Mr Verse - 2024-12-24
Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is a popular science communicator, with often controversial views. In this video, I have attempted to take a critical look at the rise of Sabine, her involvement in string theory wars, recent controversy, and expert opinions. Timestamps: 0:00 - 1:14 Intro 1:14 - 4:08 Sabine's disappointment with Academia. 4:09 - 8:15 String theory wars and Sabine's entry into the Blogging world 8:16 - 8:42 Sabine's entry on YouTube 8:43 - 9:47 The Good side of her videos 9:48 - 11:24 Sabine Vs Prof. Dave 11:25 - 15:07 When Sabine gets worse 15:08 - 16:27 The fallacy of Sabine 16:28 - 18:05 Penrose Vs Sabine 18:06- 21:02 Tim Maudline Vs Sabine on Superdeterminism 21:03 - 21:39 What to make of this? Video links: Sabine's criticism of academia and current science status: https://youtu.be/gMOjD_Lt8qY?si=yhKMfhgwRQ6yTL9i https://youtu.be/HQVF0Yu7X24?si=rDdb4PUtjJYdAanT https://youtu.be/QtxjatbVb7M?si=3-IJruVg_Gz2pSQw https://youtu.be/LKiBlGDfRU8?si=OZc1dWPgl7VZXc3O https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=tUDFYHwHU_cv7csZ Professor Dave's criticisms: https://youtu.be/6P_tceoHUH4?si=_dbkN6hZj3jgKOzo https://youtu.be/70vYj1KPyT4?si=pjqiZHC6SWtaw5aI Sabine's lecture in Munich https://youtu.be/4ERVKSH2xqY?si=-dpRBBHE-abpn4W9 Sabine's videos about Information paradox https://youtu.be/DHR-ggwafO8?si=xRPkZYTublhyXoE_ https://youtu.be/mqLM3JYUByM?si=2YSKG9RajUt-LxDs https://youtu.be/50bcjqEJuoc?si=5Yrv4D9ZgEmm1Y13 https://youtu.be/5rtqVFfwE_A?si=QOIhQB3RtXc2o_Yx Penrose reaction to Sabine's criticism https://youtu.be/foq4nVAwEao?si=_MMIZVmz1CYH4_Tg Tim Maudlin's reaction to Sabine's criticism https://youtu.be/fU1bs5o3nss?si=GMxrlmQHBqT5KxQV Sabine's video on Superdeterminism https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI?si=qPNhIGJdGXaKoL1e
You are not supposed to trust science, you are supposed to question it. That is science.
Trust the method, but question the results.
The basis for science is scientific method. That you have to take as a given. The results of science, be that hypothesis, theories, conjectures etc. you of course can challenge. You can device your own test to disprove any one of them or come up with a better ones that predicts reality better. That's how science works.
If you want to understand how reality works, your best bet is to look what is the scientific consensus on a given topic. Of course you can challenge it, but unless you are the next Einstein you would be fool to think you know better than the scientific consensus. The fact that people do believe they know better when it comes to vaccines for example, causes huge harm in our society.
So in a way, for a layman, you kinda are supposed to trust science. There is nothing better out there.
It is not sensible to trust conjecture or hypotheses or theories that are almost purely speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence. Theories such as String theory or the Many Worlds interpretation fall squarely into this category, for example. I guess I have only seen her complain about these sort of theories, which have no consensus among physicists.
There is nothing anti-science about pointing out the theories that have no substantive evidential support, so that lay people don't get misled into believing these theories have any empirical basis, when they only qualify as science in a strictly theoretical sense. This is exactly where skepticism is most appropriate in science.
@NondescriptMammal Science often finds itself with hypothesis that take a long time to verify. It took decades to centuries for Quantum Theory, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory for disease and many others to be accepted as correct from the time they were first proposed. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in studying stuff like String Theory even if we cannot empirically prove at this time it is correct.
