists got it wrong about atoms. It was not just Ernst Mach either. The British Royal Society shamefully rejected the earliest atomic theory papers by Thomas James Waterston [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Waterston]. Lord Rayleigh later apologized to history for this stupendous stupidity. The "shut up and calculate" era in physics in the 20th century rivals this earlier rejection of atomic theory by physicists, as Sabine Hossenfelder rightly points out. One can argue that it was excessive devotion to empiricism that led to these rejections though, rather than striving for beautiful mathematics.
I found it interesting that Darwin recognized that inheritance has to be discreet/digital in order for evolution to work well before anyone had any idea how it actually could be that way. That's the sign of a good theory: predicting something that nobody has thought to even measure yet.
@@darrennew8211 Exactly - Darwin had no idea of the mechanism of evolution, but once the virtually universal genetic code had been worked out and inevitability of occasional, but relatively rare, errors in 'copying' DNA, Darwin's "common descent" became totally logical. Superb theory!
What is your point?
I stopped watching her channel over a year ago when it seemed like her videos were having more of a "Psychology Today" vibe to it.
"her videos were having more of a "Psychology Today" vibe to it."
If that is accurate, then "Oh good God!!!!"
Bro the entire platform runs on Motte and Bailey
That may be the case, and if it is, then it's totally okay, and even necessary to it to point that out and raise awareness where you can. Anyone who understands Bailey to Motte (or the general idea) will be less susceptible to it, harder to manipulate and more likely to arrive at their own, sound and logical conclusion. If everyone were immune to Bailey to Motte, then such content would no longer be rewarded and would slowly disappear. The fact that there is so much Bailey to Motte content on RUclips indicates that it is still effective, and proves to the need to raise awareness.
That was my thought. He's really criticizing her for clickbait video titles?
The fallacy has nothing to do with whether the person is actually an authority. The appeal to authority fallacy has to do with any claim that does not address the argument with a counterargument of reasoning and evidence but instead invokes the authority of an institution or individual. People well-versed in a subject don't always agree with others well-versed in the same subject. That's why the individual's authority doesn't really matter. It's the arguments themselves and counterarguments, the reasoning and evidence that matter. Additionally, an entire discipline can be wrong for long periods of time about a particular process or other fact. That was the case with surgeons prior to the acceptance of germ theory. It was also the case with geology prior to the acceptance of plate tectonics.
Your point is well made, but keep in mind that he applied it to what Roger Penrose said about Penrose's own ideas. Those ideas may be right or wrong, but he is an almost unchallengeable authority on what his ideas are.
Exactly what I thought. It didn't solve the fallacy problem, but rather confirmed it.
@@Inkling777 Noone is an unchallengeable authority on their own or anyone else's ideas. Even whether the idea is their own is challengeable. All claims are subject to challenge, review, revision, and correction. Well established concepts tend to withstand those tests, but even they may be revised or overturned.
@@Inkling777 What ideas of Roger Penrose are "unchallengeable"? He is no different than any other physicist. Could say the same about any other physicists, and there exists hundreds of them
This is incorrect. An appeal to authority is when one cites another entity as an authority on a subject they are not an expert in. For instance, doctor X says that this phenomena in physics works a certain way. Doctor X has a medical degree, not a physics degree. It is completely valid, not an appeal to authority, to cite an entity with the required expertise on a subject.
12:00 - my issue with Dave was that in his second video, he started by claiming that the only reason why he got any criticism was because people didn’t watch his first video in full. It wasn’t that his video may be lacking or be unclear in some points; no, it was the audience who were too lazy to watch the whole thing. Further, from my interaction with him in comment section, I could only conclude that he is an asshole not worth anyone’s time since his immediate reaction was to throw swear words and insult people.
Oh, he is an asshole, but that's because he's usually right. And he is definitely right about Sabine. He's a guy who is often debunking anti-science rhetoric. And that crowd tends to be more than just misinformed, but actually arrogantly confident in their misinformation. His style is addressing their contempt for science. And while his style might be a bit much, its due to his audience and I would even say its fairly well deserved.
@@Robert08010, being right is not enough to efficiently communicate science. If I thought that everything Sabine said was correct, his videos and interaction I had with him would only entrench me in that position.
@@Robert08010 Yeah Dave is a complete douchbag, and there's no way his communication style isn't damaging to science.
Also in his videos about Sabine, he made a huge number of mistakes and mischaracterizations in his analysis while at the same time arrogantly spewing these opinions as vitriolically as if he was talking about a flat earther rather a respected science communicator.
His attitude is a total joke, and he has some pretty shit takes on science and academia.
@@Robert08010 The ironic thing is that despite positioning himself as a cheerleader for science, Dave's attitude directly contradicts that motive. People with his approach and attitude towards science is a part of the reason the general public is losing trust in science.
@@mina86 I don't think anyone is claiming that Prof. Dave is a better communicator that Sabine; just way more accurate.
The only part I disagree with is about the clickbait portion. I think we have normalized misleading clickbait in an unhealthy way. I understand it's the RUclips meta, but it still taints a video essay if the contents of what you discuss don't line up with the title. There is a middle ground to be found of accurate titles that grab your attention. I wish people got criticism more for overuse of clickbait, tbh.
I think we like to believe we are immune to things like clickbait and think they don't influence our opinions. But when we try to think back to a topic of the thousands of videos people watch every year, when you constantly see titles that are to an extreme, it distorts your opinion of what is actually important information. So at the very minimum, titles should be accurate to the information that is presented. I don't know what the solution is to it, but it is a systemic problem to RUclips, and I am disappointed to find the practice infecting science channels and political channels that often have actual good content.
But great video, nonetheless. The more grifters that get good faith critique, the better. I used to watch Sabine and it's frustrating because she definitely has moments of great education. But I have been disappointed by moments where she just has irresponsible practices as a science communicator and seeing people finally call her out on it has made me feel valid for my negative opinions of her content that started forming around 2022 or so.
No "educator" can use clickbait. That for the sensationalist to use.
Except this video calls her out on things she's right about and is harmful to it's supposed goal - critical thinking.
@@duncan.o-vic i dont agree with either of those statements. to talk about the first one, the example of roger penrose calling her out on not understanding his theorem is an example of her just being wrong about something in a pretty cut and dry way. for the second one, that is just silly. how does a video that critiques someone in a direct way hurt critical thinking? people that are correct should be able to hold up to scrutiny. if you refuse to critique someone that you like then i would argue you are doing more to hurt critical thinking by putting blinders up.
Couldn't agree more. Clickbait is one of those seemingly small concessions that in reality is contributing towards a serious problem IMO - the value of saying things (or at least _trying_ to say things) that are true is being eroded in our society.
Because it _seems_ "harmless" i'd argue it's actually more insidious than "big ticket" lies like rewriting history, anti-vaccination claims etc. - we're on guard against those in a way a depressing number of us seem _not_ to be with "deliberate misrepresentation for profit" (which is all clickbait really is given an attention economy - a type of lie to make money that as a society we have, for instance, tried to control and regulate against in _other_ forms of "advertising" but online seem to just blithely accept as "how things work now").
@@cjkenney This is not how scrutiny works. This is just bunch of unfounded accusations with no proof.
The Penrose thing is the only founded claim, but still full of fallacies. Penrose being the authority on his theorem still doesn't mean he is right. Whether he is, is something that should not be excluded from any debate.
Critical thinking is not blindly criticising a critic, it is about substantiating your claims or proving their claims wrong. There is plenty of fallacies in her videos, none of that was shown here, just the same hearsay, strawmen and flawed opinions.
