Sabine Hossenfelder – This is why physics is dying [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Sabine Hossenfelder – This is why physics is dying [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBIvSGLkwJY
2 comments
I used to appreciate her. Until I realised she just always takes the contrarian view and expresses it in a needlessly undiplomatic and cynical way.
If her contrarian view is correct, why shouldn't she be cynical since no one else seems to care. If her contrarian view is incorrect, then sure don't listen to her.
I often feel the way Sabine looks and sounds in this video.
It is actually uncanny how many topics Sabine touches upon in such an unreserved and brilliant way.
She is a model for modern intellectual thought. I hope she is protected and preserved from the easily upset mob of conventionalists who rather we were all agreeable.
It is actually uncanny how many topics Sabine touches upon in such an unreserved and brilliant way.
She is a model for modern intellectual thought. I hope she is protected and preserved from the easily upset mob of conventionalists who rather we were all agreeable.
This is very interesting, of all the trash I bave been talking about the lie you all tell yourself (that we are alone in our own mind, and only the “mentally ill” hear the voices) this post got me the most negative karma.
I want to respond to the criticism regarding the sex confirmation surgery of children being described as “crazy” for normal people.
I am a free will occultist, and would not condemn what comes of well informed consent, though I do think children are the “property” of their parents whose human right to not be interfered with by others is the concern of the state (lawful domain).
I have used my “challenge” (that we are not alone in our own minds and thought control is really screwing with us) to reflect upon truth, morality and “lawfulness.”
Thought control exists, messes with our sexuality, and that is wrong.
If a sex transitioned navy seal discussed his regrets, I think we can say children undergoing sex augmentation is imprudent. If a [mob] third party disembodied Power can influence our minds (for fun or for profit) it is a down right crime against our humanity.
Whatever your outlook on morality and free will, we are not alone in our own mind and disembodied others are manipulating our sexuality (children and all.)
I want to respond to the criticism regarding the sex confirmation surgery of children being described as “crazy” for normal people.
I am a free will occultist, and would not condemn what comes of well informed consent, though I do think children are the “property” of their parents whose human right to not be interfered with by others is the concern of the state (lawful domain).
I have used my “challenge” (that we are not alone in our own minds and thought control is really screwing with us) to reflect upon truth, morality and “lawfulness.”
Thought control exists, messes with our sexuality, and that is wrong.
If a sex transitioned navy seal discussed his regrets, I think we can say children undergoing sex augmentation is imprudent. If a [mob] third party disembodied Power can influence our minds (for fun or for profit) it is a down right crime against our humanity.
Whatever your outlook on morality and free will, we are not alone in our own mind and disembodied others are manipulating our sexuality (children and all.)
she really isn't, though. her papers are mediocre, so she compensates by pandering to conspiracy theorists and transphobes.
edit: to be clear, my intention here is not to engage in ad hominem. instead I am saying that augmenting unimpressive research with social media is not a good model for the modern intellectual
edit: to be clear, my intention here is not to engage in ad hominem. instead I am saying that augmenting unimpressive research with social media is not a good model for the modern intellectual
I find quite refreshing to see her examine the evidence sceptically and rationally instead of just assuming whatever the current trend is true and working backwards to cherry pick evidence to fit it, as many popular science communicators do.
obviously, my reply to this comment's sibling repudiates these factually inaccurate characterizations.
That video you linked isn't as sceptical as it claims to be.
Like for example, the presenter's supposed review of the literature is to carefully select a handful of research papers and read through the conclusions in the abstracts, without providing any critical analysis at all. She's clearly very biased and that comes across in how she presents this.
I see she's doing exactly what I mentioned in my earlier comment:
> assuming whatever the current trend is is true and working backwards to cherry pick evidence to fit it
It's not really a debunking or a repudiation of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video, it's really just the presenter pushing her own staunchly held opinion while trying to pretend she's applying some sort of sceptical analysis. Unfortunately this is quite a common trick amongst self-styled "sceptic" types when it comes to topics they feel strongly about.
Like for example, the presenter's supposed review of the literature is to carefully select a handful of research papers and read through the conclusions in the abstracts, without providing any critical analysis at all. She's clearly very biased and that comes across in how she presents this.
I see she's doing exactly what I mentioned in my earlier comment:
> assuming whatever the current trend is is true and working backwards to cherry pick evidence to fit it
It's not really a debunking or a repudiation of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video, it's really just the presenter pushing her own staunchly held opinion while trying to pretend she's applying some sort of sceptical analysis. Unfortunately this is quite a common trick amongst self-styled "sceptic" types when it comes to topics they feel strongly about.
Could you cite examples of these claims? For the purpose of distinguishing good role models. I’m not an academic, though the topics I have followed have been informative and interesting.
sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw
this is a debunking video. it addresses a video where Hossenfelder says that "normal people" think it's crazy to suggest that transitioning saves the lives of transgender teens.
but (as the video shows) the peer-reviewed evidence for this "crazy" idea that "normal people" don't believe is in fact overwhelming.
anyway, dismissing peer-reviewed evidence as "crazy" is not a legitimate way for a scientist to act. but it gets a lot of clicks for Hossenfelder, because lots of people want to hear that, even though it isn't true, and they really like hearing a scientist say it, even though that scientist is a physicist talking about a very different field (and dismissing reams of peer-reviewed research in that field without even a moment's consideration, or a base level of professional courtesy).
this is a debunking video. it addresses a video where Hossenfelder says that "normal people" think it's crazy to suggest that transitioning saves the lives of transgender teens.
but (as the video shows) the peer-reviewed evidence for this "crazy" idea that "normal people" don't believe is in fact overwhelming.
anyway, dismissing peer-reviewed evidence as "crazy" is not a legitimate way for a scientist to act. but it gets a lot of clicks for Hossenfelder, because lots of people want to hear that, even though it isn't true, and they really like hearing a scientist say it, even though that scientist is a physicist talking about a very different field (and dismissing reams of peer-reviewed research in that field without even a moment's consideration, or a base level of professional courtesy).
I responded to you after my first comment.