Obviously when you talk about String Theory one should make clear it is a hypothesis which while matching with all of our existing observations does not produce future testable predictions and as such we don't have good evidence to say it is correct. This is not skepticism, this is just a fact and everyone in physics would likely agree. If you say something else, you are just a poor communicator and that's not the fault of science or scientific method. It is different thing to say String Theory is BS because we can't prove it now (see my first paragraph) and complain that something else should be studied without clarifying what that something else should be.
Also, Sabine does hold positions that cannot be empirically verified, such as her take on superdeterminism mentioned in the video. As of now, there is no way to either prove or disprove this hypothesis either.
@NondescriptMammal Science often finds itself with hypothesis that take a long time to verify. It took decades to centuries for Quantum Theory, Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory for disease and many others to be accepted as correct from the time they were first proposed. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in studying stuff like String Theory even if we cannot empirically prove at this time it is correct.
Obviously when one talks about String Theory one should make clear it is a hypothesis which while matching with all of our existing observations does not produce future testable predictions and as such we don't have good evidence to say it is correct. This is not skepticism, this is just a fact and everyone in physics would likely agree. Saying something else would be just poor communication and that's not the fault of science or scientific method. It is different thing to say String Theory is BS because we can't prove it now (see my first paragraph) and complain that something else should be studied without clarifying what that something else should be.
Also, Sabine does hold positions that cannot be empirically verified, such as her take on superdeterminism mentioned in the video. As of now, there is no way to either prove or disprove this hypothesis either.
She's not wrong about the state of academia. It's been my experience as well.
Purely anecdotal. "I've had a bad experience, therefore..." does not determine the veracity or otherwise of what she says.
I work among the academics of multiple universities. She is right
@nre7714 Oh dear.
@andrewguthrie2 Yeah haha. The vast majority of her supporters proudly use the appeal to authority fallacy - and it's embarassing that her fans proudly throw their hats into the ring, but a good example that not every one in the field is exempt from bias.
Her points are valid, but her heavy handed approach was my issue with her. As usual, sapiens, with cultish tendencies, endorsed the behaviour, no critiques necessary. 🤡
The corruption society may be so extensive, so intertwined with knowable communication modalities, that it's only apparent to those who are either part of it or who are not, but who are still smart enough to figure it all out without being part of it. There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns...
Oh man, I can relate to that story about the textbooks. As a postdoc I was planning on an academic career, but stood up to bullying by the department head who wanted us to do some unnecessary work for him. I said no, he said "but all my Ph.D. students are doing it", I replied "That's because they are afraid of you but I am not". Bam, fired, end of academic career! 😜
I am in the middle of a Ph.D. in beyond-the-Standard-Model physics (BSM), trying to figure out what dark matter is from the perspective of particle physics and cosmology. I started this journey with the goal and illusion of becoming an academic, but as time progressed, I realized I was just getting burnt out and not achieving my goals, given that, as we know, theoretical physics is a highly competitive environment with little funding. Then, I encountered Sabine's content and resonated a lot with it, especially with the fact that BSM physics is stagnating due to the lack of technology to test the overabundant theoretical proposals. It came as the slight impulse that made me realize that pursuing an academic path is not worth it for me, and I will always be grateful to her for that.
I recommend to read her excellent book "Lost in Math", if you didn´t.
I get where she's coming from. I made the same choices, but far earlier in my career. I was offered the chance to get a PhD and be a professor -- essentially becoming like the people I was working for. I didn't want to do that. That wasn't my calling. So I finished my Master's degree and thanked them for the offer of a PhD, but I knew it wouldn't make me happy. Now that I'm retired, I'm absolutely sure I made the right choice.
It's a tough choice. There's this illusion that you can "have it all" -- work, career, marriage, children. But the truth is you have to prioritize what is important to YOU. Otherwise you may end up with a lot of nothing.
Can you imagine how pursuing a theology degree must feel? " due to the lack of technology to test the overabundant theoretical proposals"
mikefinucane6687
Don't be ridiculous
@mikefinucane6687 Buddy, that is so stupid. To bring that into a physics chat under the premise of a PHD is just banal.