She is falling for the idea that market will regulate research through demand. That's BS. Markets don't regulate themselves toward efficient distribution of resources. Otherwise, there would not be populations with wants. Also people would not decide what would be researched, but a few individuals and groups with money to direct research as they see fit. That's the definition of privilege and corruption. The problem she sees with grants would be perpetuated by the private sector.
She is not arguing for the markets to sort out research direction, nor to give control of it to the general public. She is arguing to give control of research direction to the researchers themselves.
Well said, crisoliveira!
The markets have been the best mechanism to alleviate wants, but it can't change the basic law of thermodynamics in that there are more people demanding their rights than there are people wishing to shoulder responsibility. Every right is also an imposition.
While I somewhat sympathised with her possession on academia all I'll say is that I unsubscribed about 9 months ago as the general tennor of her context in the months prior was less about reporting on new scientific discoveries.
I'm please to find that I'm not alone in my views of SH.
In the beginning, I enjoyed watching her debate with specialists like her. She was on Bailey mode and, even if I didn't understand every technical issues, I could see what she what pointing at and what the debate was about. That was interesting. Then I began to watch her RUclips channel. At the beginning it was very good : science news, digested for non specialists. Then it turned more and more "ideological" to the point when it was insufferable. What you accurately called her "anti-intellectualism" began to get on my nerves. One day, under one of her video called "science is dead" or something like that, I told her in the comments that I didn't know of her little corner of the little part of fundamental physics in which she was a specialist, but I pointed out to her how fast other fields in science in general, and other fields of physics, were doing more than well and that she should stop feeding arguments to the pseudo-science and con men lot. After a while I unsubscribed. Then later I blocked her channel to stop the YT algorithm to feed me her BS.
I totally agree with you.
exactly my experience too
I know you are correct, Cyrille.
I don't know much about advanced math or theoretical physics. But when Ms Hossenfelder does talk about something I'm qualified to assess, I've found that she sis prone to significantly (even badly) overestimate her own understanding of the topic, and confidently asserts as inevitable and incontestable conclusions of fact, positions that are arguable, or dubious, or simply wrong.
And of course, aside from the very characteristic motte-and-bailey thing, there is her implicit presumption that opinions differing from her own on controversial topics are by definition misguided and wrong... and the ignorant presumption (endlessly contradicted by the history of science) that things that don't seem useful right now are in fact useless... and (again endlessly contracted by the history of science) that things we don't know how to test or measure today, we will never find a way to test or measure, etc. (In other words, another of her favorite fallacies is _Argument to Incredulity_ , presented as incontrovertibly definitive, logical conclusion -- she can't imagine how it might be accomplished, therefore it obviously never will be, and simply never can be.)
When I first encountered her videos, I thought she was an thought-provoking iconoclast, worth paying attention to, but it quickly became clear that she is actually a crank -- a crank with a very high IQ, but still a crank.
Well said and you didn't use the word "fallacy" once to make your point. I wish more YTers would learn from you.
@@iminabrons @iminabrons Well, actually... I _did_ use the word 'fallacy' -- it 's just that I used it in the plural. In fact I referenced _two_ fallacies that Hossenfelder is prone to (ie. the informal Motte-and-Bailey fallacy that was referred to in the videos, and also the Argument to Incredulity fallacy), as well as other criticisms* of her arguments and presentations.
At first I thought that, with Hossenfelder's background and style, she'd be a an informative and thought-provoking addition to my YT viewing, but I quickly became rather disillusioned with the actual substance of her presentations. Her frequent fallacious reasoning was a major part of that.
*) Not to mention, the occasional typo.
I first encountered her in her book and found it refreshing. The criticism of appeals to beauty and attempts to quantify beauty as an way of assessing physics theories was quite interesting.
The In topics that I am familiar with I have seen her do a pretty job, what is your area that you have seen her do a bad job on?
I don't think she thinks that things that don't seem useful now are useless, I think she is saying almost the opposite, that scientists should be free to work on actual science that they think progresses scientific knowledge instead of pretending that they are going to find some new amazing thing that has uses.
She is absolutely interested in finding new ways to measure things, but she thinks that until we find a way to actually measure and test things that speculation about possible ways physics could work is more pure mathematics than actual science and that if you take away constraints then you can make any model "work". I think she is also absolutely right that is it misleading for physicists to say they want bigger colliders because they have no real reason to think that anything will be discovered in that energy range except that some of the models say there might. But some models also say they won't find anything interesting until orders of magnitude bigger, besides that it would be really cool if they did.
Maybe you overestimate your understanding.
She does not use any fallacy. Rationalism is a very tempting method in abstract fields but it’s the wrong method. Of equations are telling you there are twelve dimensions and it’s not possible to measure or even detect such a phenomenon, put the pencil down and come back to reality. You are too far gone at that point. You yourself are sneaking in a fallacy, “Just because something is not useful today doesn’t mean it’s not useful tomorrow.” This is cliché thinking. You have to provide evidence of something about an idea that is promising. That gives it an unliking of possibility or probability. And there is nothing if the kind in these cookie theories. And she keeps bringing back the correct point if you cannot test it out, there is no point rambling on. Find a way to test it find some clue on where to start or don’t pursue further because you’re not tied to reality. It is this rationalistic error that makes people forget reality and start thinking it’s reality with the problem. Like Heraclitus did when he said, his theories lead to a world of change and everything is flux, yet the direct evidence of the senses being is absolute things not flux. So what does he do? Throw away reality and sense perception because the theory is above reality. That is NOT what any modern scientist (Heraclitus is at least innocent in this since he didn’t have the knowledge unlike a modern man ) should do or even have the excuse of doing
It's a shame that she's gone a bit contrarians, as she used to point out things (I felt were) legitimate concerns about scientific culture. Now what I'd like to know is your take on Alexander Unzicker. He seems to communicate the science pretty well but also shows more than a little …uhm, "critical concern" about physicists too.
Do you think there is anything specific she is actually wrong on? I think she undersells how bad thigns are.
If you think Unzicker is a valuable opinion there is no hope.
@@youtubesucks1885 If you're going to make these sorts of statements, it would be useful if you were to then point out a competing figure who does present valuable opinions. Otherwise as a layperson looking at these comments everything you're saying seems like spiteful contrarianism.
It should be very obvious to any impartial person can see that Sabine has (sadly) become primarily focused on producing clickbait...
As has this channel. Many such cases.
@@redmanone How so? Explain!
@@redmanone Clickbait is when you choose a headline that makes a sensational promise about a piece of content, and do not deliver on the promise. This author described his problems Sabine Hossenfelder's videos in great detail and has a video title that conveys that.
If I had discovered a theory of everything, and then I made a sound and logical video explaining my theory of everything, it would not be clickbait to say "this is my theory of everything". However, if I had made a much smaller breakthrough, and at the end said "and this might have implications for the theory of everythign", then the title "theory of everything" would be clickbait.
Case in point: what title would you give this video, the explains the problems the author has with Sabine Hossenfelder?
She literally admits that so what's your point?
@@redmanone this is one case.
People think to quickly when they get their feelings hurt... (apparently criticizing sabine really hurts people's feelings from some silly reason)
Then they start misappropriating fallacies in your general direction.
The fact is Sabine far-too-often goes outside of her own field of expertise, to inserts criticism(Like in contexts of mental health, politics).... (an actual authority fallacy, if you her on face value)
But then people will wrongly attribute the authority fallacy, to actual experts in a field --- and furthermore, will listen to sabine, while she IS ACTUALLY, outside of her own field, without questioning a thing l (because i guess they feel an emotional connection to her angsty attitude)
It's all very cute.