Sabine's view on Science is quite simple— there is a lot of BS research that is funded unnecessarily and people mostly rely on the quantity of papers and the number of citations that a person has rather than a few extraordinary works. And when she means that science or Physics is halted or has not made any progress, she simply means that we haven't had any major breakthroughs. She single-handedly knocks down the pseudoscience surrounding physics. What's the problem with that?
I agree with your comment.
So now science has to make major breakthroughs every single set amount of years or it should be discarded for something else? Progress is progress even when small and incremental, just because there haven't been major breakthroughs it doesn't mean science is halted
The problem is 1) It's incredibly unintelligent statement to make and 2) what is the point? what is her alternative? and 3) who made her the great judge of what is BS and what is extraordinary/pseudoscience? All she is is a contrarian/antiestablishment grifter with an oversized ego to match. She can call me when she releases her next "world changing" discovery, or is it more likely she will claim "why should I do research if academia/the establishment will conspire against me?" The answer is obvious. And does anyone honestly think she was fired back in her academia days because she "spoke truth to power" and they retaliated against her? Kind of like in jail, everyone is innocent and no one committed any crimes. Sure, Jan, but maybe we should hear the other side of the story and not just yours.
Well summarised.
The "experts" seem to think everyone else is dumb. We (the public) don't automatically believe everything we hear, in a kind of "whoever gets to our ears first wins" game. We actually process the information.
...hence the massive loss of trust in the scientific institutions. Ppl aren't dumb.
Sabine claimed atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude because gravity decreases with altitude. She is a paid influencer who turns off her brain and promotes lies dressed in a lab coat … for the money. Sabine is dishonest
I agree with Dr. Sabine sometimes and disagree with her at other times—that’s exactly what scientists do (or should do). In fact, I think it’s fantastic that she’s publicly expressing her theories online, where they can be critiqued. This public discourse can encourage scientists—who sometimes struggle to communicate their findings effectively—to engage with a broader audience. Science can be a force for both good and evil, but overall, it’s one of humanity's most valuable things.
People often get anxious when dissenting views or criticisms are expressed, and they immediately assume such critiques undermine science. However, most people are capable of making reasonable judgments, and when presented with different arguments, we should respect their autonomy and their right to make their own decisions and the ability to accept the consequences. Reasonable people don’t undermine science; they challenge weak arguments. Even the smartest people and scientists I know sometimes make flawed arguments, but what sets them apart is their willingness to adjust when new information shows their reasoning is off.
I also think science sometimes paradoxically risks doing harm by insisting too rigidly on “do no harm.” Life inherently involves risk. For example, driving a car enhances our daily lives, yet we accept the possibility of injury or worse every time we get behind the wheel. Progress often requires accepting these risks and navigating them thoughtfully.
I mostly agree, except that reasonable laypeople can be easily influenced into the wrong conclusions simply because they don't understand what is being discussed. I guess the solution is for more scientists to be more active in communicating to the public, and even then channels like Sabine's will always have more viewers than some professor who makes in depth videos about topics within their field.
"Most people are capable of making reasonable judgements"
Umm most people are NOT capable of making reasonable judgements about different theories of the fundamentals of physics. She is cleatly cultivating a community of anti-establishment science denying viewers. For money. It's a grift. Sure, she still has some good videos from time to time, but as an ex subscriber of hers, I don't miss it and can get good physics content elsewhere
Pointing out that modern "science" is unscientific bunk that is untrustworthy is a defense of real science.
The idea that "science" is a sacrosanct thing is dangerous cultism that undermines actual science. It's a form of "my mother, drunk or sober".
@cameronmclennan942 Why cause she talks about how particle physics is a dead end and how we should stop spending so much money on bigger colliders?
@cameronmclennan942 Funny, I too unsubscribed about a year ago, but for a different reason. I started getting this feeling that it was not just her anymore, making videos about what she's passionate about, but that there was now a "team" behind her.
Mostly I noticed it in the subjects of her videos, not about physics and/or more "socially/politically relevant" themes (usually showing how shallow her knowledge was on these); and also on the little jokes, it felt like it wasn't her humor anymore but some younger, edgy assistance writing them... In short, it didn't feel genuine anymore, unless it was about physics, and then you got the old Sabine back.
In some videos you could almost feel her unease about being there.
Since unsubscribing I watch the occasional video too, but only if it's about physics, the other ones just make me uncomfortable, like I'm watching a hostage video.
I have a problem with the idea that people should not tell the truth because other people might take it the wrong way, or use/twist it to their ends.
If there is a problem with academia, the way it's run, what it produces, external influences, internal culture, etc. and no one is allowed to speak about any of it publicly because it might be liked by, or even embolden, people we disagree with, then the problems will just keep metastasizing until they are incurable. If institutions are losing public trust, then fixing what's wrong is a better way of regaining that trust than condemning people for that lack of trust and sweeping all valid concerns under the rug, hoping no one notices. In fact, that's how you lose what trust remains.
I second this. I know many people who are in the academia and what they tell me about grants is pretty much correlates with Sabina's videos. Furthermore, they all understand that this is a papermaking but they all have families and have to pay bills and it's too late for them to changes their lives from ground up and find a new way of living.
People you 'disagree with', as opposed to "people who are willfully spreading misinformation that has lead to death and suffering'?
If a billionnaire-funded loudmouth is giving ammunition to people who have constatntly lied and divided people using fear and hate, that's going to be questioned and criticised.
She's absolutely right. In academia its not even a secret or dirty to talk about, its just... the situation. The end.
Yeah, the "x group likes this ergo bad" is always such a bullshit argument.
@dmitrmax When people say they know many people ´´in X´´ and just act like they all think and say the same, we know theyre lying...
I was an academic and I must know 40 or so pretty well, from different countries and backgrounds and fields. No, they dont all think or say this at all.
What’s the fallacy? What was your point? You took over 20 minutes to say absolutely nothing of consequence about her.
He just gave a fancy name to the Argument from Authority fallacy 😅
The fallacy is that YouTube video titles have something to do with their content.
The actual fallacy is the YouTube algorithm promoting this AI-voiced video because it extracts a lot of watchtime from keeping viewers expecting the video to say something of consequence for 20 minutes straight. And these comments (mine included) also show this video drives engagement
That is fitting as she rarely says anything of consequence.
He described a rhetorical device that she uses ("motte and bailey argument"), and then gave very specific instances where she used it (black hole information paradox, Penrose's Nobel Prize).
I don't find appeal to authority to be a very convincing argument in this context. Her entire position is that some of the authorities are wrong, so cutting to a video of one of those authorities saying "No, she's wrong" doesn't really help us resolve whether she is correct.
Agreed here. Sabine is annoying but so is appeal to authority. So it goes.
"Instead of reading her papers..." then cut to Tim Maudin just saying he thinks it's crazy without giving an explanation.
@TripDerve Sabine has already very extensively responded to Tim Maudin's critique of Superdeterminism. In her 2020 paper, "Rethinking Superdeterminism", she explained exactly why Statistical Independence is not a necessary precondition of doing science. Seems unfair that this video presented Tim Maudlin critiquing her viewpoint on superdeterminism without including Sabine's response to that critique.
I've actually read the full arguments from both Tim and Sabine and I find that Sabine's arguments are more persuasive.
@patrickwright8552 I will let you know, I read that in her voice.
this video is obviously cherry-picked. it became obvious to me within the first minute into the video, and the rest just confirmed it further.
I don't understand all this, but I understand her view that revealing the secrets of the universe requires empirical evidence, not just mathematical modelling.
Well good luck observing empirical evidence from e.g. colliding galaxies - it can take really long time even after you find one in progress. I hope you reserved enough tea and biscuits to share with her 😉 (Odd-looking galaxies were explained, with computers and mathematical models, for the rest of us)
Without theories and models explaining how , empirical evidence of what doesn't always tell us why .
Curiosity should be a good thing in general. Without mathematical modelling and computers and theoretical science, I wonder how far back in technology we would be. At most transistors, but hey - no internet 👍
@kimmotoivanen "Well good luck observing empirical evidence from e.g. colliding galaxies" - and if I had a hypothesis that could only be tested by observing colliding galaxies, that would be a real problem for me.