Appealing to an authority is only a fallacy, when the authority is extrapolated into contexts that are outside of a persons field of expertise.
Otherwise, its actually reasonable.
Yes some of Sabine's criticisms have validity, but that's not enough when she is incapable of acknowledging the actual issues in her epistemology.
If she is doing this on itinerary, and with awareness, then she is a malevolent actor... who can't see beyond her own ego.
If she is just doing this as an epistemic habit/defense mechanism, then she is just simply, not very good at doing her job. (communicating information)
Either way, it's not a very good strategy, if the purpose is actually to educate people or spread information.
But if the purpose is to spread faulty reasoning under the guise of some counter-authority, then she is doing a wonderful job!!!!
Is this field, your field? 🤔
Ollie: "Well Stanbine, this affine mess you have gotten us into!"
I have to say that your videos and Professor Dave's made me consider my own bitterness towards academia. As a ex-researcher I collected a lot of resentments towards the 'academic system' and some of those are, I think, well sustained: the 'publish or perish' policy, the way monetanization and profit become the main goals, etc. All that is toxic and the source of a great deal of disappointment and frustration. Nevertheless we should not throw the water of the bath and the baby. Just like in the more broad political reality, an emotional knee-jerk reaction would be (I mean, 'is') the perfect soil for populism to grow and thrive.
"throw the water of the bath and the baby" ahahahahhahaha :D funny way to put it. And completely right I think. We cannot allow these misgivings to lead to the kind of populist conspiracy theories that the general public so frequently latches on to. Its dangerous and also tiresome. These youtube celebrities really need to display a little more nuance in their thinking and present both sides of the argument
You make the assumption that populism is bad. When you do that you implicitly divide society into two, the Elites....which you place yourself in and the Plebs. When you consider yourself separate from the common man, then you become part of the problem.
Hoh boy... now populism is thrown in the mix!
Next thing you know, you'll be wearing a bra on your head and screeing Nazi! 😳
There are problems in funding and "publish and perish" - mentality, but I am finding it hard to figure out how an alternative approach could be implemented. The reason why academia works like it does is because of outside pressure as society wants metrics to determine who to give money for example. Thus any solution is not something academia can do alone.
@hubbeli1074 you see academia as "for The People?"
Are you sure?
Everything in this modern world is a push towards greater profit otherwise trans social studies wouldn't be a thing!?
Although being quite inclined to S. Hossenfelder I kind of resonate with your critic. Science is not a straight path to value. That's engineering which is based on science. If we quit going wild with new crazy ideas, science will end. If young scientist are deterred or defunded, because their first ideas have no value or are faulty, then ... game over. Wild ideas sometimes take > 2000 years to evolve and to create value: Demokrit, Eratosthenes. Or hundreds of years: Kants ideas about perception, Leibniz wild monade theories leading to modern computer sience and information processing. In my optinion modern physics is not stuck in the rut, it just takes more time (like before). May be in 100 years a highy-intelligent kid will combine the seeming faulty approaches of quantum gravity and add the final jigsaw peace. And suddenly all parts fall into the right place and 500 years later we have the warp drive.
>If we quit going wild with new crazy ideas, science will end
Where does Sabine ever says we shouldn't pursue them? It's like you haven't watched her videos. Her whole critique of string theory is that is neither new, nor crazy idea, and it has failed to get an evidence repeatedly. Same with some other big things in science. And her whole argument is that there should be new approaches considered instead of old wrong ones.
Her other critique is presenting areas of science which are economically unfeasible, in the early stages or with unknown prospects like they are ready for inductrial scale, and only need a couple of years to right the kinks. It's also not an attack on new crazy ideas.
But when do you stop funding a crazy new idea that has repeatedly failed? How much failure is the right amount before you move on?
@@quantummechanic2634 It depends I guess. In the case of flat-earth or creationism the case is clear. But with stuff like twistor theory or constructor theory not so. And there is also the case of effective theories like classical mechanics. It is obviously wrong, but works with certain boundaries.
@@nathanliteroy9835 I guess it lies in the eye of the beholder which theory is old enough to be dumped or regarded as failed (or parts of it). TIme will tell. The universe is complicated and crazy isnt' it. May be we should all be more patient and open-minded. Me included.
@@DrMax0 I like simultanious sitting on 2 chairs here - Sabine does want new crazy theories instead of baseless ones that failed to deliver evidense, and suddenly you want to be patient instead. Nice one
Sorry, where does the argument begin?
the same place where it eventually ends: the money.
@@ika5666 Exactly. How much money is she making by posting a video almost daily and even have promotional links in the description?
@@lozofspielereien Exactly!
If certain areas of science are "failing" , by not producing sufficient progress, it may well be because further progress is hard. The low hanging fruit gets picked first. Discovering new particles takes increasingly higher energies, which means hugely expensive colliders. Creating a unified theory may require another genius like Einstein.
However, there obviously is a danger as with all institutions that science just becomes a self-serving way to employ scientists. But science is perhaps one of the least worst things to waste money on.
String Theory is a Cult. You are wasting your life.
Looks like Sabine Hossenfelder is doing something right. Getting attacked for one's opinions is always a good sign.
But I do fail to understand your arguments against her. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what she says, but she's only doing what I expect any good scientist or academic would do, she asks questions and criticises until she gets answers. If that puts off some from going into the sciences, maybe they are the wrong people to go there anyway.
We have too many individuals milking the system to the detriment of hard working scientists. About time they got called out and shamed.
Keep up the good work, Sabine.
Being attacked by experts in the thing you are supposedly talking about is not a good thing. Science does not work like opinion polls or social media. Thank goodness.
She may just be interested in money from RUclips, she doesn't behave like a scientist as a rule that scientists go by is you never say "never" and this is almost the first thing she does in every video. Sure you're supposed to have skepticism but there are videos where she does it and people in the comments or videos tell her how she got the physics or math wrong and she doesn't take down her videos. It's weird, she seems like a misinformation and keep people on a poor science track; bot.
she is a full time YTuber
How much money does she make from YT?
And why would you take down every video, with all the thoughtful commentary, that has an (alleged) error?
"It's weird, she seems like a misinformation and keep people on a poor science track"
Maybe you're easy to please and you like Michio Kaku
Scientists routinely say "never" - it is a fundamental part of the various conservation laws as just one example. Almost all of maths and most of physics, chemistry and biology are laws that are "never" to be broken. This is what scientific laws are.
@@mahonjt You don't understand science then, science as we know it is ever evolving, always changing, this is why science is always updating: Here are some recent examples of scientific theories or laws that were later proven wrong or modified:
1. Ulcers Caused by Stress (1980s)
Doctors believed stomach ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. However, Australian scientists Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered many ulcers are caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori.
2. Neanderthals as Dim-Witted and Unsophisticated (1990s-2000s)
Initial studies portrayed Neanderthals as unintelligent and uncultured. However, recent discoveries suggest they had sophisticated tools, art, and even interbred with early Homo sapiens.
3. Dark Matter as a Simple Particle (1990s-2000s)
Scientists initially thought dark matter was composed of a single type of particle. However, recent studies suggest it may be more complex, comprising multiple particle types or even a fluid-like substance.
4. The Proton Size Anomaly (2010)
Measurements of the proton's size seemed to disagree, sparking debate. Later experiments resolved the discrepancy, confirming the proton's size.
5. BICEP2's Gravitational Waves (2014)
The BICEP2 experiment claimed to have detected gravitational waves from the Big Bang. However, subsequent analysis revealed the signal was likely caused by dust in the Milky Way.