@kimmotoivanen Your counter argument sounds quite plausible too, but with sufficient hauteur you could persuade me to believe just about any scientific idea given my low level of understanding of physics and maths.
@MrCodlin Be it secrets of the universe or secrets of physics, there will be problems that cannot be tested (without e.g. needing particle accelerator close to the size of the universe). Do we give up on "difficult" science and force others to stop their studies? To me that sounds too deep dystopia (possible under control of religious or dumb dictators) to want.
It's not about everyone needing to understand sciences, and it never can be! (I'd rather cast away with a good person than a good scientists 🤨)
It's about basic skill (hunch, reading person, whatever it can be called) of getting what's true / trustworthy / plausible, and what's fake or tries to use you. It's not always easy (I'm not going to politics, but lots of BS there 😅) but it can be done.
It's not about who arguments the best, it's about who has supported facts (I'm not going to climate change, but vast majority of researchers lean on one side 😉).
Asking questions is always good 👍
Questioning needs some facts to back up 🙂
I could recommend Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson (and Lord Nice, what a couple) for different view on cosmology and smaller things.
@MrCodlin Well, that's the issue that made her so famout in the first place. She sounds very plausible on a surface level. But if someone wants to convince me of anything, I'd first ask, why they would want to do that. Is it really to inform the public or could there be other intentions?
In her case: She uses her own scepticism to weaken the foundation of our scientific construct. Why? Maybe because she did not find her place in the system and now has a bit of a bias against it because of that. Not to say that the system is flawless - far from it - but blindly tearing it all down is going from one extreme to the other.
Then there is the chance she gets a lot of money out of this. She is a prolific author and her shockingly regular videos (which increases the chance she didn't do much research herself) get millions of views and often have a promo link.
If her goal was truly to inform, her content wouldn't be seen so controversial, from people that follow her and automatically oppose anything or anyone that's in conflict with her, over those that just mock those like our dear Dave, to people like Mr Verse that are worried about this polarising development.
I enjoy listening to her view on a wide assortment of topics.
"In my view, the real damage is that young people are no longer drawn to string theory" - well, that's the true potential of education for you.
This was one of the stupidest parts of this video.
The problem with String Theory is its critics don't understand it, nor do laypeople. String Theory, despite its name, isn't a theory. It's a framework, one that you work within. It's like saying "Windows is a stupid app". The statement doesn't make sense because Windows is not an application or program, it's an operating system you run programs within. Even if string theory cannot or does not explain or unify relativity and quantum mechanics, it still has loads of value and other applications. It's already done things to advance science.
I didn't understand string theory but I just created another dimension where I did.
String what? . . . where's the proof . . . Like . . . Never!
@zidbits1528so, if there had been more platonic solids, and Kepler kept modeling the solar system around them, would you approve of modeling planetary orbits around platonic solids? Because of the cool math?
She's not the only physicist who says it's a waste of time to discuss the Information Paradox for black holes. Since we'll never be able to measure it, it'll be untestable. It's a "Yeah, may be".
Mr. Verse claim seem to be that since it's (currently) impossible to test, it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Could be a fair point, but it would be a better idea to leave it for now until we discover ways to test it, and spent our resources elsewhere for now. Otherwise it's just (random) maths.
If the paradox can tell us something new (possibly fundamental) about universe, it's well worth examining. It's not her money, after all. You never know where the next breakthrough comes from.
Can you give example of science or research that needs so much resources that we should ignore other areas?
(Climate change would be wrong answer: we already know why it happens (CO2), we know what will happen (generally worse than better, and worsens as we drag our feet) and what to do (stop using coal and oil). Now we just need to do something)
@j.p.ijsblok5304 QUANTVERSE. Just like "professor" dave is not a professor, this is not MR verse, it's some VeRsiE69-nobody. This channel got renamed right after negative backlash from this video. He deleted the next video (which was about some science breakthroughs of 2024) where he got some more "feedback" from this video, too.
>Being untestable< and >being "unable to test"< something is two COMPLETELY different statements - you not realising that is why people like dave and versie have any following whatsoever.
It's an interesting question.