6. The Wow! Signal as Alien Life (2016)
A strong, narrowband radio signal was detected in 1977 and attributed to extraterrestrial life. However, recent studies suggest it may have been caused by a natural phenomenon, such as a comet or exoplanet.
7. The Tabby's Star Dimming as Alien Megastructure (2015-2018)
Unusual dimming patterns in KIC 8462852 (Tabby's Star) sparked speculation about an alien megastructure. However, further analysis revealed the dimming was likely caused by dust and other natural astrophysical processes.
That said in science it's never good to call something a "law" as there may always be a missing piece or it may be a never ending puzzle. The reason why is if you think everything is solid, a set of laws that are already here and there is no more too it people will not innovate and go beyond them.
It seems that it is SO difficult for many to maintain academic humility and not fall into anti-intellectualism to feed the dogmas and far-right audiences today.
You dont need to be far right to think academia is a bunch of pompous bullshit obfuscation lol
Are you being ironic? It is perfectly easy to maintain such humility. Maybe it's hard to be humble while deliberately building an audience of anti-science right wing males.
@@fromeveryting29 😂😂😂😂😂
Name & shame these "far-right?"
Clearly you know some names, right?
@@lubumbashi6666 and bingo.. misandrist!
The greatest problems in science are coming from left wing females and its backed up by hard data.
Sabine makes her living with a peculiar form of "scientific outrage" theater. She reminds me of certain political channels out there... The comments section of her channel is a giant self-suck of like-minded whiners. Emotion sells, what can I say.
You nailed it. I think she has a personal beef with academia, and also some valid criticisms of things like "publish or perish" mentality, but just based on "reinforcement learning", she discovers that people like to watch her whining about science in general. And like everyone she has bills to pay, so.... The irony is that she has now become a cult personality figure who people believe just because she says so.
Yeah... I don't disagree with many of her points. But it's the tone and dismissive smugness that sells the channel. We humans are a cantankerous lot and it seems we love nothing more than some good old righteous anger. Well, maybe bacon.
It would be helpful if Sabine would give concrete suggestions how to change academia and how to go about the change. Changing how funding works would certainly require changes on societal level as well, as that's where much of the funding comes from. Same for criticizing what to study. If you want something else to be studied, at least name what that something else is.
She reminds us that you are corrupt, publishing nonsense
It was a great segment - like this one! Thank you for your good work exposing charlatans like Hossenfelder has become! More power to you! Glad to have found your channel! Hossenfelder used to be better before her sour grapes grievances took over. I'm listening to her less and less as the grievances begin to supplant ever larger portions of her science talks and her appeal to science haters and fanciers of the contrafactual grows. I am sure that it was the faction of these conspiracy theorists with an aversion to facts that trolled your comment section.
After a couple of sufficiently frustrating personal experiences, including an alleged confrontation with a research senior, she has had to quit science as a participant and, in my personal opinion, struggle with the psychological effects of tossing off a life so-far devoted to it. This parallels some events in my life in physics, though I never wound up walking away. It is my informed speculation that any subject matter that comes close to that in her previous employ is now subject to attack and even fodder for the burn pile.
Mr. Verse seems to have sensed this, especially with her new-found utilitarian attitude to science. Notice from her publications lists that she seems to have had no problems up until recently with doing some heavy-strength theoretical work herself related to cosmology...practical for anything?
I will stop writing after speaking for myself when I say that I feel personally offended by the idea that "real physics" has stopped because 'string theory has failed', 'theory is just a useless playground', or she just simply hates it now. Just in physics, there is are vast areas to explore in condensed matter studies, subatomic studies (QCD), atomic physics (Rydberg atoms and cold traps) etc, etc., and the absence of the revolutions she craves do not mark the end of science somehow. regards, DKB
You're strawmanning Sabine's argument, she was never saying that theoretical physics or astrophysics is useless and the only worth pursuing is "prarctical" or applied one.
@@nathanliteroy9835 Annegajerski seems to understand precisely what is happening with Sabine. She's frustrated and jealous. Frustrated because she was "rejected" and jealous of other people who still make it.
@@clorofilaazul If you watched her videos you wouldn't think that at all. It's 'Mr Verse' who comes across as jealous, Sabine just does her thing.
Where has Sabine said that 'real physics' has stopped because string theory has failed??? She is no fan of string theory at all and is all about exploring in other areas!!!
@@mattlewis5095 I've been following her for many years now. I still subscribe to her channel. But I'm considering to unsubscribe for quite awhile now. And I probably will.
Where's your proof that 'public opinion on science has a direct consequence on its funding'? "Overly negative comments towards academia drive the young people away from science." Citation, please?
TikTok, probably.
We have an existing increase of anti-scientific movements, ranging from Flat-Earthers, Creationists and let us not forget, that the elites require under-educated and anti-scientifc people to vote for their puppets. Not saying that Sabine is sitting with them in the same boat, but her use of words is overly drastic and dismisses everything pretty much indifferently.
It is not that I do not see the problems with academic institutions, but I would say that alot of the issues within the academic field and the opinion of the public are definitively linked, since society, politics and the economy work under market-rules when it comes to funding.
@@Chareidos "I would say..." does not constitute proof. If you're that pro-science, you'll understand that opinion is a poor substitute for proof.
@@dirkjenkinz595 I only can refer "anecdotally" that the amount of people "yapping" all those sentences like "mainstream science is lying", "evolution is not real" and such is increasing as online as in real life.
You and I might be able to differ between the legitimate critique that Sabine and those people from the field in the comment section are sharing from that pure anti-scientific people who just jump onto a bandwagon.
But those anti-scientific people do not make differences and they vote. Trump is about to become president. I do not know if I need "proof" of a fire burning then I see it burning. But I guess there is still free roam for hope and interpretation.
As far as we can infer there might be no danger to the funding of theorists so soon.
Exactly. Yet he rams her for not backing up her claims with facts (which she does).
I think there is perhaps an important point that many people are missing here. There is the accusation that Penrose is being trotted out just because he is an authority, and therefore this is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy. I think the point that's being missed here is that in the clips, Penrose gives a precise, logical argument, and not just an opinion. He doesn't just come out and say, "That's wrong", without giving a reason. I think the appeal to authority fallacy can sometimes be taken too far. I recall a discussion/argument I had with a person in the comments section of a RUclips video, where I tried to explain why a certain movie about a black hole was definitely not a good movie (I have a background in the subject). At one point the person responded with (paraphrasing), "Well, has Stephen Hawking or Kip Thorne ever been to a black hole?! So they might know as much as the cat down the street!".
This is an example of what Issac Asimov called the "my ignorance is equal to your knowledge" argument. (Sadly, this is the environment we are living in right now, when
some of the "do your own research" people trust manifestly ridiculous conspiracy theories over the opinions of experts. In a few weeks, we'll have a cabinet full of such people.)
Over two almost identical videos here, the authoritative figure Sir Roger Penrose (who Sabine actually knows a little) has been used as a fulcrum to attack Sabine in general. On top of that, more Penrose has been used to validate Penrose himself! But this whole thing is an edited construct, and the reason for all this is purely to belittle Sabine. Who actually are Mr Verse? Some students it seems, who got half their channels attention from the first video on this nonsense. And they call Sabine a 'grifter'?
@@mattlewis5095 I think you are missing the point that I made, or perhaps I was not clear enough. What counts is the validity of the argument, i.e., Penrose's argument, whether Penrose himself makes it or anybody else. His argument is not nonsense, but a reasonable technical argument. (One can also view the entire video here: ruclips.net/video/foq4nVAwEao/видео.html.The link to this video is given below Mr. Verse's video.) Whether Sabine knows or respects Penrose is beside the point. What matters is the physics argument, not the personalities involved.
Many points in Penrose's argument can be found in standard textbooks on General Relativity. I do not know who Mr. Verse, nor do I care.
@@bobtimster62 *Obviously* Sabine and Penrose's disagreement over the science/maths (though it has little to do with the video in many people's opinion) will eventually come down to the strength of the various arguments and nothing else (we should all agree on that), but I'll ask you again: what have you actually seen here other than some over-dramatic and biased editing?
You know, I knew this 'arguments only please...' dictum could be a potential repost here (sadly I was on my phone and had to re-write it twice due to my app constantly refreshing and losing my text), but you really-are ONLY taking Penrose's position here - having frankly seen only more Roger Penrose presented in support of Roger Penrose. You haven't really seen Sabine's argument in any detail because it wasn't properly given, and this whole 'discussion' is essentially a fabricated one - ie as it is presented here. They are not in the same room and they don't even know what is going on here. Would Roger Penrose be happy being used like this do you think? Given the way these videos are? Also, do you really understand all the points involved - Sabine's specifically - from all of this? What did this video actually genuinely 'prove'? That Sabine is 'grifter'?? That what it is meant to all prove, and it's a nonsense.
The point you missed here (and if you please, the one that I am making) is that the whole 'bouncing off authority' issue (or however it was phrased by people) which you feel people have misunderstood, is to many people clearly the most accurate reading of this video. Clearly this 'Mr Verse' guy (and you absolutely *should* care who he is imo, as he constructed this presentation) is using Roger Penrose's status in physics to underpin a brace of videos that are clearly all about belittling Sabine in a very broad way indeed. I urge you to watch both videos again (putting some very backhanded 'compliments' about her within them to the side).
Mr Verse is doing all of this off the back of someone else who did it recently - the 'Professor Dave' he admits to watching this time (who, if you care, isn't actually a professor at all - he's a youtuber who 'specialises' in swearing like a drunken sailor at climate deniers, which of course isn't even a thesis it's just an extremely easy thing to do.) The Mr Verse channel is imo simply joining-in a classic internet 'attack' on Sabine - who is supposedly now a 'friend' of said climate/science deniers due to her sometimes sceptical comments and 'tone' - though this aggressive comradery from Mr Verse is largely (in my opinion) for the guaranteed 'likes' and 'subscriptions' that bandwaggoning on this one was guaranteed to bring. I have to say the stats have pretty-much doubled for this channel since all of this - hence this entirely-unnecessary double-helping surely.
It seems the fallacy you point too is having click-bait video titles... thanks, we know.
and you even acknowledge this simple explanation for what's observed... yes ppl don't always put the truth in the title, get over it.
Yes, but it's unscienfitic. She runs a SCIENCE channel. Clickbait is like writing a BS abstract that makes different arguments to the paper it summarises. To claim to be a science communicator should mean being held to a higher standard than the slop that she is helping the web become.
Lazy comments are another culprit.
@@jkaryskycoo You are just complaining, if you want to be a SC that doesn't use click bait titles nobody is stopping you.
@@marca9955 Why should anyone care about your standards. On YT it's the rule to use attractive titles, even if ppl hate you for the titles you choose.
@@jkaryskycoo She doesn't even personally claim to be a science communicator. She just thinks of herself as a person with a RUclips channel. She just happens to be so good at communicating science that other people have labelled her a science communicator.
In defense of Sabine on one point, when she criticizes a career in academia, her comments are full of people who had bad experiences working in academia. Has the creator of this video ever discussed what career advice he gives students who are interested in physics? I’m under the impression there are too many physics PhD’s chasing too few academic positions so career advice/suggestions would be helpful.
Now her channel is a central hub for science deniers, grifters and flat earthers.
Can you demonstrate this assertion with any data?
@@mahonjt So you don't like when I run my mouth just like her?
@@mahonjt They reference her , often , " Science is failing " would you like all the links to their YT channels ?
I wish it was, they'd instantly learn something lol
The truth is they are unlikely to even see her 'click-bait' unfortunately
Yeah, citation definitely needed for this claim. I have never once seen a flat earther in Sabine's comments section. Not much sign either of science denialism or grifting, mostly it's just people talking about science.
PLEASE stop makin this kind of criticising videos and have an actual argument on real time. I have seen some critics of 2 hours and many times are based on exagerating comments that people says, people talk as it is and says wrong things all the time (or medioum wrong) but on an argument on real time you can tell the other person instantly what you think and they'll usually correct themselves, that's it.
I have major respect for Sabine and I don't think she has a problem at all and I think these (hate) videos only make the problems (differences) bigger instead of helping. That's it.
Spot on!
Never really cared for her channel. I watch a lot of knowledge-based channels and always felt hers came off very biased and egocentric. I dont really care about someone opinion unless I am asking for it. She tends to only give opinions even when she is making a video for recent news. Has just always given me vibes similar to a lot of these guys that say a new revolutionary technology is coming out every week.
In one video Dr. Hossenfelder said that the money required for a new CERN collider would be more profitably applied to fixing the general circulation climate models. As someone who studied fluid mechanics for my two postgraduate engineering degrees, I am inclined to agree with her.
And a teacher would say money would be better spent in building nicer schools. It isn't surprising that experts of their domain want money spent in what they study or work in. Not saying you are right or wrong but indeed where to spend our tax money is one of the toughest and most impactful problems our societies have.
no sabine doesnt deserve this at any level she has been straightforwrd in her science
Yeah, hers. What about the other science she vomits about?
No she hasn’t ! She is a documented liar about other scientists and never names any of the supposedly guilty people she supposedly knows about.
In that regard she is complicit in any wrongdoing she claims to know is happening.
She didn’t even say if she had ever made a formal complaint about any specific people to any responsible authority. She is a cowardly joke!
Ignoring both the RUclips algorithm forcing her and you to choose horrible angles and Grothendieck arguments about fundamental research not increasing global happiness makes your video loop on itself
The problem is that she has a lot of psuedo-intellectual positions under the guise of intellectualism, no different than Jordan Peterson or others.
Everytime she wanders away from her domain of expertise i notice such lack of rigor that it makes me question all of her positions.
You seem confused, that words hold/have meaning/s!??
You should try intellectualism, even if it's not for you!
sabina is eric of female world
But this video is not addressing that and should not be given attention.
Sabine is a failed academic who isn’t able to deal with this reality in a healthy manner. It is not particularly deep
@@jloiben12 Lmfao.. hardly failed! 😂😂
She's not a failed academic. She is a disillusioned academic. Very big difference.
@3:15 there is a much more pertinent reason, which is she needs the attention to get revenue from her channel. All professional youtubers suffer the same phenomenon, they almost have to Motte and Bailey. I don't begrudge them this, it's just their need to take money off advertisers. You have yourself performed a Motte and Bailey, or at least a Bailey claiming Hossenfelder is saying "scientists with whom you disagree are con artists " - she might have truly terrible takes on some topics, like capitalism, but she doesn't go to that extreme, clearly, since as you say she always has the Motte.
I disagree. She is now fanning the flames of anti-science, contrafactualism, the penchant for conspiracy theories and distrust of science among impressionable people abd betraying the trust of the large platform she has. She is actively doing harm to society by undermining the value of facts and the scientific community. If she is doing it for money, all the worse!