To the best of my knowledge, she does a good job of explaining what the main stream scientific view is and why that view is held. And when she states her opinion, she is clear that it is just her opinion and not a main stream view. And of course opinions and guesses are not well supported. Because if they were well supported, I would expect the mainstream scientific consensus to fall in line with what has the most substantiated proof.
I don't really have a problem with some inefficiency or bloat in academia and research institutions, it's baked into the cake, and it provides careers for smart people. Each new experimental result can spawn 5 new ideas for research, and we have only recently been able to experimentally confirm theoretical results that Einstein proposed 100 years ago.
The guy at the end makes a terrible point. We research far more fundamental assumptions like the problem of deduction but somehow an assumption of statistical independence is untouchable? What??????
Tim Maudlin? He´s not even physicist, but philosopher, and this guy calls him one of the greatest experts of quantun mechanics😂I met maudlin personally at an lecture in London a year ago and had a short talk with him. He´s incredible biased "fighter" for non locality.
I do love Sabine. As a former academician, though in biology, I can agree with almost everything she says about academia. "Publish or perish" has created a mountain of paper with little significance that is barely worth the money spent on the paper (if that). In my field of the biology of aging, millions have been spent, yet there has been no useful result that might actually work to ameliorate, stop or reverse aging because the whole field is based on basic assumptions which are false, but endlessly repeated as they are necessary to get grant money. Yet, as a recent report by the AAAS, the nation's top authority, well-known scientists in aging research can't agree on what aging is, what causes it - and what direction to proceed, in except for trying (yet again) to prove their own direction is the correct one. The biggest advances in understanding aging came from outside the field. So, when the most important objective of the scientist is to boost her career, increase her income, gain fame, rather than truly understanding phenomena pertinent to human well-being (and not how many angels can dance of the head of a pin, or whether information disappears in a black hole (based on the axiom of "the conservation of information", required by quantum mechanics but sounds dicey to me).
Aging is entropy. It's an aspect of the fabric of reality. Everything ages. It has a beginning, maturation, decline and extinction. We can retard it but we cannot reverse it.
@1006-i7e Well, I plan on living forever and so far, so good. 🙂 It's a shame that we can't have a breakthrough in the dementia/Alzheimers field as half of my relatives have died from it or with it. Guess who is on deck?
I disagree with the last statement equating studying black holes to how many angels can dance on a needle.
You could've said the same about General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics back in the day, yet we found uses for them in everyday life. In fact, your phone/pc you're writing from use quantum effects for flash memory and GPS only works because we can calculate time dilation due to GR...
@1006-i7e thats a bunch of pseudo-science if I ever I saw some lol. Aging is not entropy... Biological aging is not simply passage of time. Everything having a beginning or extinction is unproven. Maturation and decline are very subjective terms.
@FrenkieWest32 Show me, don't tell me. Then what is aging ?
Very good video. I watch Sabine videos sometimes and I will continue to do so, but now I will have a bit different view of them.
I completed my Ph.D. in 2012, not in physics but in computer science. When her mentor demanded that she do his work for him, she was justified in her frustration. This happens to many Ph.D. students. I have even published papers where I should have been the sole author, but that was not deemed acceptable. She is also correct about the crisis in science. Issues such as the rise of predatory journals, fake citations, and the repeated publishing of the same work with little to no additional value contribute to this problem. Moreover, the farther east you go from Germany, the more frequently you encounter fake researchers employed full-time at universities, treating their academic roles as merely another source of income (often smaller than what they could earn in the private sector). As a result, even the value of university degrees is experiencing inflation (beside the best universities in top 500). But to be honest, even people in US that studied in IT have now big problems to get a job. 10 or 15 years ago it was a different story.
Come to Switzerland!
The IT job market for experts here is dried out.
We also have some upsides as a nation in comparison to the US (imho) ;-)
Hey @gmhmv! 🧐On Sabine: Obsessed with mathematics over computation, thinking in math, mathematics must by definition obscure causality because it is a form of reduction
So you can identify patterns but can you come up with a causality (of, by) computation that are causing the resulting aggregate patterns
LIMITS OF MATH (Important)
Mathematics produces general, arbitrary, scale-independent descriptions across states. This is why it's predictable. But computation produces UNPREDICTABLE permutations of states.