Unfortunately, In her case this behavior appears to go significantly beyond the algorithmic demands of RUclips ratings
There is zero need to pander and submit to outrage click bait to produce quality conflict. Technology Connections consistently puts out quality videos with none of this
Unfortunately, she does go to that extreme.
She seems burnt out, bitter, and jaded. I think I saw only one video out all i watched of hers where she actually liked something - her videos did not used to be like this i think she is distressed, and not by the state of academia or physics.
she's just a content factory pandering to reactionaries and anti-intellectuals hidden behind a thin veneer of scientific criticism
she reminds me of grifters like Sam Harris
@@Giantcrabz Why? Most of what Sam does is invite people on who are more knowledgeable than him in order to make the best possible case against pro-Trump grifters.
@@Giantcrabz Will stop this 'grifter' nonsense. Just watch some of her vids, she puts out a lot but in no way are they grifting
Oh the drama lol. What do you think is distressing her then? I try and keep on top of all her videos and a number are purely positive (and I haven't really noticed any change in the ratio over time either), but her thing is to be critical in a world she finds reason to be critical of, so she is. She doesn't look distressed to me, she looks fine and interacts really well with people too. She's still got her killer sense of humour that's for sure. If she looked really off I think the many people out there who cared about her would notice. I think she is more than sensible enough to give youtube a break if she was, too.
Dude, you can't refute her claims with Boltzmann, it is completely different things. Atoms are and were important, black holes not so much.
You yourself are spraying fallacies and again, fail to show evidence of her fallacies.
Your income is also irrelevant since the whole point of clout chasing is to increase it.
I comment before finishing the video because your bs starts to pile up early in the video.
There is plenty of proven fallacies she's guilty of, yet you tend to stick to unproven ones.
Penrose being the authority on his theorem still doesn't mean he is right. Whether he is, is something that should not be excluded from any debate.
Just because something could be useful in a thousand years doesn't mean it should be prioritized over saving lives right now. Just beacause there is non-zero chance of god being real, doesn't mean we should spend money on researching god.
Your personal opinion that we should be optimistic about science is wrong. Science is provably in crisis, and it is not scientific to hide the truth.
Most of the science is bs, which jeopardises entire science, economy, society etc. Things need to change.
By science, no one means the scientific method, but rather research. She is only wrong about the reasons and ways to fix it. She's right about the scope of the problem.
She is not responsible for idiots misusing semantics and taking things out of context.
Just beacause someone is using bold semantics doesn't mean you should take it literally. Just like If you call someone an idiot, it is an insult, not a statement about person's literal IQ level.
But I'll keep things brief...
So a few minor points i feel like i have to bring up here, Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, her expertise is mathematics and physics which she understands very well, she is also an individual with her own thoughts and ideas about the field in general.
However her channel has been around for a long time so its not at all strange to see her talk about other fields as well where she by default will have less knowledge because she hasnt studied it for as long, where her thoughts and ideas will also be shown because she is human and it is her style of videos.
Is it a grift? Not at all, its just how humans behave, does she do it for money, yes partly.
At best i can descibe it like this, her problem is the following, she says things you disagree with.
In summary, I understand Mr Verse's complaint to be that Dr. Hossenfelder makes bold, controversial statements that jive with the new wave of science skepticism, hurting science. Especially in her video titles and thumbnails - which she would probably do because they're effective click-bait.
Thank you for your work
Are you surprised that Ghana only spends 0.4% of its GDP (I presume that's what you meant) on funding science research?
He was ike three countries away from arguing Mars spends too little on air conditioning.....
How dare Sabine express an opinion.
When you can't question, you know there is a problem.
Unfortunately, it appears her difficulties in academia combined with social media algorithms have really turned her into an attention bore. Cultivating her acolytes, who appear to be young, relatively poorly educated conspiracy theorists, is not doing her any good either.
I rather enjoy her vids, and I'm firmly anti-conspiracy theory and middle aged. Granted, I'm only MSc, so you're right about relatively poorly educated.
To speak sensibly about "underfunding" of a field from government, it's necessary to have some sort of criteria about what would constitute adequate funding. From what you've said here, it sounds like one necessary criterion is something like "all graduate students in said field are paid adequately". Is that accurate? But really I'm not sure why one couldn't attribute grad students' low pay to poor allocation of research funds, or any number of other causes.
Having been involved in scientific research proposals, it's pretty clear that the competition for research funds indicates that no matter how large a sum of money the government supplies to, say, HEP, more funding could always be used.
Honestly there's nothing easier in the world than spending someone else's money. It's even easier when the supplier of those funds holds the monopoly on the use of force in the country.
If you think Sabine’s opinion on theoretical physics is exaggeratedly dismissive, just wait to hear her opinion on my field of science: experimental physics and quantum technology. Basically is her being jealous we get funds instead of whatever her research was.
Off the bat, the appeal to authority fallacy is not avoided by consulting the source of the idea.
It pertains to the type of argument criticism advanced, surely you get that? We can’t wait for people to dispute their own theories.
If you consider the feet of clay in science to be the published or perish culture then it is no small argument Sabine is right she's arguing a perfectly logical argument
What exactly is that ‘argument’? She is a coward who chooses to make a lot of anti science click bait headlines but runs away from ever naming names of the people she claims are bad actors. Just like you!
@niblick616 have you ever published a paper? I have... 9 in fact. She describes very accurately the process of grant acquisition (which I've also done), male centred university politics (which I have observed) and peer review. In reality, the aim of the game is getting papers out, not making real discoveries. She also states that people theorise, then do an experiment to prove the theory. This sounds great but it's hardly neutral. The best idea is to observe the world, gather data, try to explain your observations with a theory, then try to make an experiment that can falsify the theory. Currently the experimental process is s effective as saying if my theory is true I'll find blue m and ms in my packet of m and ms. It's bad science and those that know about science know full well she's right.
Case in point- dark energy. Papers are coming out now suggesting it's an artefact of time dilation. She's been saying that dark energy is because someone missed something for years. Not only is she right, but time will demonstrate she is right in a host of other areas. It's all well and good saying people are actors bit from what we say and do the truth comes out. Who is the actor here? If I had 2 chicken eggs and an ostrich egg, and ostrich eggs are 5 times the size of chicken eggs, how many eggs do I have in total?
@niblick616 I have learned that very often people who make accusations, such as being actors very often are the very thing they are accuising others of.
In that light are you using a real account or are you just paid to manage hundreds of fake accounts just to sow division?
It's not that you are wrong, it's just that you are shallow and think that anything and everything is worth researching. This is the fallacy of the auto-didact, the self taught who have nothing to live for.
Sabine isn't committing motte and bailey when she makes hyperbolic statements that are *from the same position* as her more reasonable sounding criticisms. The motte and bailey fallacy is conflating different positions -using position x to make a claim in bailey and then retreating to the different position y to make claims in motte. Hyperbole isn't a fallacy, it's just hyperbole.
A youtube title is not an argument 😂
Doesn't matter much, her content is garbage.
@@ChristianIcemuch like your comment
I would trust Sabine more than you. At least she called out the hype and bs around quantum computing, fusion, AI and hydrogen. What have you done?
@@florencebaendes2853
She what?
She made the worst videos about AI being "sentient", please...
IMHO, Sabine is not causing the public to think that science is not worth the money.
To me personally, it was a message "The money is getting wasted instead of doing proper science."
This can (and is hapenning) happen in any field. Especially taxes, which people still pay instead of throwing a proper revolution.
Anti-intellectualism?
Are you serious?
yes because "research is useless, we know what we can" is so 1500 a.d.
I know, right.......
If physicists are getting grants while discarding or eliminating physical evidence, I'm glad SH is pointing this out. Sounds perfectly fine that that the scientific grants business has a watchdog.
Seeing the dislikes isn't hard. Unless you don't have 2 minutes to learn how and perform the few steps it takes.
So what?
@niblick616 Just addressing something mentioned in the video. Feel free to block me.
Annnnddd, Sabine was right about String Theory.
Peter Woit message: "For some reason i spent part of my time listening the summary panel discussions at String 2025, which just ended today. Honestly, this was just completely PATHETIC. The whole thing was rule by David Gross, who at 83 is entering his fifth decade of hyping string theory......There are 3 panel discussions, involving nineteen people in addition to Gross. No one had any SIGNIFICANT progress to report, or any optimistic to say about future progress".
I'm glad people are critiquing her
I'm not entirely sure if this video is really going to achieve much. It's basically just reiterating the same points from before. Sure, they are more fleshed out, but if the previous didn't get critics at least interested in engaging with the content, this video will probably not look very different to them. The fact that you literally had to feel the need to show how much you earn from one video when Hossefelder keeps posting videos at a much more rapid pace while getting more views and even affiliate links in the descriptions shows that they are hellbent on defending their stance. Taking down the establishment is cool nowadays, because they are corrupt. Doesn't matter if the person that does might be even worse.
And as for Dave: Don't call his approach okay. Just look at his thumbnails and how he is already mocking the opposition in those. He has to pull down his opponents instead of having some actual wit about it. And from the snippets I have seen, I don't think he would be treating those that got accustomed to that kind of thinking very kindly.
It's nice that people are coming out to oppose those views that confuse criticism with not just direspect, but even malice. I just hope they won't get drowned out eventually.
Sabine cannot survive in the academia but very well in the pop culture.
She was successful in academia
@AndriiMuliar if that were so, she would have remained there. Academia is much harder, you cannot fool around.
@@mrtienphysics666 if Arnold had been successful in bodybuilding he would've stayed there and neither go into acting nor politics.
@jesan733 arnold has completed and contributed his mission to bring out his best potentials. What has sabine done? She quit.
@@mrtienphysics666 well, but you said if she were successful, she would've remained. That's clearly not true.
I'm not an expert on Intuitionistic Mathematics, but from the little I know, I find it very interesting as a tool to connect computer programming and mathematics. Her recent video treating this subject not once mentioned the Principle of the Excluded Middle. That and other things showed me how shallowly dismissive her narrative was, at least in this case.
Put it to her on that video then, she might answer. Please don't join the nonsensical kicking here though, it's horrible and totally unmerited. Time and again people prove they don't watch her videos by telling people he is "always this" when she simply isn't. It's scary truth creation and is so far from reality it's actually somewhat distressing.
Sabine is a very bitter person. I don't know the source of her frustrations but she often comes up as a bitter cynic.
.and being a cynic is problematic, how, in science?
Lemme guess, men can have a uterus?
Yep, there are a bunch of her sycophants running around defending her merely because she exists, not because she is correct or ethical. As a physicist, I almost immediately felt repelled by her. She is posting junk and topics that have nothing to do with physics.
Even when research money goes toward theories that don't pan out, it's still valuable because it allows us to rule out those theories and move on to alternatives. As long as we learned something the money was not wasted.
But that's her main point: many modern theories can't be disproven. There's no way for them not to pan out because they aren't falsifiable. So there is absolutely no way to move on to alternatives.
That is called the scientific method in action which Frau Hossenfelder now trashes to lucratively generate views abd a loyal following among conspiracy theorists!
@@spprogmaker4624Seems right
I mean, if all i had to do to get money was come up with a theory, regardless of how realistic it was, i'd be making up nonsense theories all day.
It depends on how much and who is paying. That is how money works. If science believes it does not have to justify its cost as you seem to argue, then any thinking person would reasonably conclude it is'nt worth paying for.
It's important not to confuse a RUclips title with someone's actual stance. An unfortunate aspect of RUclips and social media is that you basically have to start with an extreme stance as a hook to get people to click on your video/site/etc.
Hossenfelder is kind of trapped in this cycle as she is running a popular science channel.
I fundamentally disagree with this approach, but it's a reality.
Uh... no... She actually says dumb shit in her videos, regardless of the titles. I will not criticize her expertise on Physics, since I have no expertise on that matter. But when she starts doing brain farts about social or even biology matters, then that's when you see she's completely clueless and narrowminded in many of the subjects outside Physics. And that is my major problem with her. No one is entitled to uninformed opinions, much less someone that is able to reach a large audience as she does.
why do you *have to* "start with an extreme stance"?
@@CurtOntheRadio For the algorithm. Every instance of this I've seen though, she clearly explains in the content of the video that the title is hyperbolic, which is more than fair.
@@CurtOntheRadio if not, the vid gets a fraction of the views.
Well that's unscientific.
If a channel about moral philosophy employs the same deception, it deserves to be called out just a much.
My man. Spot on with the motte & bailey observation. It is pretty tragic that she says she had a ruin-you-on-academia, professor. My armchair psychology makes me guess she is trying to ruin in it for everyone because it was ruined for her.
degrees are postdocs are a pyramid scheme for universities to make money for researchers to get cheap labor. That is recent and just same old science as usual. If you go in with your eyes open to that because you hope you can make a contribution to scientific knowledge despite that, good for you, but we shouldn't be setting a trap for people leaving high school starry eyed to be predated on by the system.
Yep
It's fair to say the Motte-and-bailey fallacy is a fundamental part of the RUclips business model for how to win friends and influence people. I love the platform, but pitting creators against each other in the suggestion tab for traffic creates a ton of headlines that have little connection to the deeper content. That's one aspect of RUclips I don't love so much.
they hated her because she was right.
Her behavior is rooted in her inherent traditional german character. The fear being sighted as naive and incompetent causes Germans to see everything bad, cynical, try never to smile, dance only if you are forced to, talk only if you “know” what you’re talking about , wearing black suits and so on. She is not even aware of it because it’s so natural for her.
I agree with this video
Well that's not xenophobic, at all... 🙄
@@JSfuckgoogleUh! Even for a french like me it's hard to read. ;-)
A former Hossenfelder watcher here. I think your attack on her is a defence of the status quo. I actually agree with her that much of modern science research now is on a level with Ptolemy. The math works beautifully, but is it an accurate representation of reality? I can't say one way or the other, and have never been involved in academia. I have been involved in government, however. As most funding is now either government or corporate in nature, I am skeptical.
The map is not the terrain.
"The math works beautifully, but is it an accurate representation of reality" Then it doesn't work beautifully. You're suggesting experimentation is dead.
> on a level with Ptolemy. The math works beautifully, but is it an accurate representation of reality?
Physicists are quite aware of this -- but it's the best they can do with the materials they have.
That's the point of those expensive colliders, those huge subterranean neutrino detectors, gravity wave laser contraptions, string theory, and so much other stuff -- until they find the data that doesn't fit but shows the path to a more fundamental theory, they're stuck.
You'll note that for all her caterwauling, Hossenfelder herself hasn't produced any new ground-breaking conceptual approaches or insights, that might resolve any of this, or open up a "useful" line of theoretical development, or inspire a new, more "fruitful" line of experimentation.
Her shtickt boils down to "this stuff is complicated, and hard, and no one has solved it yet... so it's a waste of time."
As long as her activity keeps resulting in videos like these, the occasional technical error is well worth it. We need a Science Debate RUclips based around discussion of fact instead of personality and behavior.
Well.. Welcome to the Flame Wars Buddy.... Remember, you lit the match! 😊
No. Hossenfelder was way earlier!