So it's false that science must make predictions
It's EXPLANATIONS
WE DIDN"T UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT WAS COMPUTATION OVER MATH
Because mathematics is still language.
While computation is and can only be action.
That's why there is such a vast difference between mathiness (and pseudoscience) and computation (and science)
Sets (Ideas, Categorization)
Math (Verbal, Description),
Computation(Action, Possibility),
Simulation(Competition, Surival)
See?
No, it's not math, that's the foundation of science:
Laws:
Physical.... -> ..Behavioral. . -> Evolutionary
Descriptive.-> . . Causal . . . -> Consequential
Reducibility:
Quantitative -> Operational -> Adversarial
Mathematics -> Computation -> Simulation
It's operations.
The difference say, with David Deutsch is minor (many worlds) or with Richard Dawkins (determinism, computation), or Karl Popper (falsification, costs). But if you add Friedrich Von Hayek (information) and Gary Becker (supply demand), and my work on grammars (human calculation) then you falsify the math & physicists.
All mathematical statements are presently statistical. And the consequence (sum) of only SOME operations can be described mathematically. We require geometric computation - I think this is the only way to describe why mathematical physics has failed. "The Wrong Math"
Now, this was the point hilbert was trying to make, but didn't know how to. It's why I keep on message that the computational revolution came too late to temper the statistical revolution.
MATH: The limits of math are exposed rather quickly at macro scale in economics, and at micro scale in our failure to discover the geometry of the natural world where math can only describe predictive aggregates and COMPUTATION and COMBINATORICS can only explain those aggregates
Einstein (Semitic, Feminine, Pictures, math)
Einstein, Cantor, Bohr and Feinman all use pictures, well they are pictures but those are stories (narratives) they are not descriptions.
Describe the behavior but not the cause (causality) of the behaviour
vs Hilbert (European Operations, computable) from 12.00 to 23.00:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stBaW
Science is an outgrowth of our ancient practice of truth before face in law. And that origin in law is the reason for the long history of european development of reason, empiricism and science - and now what is emerging from the scientific process: computation from first principles (laws) of the universe at every scale: a constructive and falsificationary logic of all existence (demonstrating once and for all that the intuitionist rebellion in the early 20th was correct in the rebellion against the restoration of mysticism in mathematics physics and in particular in the behavioral sciences postwar, which, are nothing more than a religous revolt against darwin's explanation of not only biology, but all of existence
Thankfully we have at least one borderline thinker in Roger Penrose, who, while tempted to fall into mathematical platonism (confusing math with realithy) does try to correct others, a few responsible parties like Gerard t' Hooft, and emergent critics like Sabine Hossenfelder, who are attempting to preserve what little testimony limited to realism, naturalism, and operationalism (theories) that remains in the field - where that field has abandoned not only testimony but testifiabity, by claiming mathematical (geometric) logics are theories when they are not - they are mathematical frameworks without a theory.
Why? A theory requires two properties: (i) a system of measurement - meaning description one of the grammars of measurement we call the spectrum of logics (ii) a narrative model (search criteria) reducible to an analogy to human experience,
and always and everywhere possible, because the universe is consistent at all levels, and describable using the baseline of fluidic behavior.
The Problem With Math vs Physics, vs Philosophy
The disease of mathiness below:
https://mobile.twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1514028121053351938
Mathiness is everywhere, the problem of our age:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVdhXCONxVI#
Evolutionary Computation explained (operationalization and the error of mathiness):
.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLrRb-M2hKc
On epistemology (Imaginable/Computable/operational):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0i0INjyNklc
Math failed. Why? Computation won. Why? Operations not sets. That's why math failed. That's the lesson of the 20th. The revolution is outside of math in proteins and ai
Hello QPC! 😉 Math failed because of sets but computation succeded because operations? 🤔
If possible could you give an example of where context independence clashes with context dependant reality? Is it because we're dealing with subjects that defy typical measurement?