Name a realm of science where massive speculation has yielded almost no results, for fifty years:
High energy physics.
Hossenfelder's has every right to critique her own field. I admire her ferocity.
I think the idea that it's Sabine that's turning young people off science is hilarious.
I suspect Mr Verse will claim that statement was hyperbole and not itself a motte and bailey, even though his statement was in the content of his video while hers was in the title where everyone (usually) understands the concept of click bait titles.
Your claim is even more ludicrous, especially when she literally claimed she had lost faith(sic) in science. That comment alone demonstrates why she cannot be taken seriously!
@niblick616 Faith? As in belief without evidence? Lmao your ability to undermine yourself without effort is remarkable.
What makes it even more silly to me is that in my mind she doesn't really cater for school kids (she's a bit too advanced I suspect), and it's those young people in particular that aren't taking the sciences up enough - ie in view of getting a degree (it's a perennial issue alas). I don't think that working in the field after you have the degree is such an issue tbh. It is utterly ludicrous to blame anything on Sabine just doing her own thing for her own audience while using the same click-bait as everyone else though! It's an opinion incitement fallacy, and is kind of puritanically controlling too.
1:10 “citing pen 🖊 rose 🥀 as an authority” is a logical fallacy 🎉🎉🎉
Funny. She is right about all the hype regarding quantum computers, hydrogen, fusion and AI. And all you nerds here didn't have balls to do that. I don't see any meaningful arguments from this video lol.
Your claim is false and you failed to provide a single piece of valid and verified evidence to support it! Much like Hossenfelder fails to di!
This. Funny, all I see in this video is a desperation to keep Science on a pedestal and thus keep the money flowing into Academia. Having spent 10 years getting 3 degrees, I have seen first hand examples of the criticism SH dishes out. She is an important voice to remind the population that Science is just like any other institution or movement and is driven by greed, ego, politics, and even stupidity. Just because someone in a white coat says something, doesn't mean it is the truth.
where is the "Is this the end of Sabine hasselhoff" video?
"Insinuating that scientists with whom you disagree are con artists is the definition of anti-intellectualism." Unless they are. Perhaps I'll make some time for the video later, I'm curious.
Edit: Some time later. Right of the bat, you start with colorful comments and then proceed to show the same one twice, as first and second even. Withholding judgment, let's see what you have.
0:33 You show how much you made from the previous video, blurred. Some form of macro communication? I'm missing the point.
1:16 "...overly negative comments towards academia, drive young people away from science..." Do you consider this a fact? There's a lot to say about this, but It seems the claim is more of an intuitive or anecdotal argument, rather than one supported by targeted studies.
"The motte and bailey fallacy" news to me, thanks for the clear explanation. Provocation has its place. From what I've seen from Hossenfelder, she's well aware of what she's doing in this regard. Yes her titles are clickbait, irksome but it is not fully indicative of the actual videos, and sad as it is this is the way to spark interest on RUclips. When this video found its way into my feed, I expected this would be the core of your critique, which is valid.
"...the viewpoint that she puts forth that the entire field of high energy physics is a waste of money, is a highly anti-intellectual one..." I've seen the video that this comment refers to. By being hyperbolic here, you're actually doing what you accuse her of. "The motte and bailey fallacy". Hossenfelder is pointing out some specific fields like string theory and others that are fully unproven. You're framing this thus: "...the ENTIRE field of high energy physics..." Which is a hyperbolic misrepresentation.
I'll leave it here, thanks for your perspective, but I find that of Sabine Hossenfelder more valid and convincing.
He's right though.
@@jemborg That's the best you can muster as a response to something that cost me a bit of thought? Thanks I guess.
@maartenneppelenbroek I'm afraid so. I could not agree with your points at all.
FOR EXAMPLE, this is not just "clickbait for titling", she carries on her hyperbole well into the video and Mr. Verse shows this quite clearly. This is, afterall, a brief follow up video from a previous one. Professor Dave, who's life is science education, has also critiqued her as have many others indirectly including Dr. Becky. That's it from me. I'm very familiar with Hossenfelder's RUclips work, as theirs, and what they propose fits with my findings too.
@@jemborg Understandable, you seem to have more experience with this topic. I'm just passing by. Basically, my only real point is that he does the same as she does, but I guess I explained it poorly. Sincere thanks for the response this time, was fishing if you were trolling or not.
Hissenfelder is a dicumented liar who makes allegations against many people then runs away from naming any of them.
She cannot be taken seriously without getting confirmation from an independent and reputable source,
[...still doesn't get it...]
Someone use click bait?
Unpossible!
tl;dr
Science isn't failing; too many scientists just suck at it.
I defined when an appeal to authority is a fallacy in your last video.
I find it amazing how many people accuse others of this fallacy without understanding it.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy in two circumstances:
1) The authority is speaking outside their field of expertise.
2) The authority is speaking within their field of expertise but is providing their personal opinion and not the consensus reached by experts in that field.
Appeal to authority is a substitute for an arguement. The Pope said 'it', so it must be true!
Wrong. an appeal to authority is simply a logical fallacy. It is a substitute for argument. it says nothing about who or what constitutes an authority. The founder of western philosophy - Plato - claimed to know nothing.
@@chrisgwynne1586
It is legitimate to appeal to an authority who is a recognised expert in the field expressing the consensus view. You can't know everything and you certainly cannot be an expert in everything. A layperson does not have the background to challenge such expert but can only hope to understand the conclusions thay have come to and why.
@@billbogg3857
That is incorrect. The "appeal to authority" is an *informal* logical fallacy, meaning that appealing to an authority is not always a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy only in certain circumstances. I have defined those circumstances above. That is a fact and you can confirm this for yourself by looking up "formal vs informal logical fallacy". They almost always give the "appeal to authority" as an example of an informal logical fallacy.
@ A logical fallacy does not only apply under certain conditions . A claim that x must be true because y ,an authority, says that it is true is a flawed argument .
The funding, of course, the bottom line. The motivation, the life line, the umbilical cord of academia. Can't say anything to cut off the gravy train. That's heresy.
I have given up on her because she is merely chasing popularity. She will say anything. When she blathers on about covid, or climate change, or what not that really matters she knows how to stay in the headlines without getting blacklisted for speaking the truth. I refuse to give her any more positive press.
Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd.
- William Congreve, 'The Mourning Bride', 1697.
Comments regarding Sabine are valid -- but - too bad Penrose got into quantum crankery with microtubules, a separate topic altogether. He does well with physics, but not biology or neuroscience.
that was coauthored with an anesthesiologist. I don't agree with their conclusions at all but he isn't out of his lane like a lot of Sabine's trash
Are you serious??? That's exactly what Sabine does, and that's my only pet peeve against her! She opines on subjects, she has no expertise on! I will not argue against her, when it comes to physics, but me and time again, she has expressed an uninformed opinion on a multitude of subjects which are not her domain. She should, STFU about those, and stick to her schtick.
@@herlandercarvalho don't agree at all. I think her common-sense takes on many fields are quite good and I see no reason she should stop.
@@jesan733 Because you understand none of them. See what political scientists, climatologists and medical doctors have to say about her dumb other videos that present like common-sense. Also see her revisions to what she got wrong and it's hard to disagree with @herlandercarvalho
Quantum crankery with microtubules?? You're not right in the head...
There’s a simple incentives problem here, one which has already consumed grifters like Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson. Saying science is a con and a scam will pay her bills, presenting nuance and complexity will not. If you have a chip on your shoulder about how you were treated in academia, as Bret, Jordan and Sabine all do, then the next logical steps almost write themselves