Simple examples:
What actions can you perform infinitely? (None)
Why is a 'limit' required in mathematics and not in Physics (or any other field)?
What dimension of reality did Cantor remove in order to claim different sized infinities exist? (Rate).
Thanks . For some reason I thought you were speaking in terms of physics instead of maths (probably because I was thinking of application to reality)' I'm not literate enough in maths to understand the above. Something I'll improve.
Hugs... Physicists understand math. They don't understand that they're making the same mistake in physics as mathematicians are in maths. Similar problem in economics, but (non-macro) economists are extremely cognizant of the problem because failure is so obvious.
The fact that einstein didnt solve the problem with math but with mental models that he later explained with mathematics seems to have been lost in most fields.
-"The flaw was assuming time is a form of space."- Michael
Yes. Again, Math by verbal logic by of Cantor, Einstein, Bohr (Scripture)
vs European Math by Operational logic (Engineering). M action reals vs F speech feels.
"Action: Only reality provides closure"
Cantor, Bohr = Pseudo-mathematics
For Albert Einstein, the universe was like a puzzle. Again and again, he strove to assemble its pieces in the correct order to create a theory of all forces and components. His quest continued until his final years
The einstein industry is a bit ridiculous given that he was at the end of a long line of people who had solved most of the problems. What we learn from him is the necessity of mental models described by math, not math in pursuit of mental models - the failure of those after him.
Even more important is that Hilbert was gracious but had reached the same conclusions. The difference is, that as a European Hilbert was a math operationalist and trying to discover cause. Einstein was not and only discovered description. Einstein-Bohr avoided (blocked) causality.
Debating Einstein, Bohr, along with say Cantor and with say Hilbert and I would have been interesting because Cantor and Bohr and less so Einstein are primarily responsible for the failure of progress in physics and math. Hilbert didn't correct them. I think Wolfram is doing it.
The Einstein Hilbert debate was non trivial and we're still living the fallout from the failure. Bohr doomed the 20th by mathematical pilpul. Had Babbage been more disciplined we wouldn't have had to wait until the Turing era, and we could have avoided the failures.
So it took until descartes to restore mathematical realism, and it took cantor and bohr to set it backward. What's interesting is that this failure: cantor, bohr are the reason for the collapse of thought in the 20th.
The failure to understand the limits of mathematics (vs computation) and to apply it beyond those limits. Example, most woo woo theories in physics, and many expressions in economics. Often intentional, incomptent, accidental. It's the mathematical equivalent of sophistry.
3:20 did you really commented her experience with "petty"? What she's describing is horrible. A humungous shame for academia.
Althoug I am on Penrose's side on that argument, Sabine's criticism is ABSOLUTELY NOT simply ignorance of Penrose's thoughts or a lack of fact checking. She has her reasoned arguments. I can't say i fully understand them - and the reason I agree with Penrose is simply because I fully understand him. But Penrose is a pure mathematician at heart, as am i. Different mindsets bring different priorities to the analysis of complicated thought experiments. You do make some going points in this video, but I think the characterization of the dispute with Penrose as being the result of ignorance or lack of basic fact. checking is not fair at all.
Sounds like a comprehension problem.
Not really. Kerr’s argument was wrong. It’s not about a disagreement between physicists and mathematicians.
most of what Penrose speaks is not real physics
From time to time i watched her videos. Seeing your video i got worried. She is still around producing videos. Good.
Definitely its not easy for her.
Thanks for this background information.
How do you distingish between Penrose being right and Sabine being wrong?
You can't just ask Penrose if he's right about his thesises, right?
As much as I like Penrose and his work, you didn't provide good arguments for this situation.
I believe anyone will defend his life long projects, right?
Penrose has some pretty wacky ideas these days bordering on pseudoscience both conformal cyclic cosmology and especially Orch Or with that highly annoying Hameroff.
He also didn't have any way to distinguish whether Tim Maudin critique of superdeterminism was valid or not (it's not).
Video was straight up using appeal to authority
@Disillusioned-k1s I get what you mean, but today the situation is a bit different. Sabine is talking about hypothesis with zero data to support them, and especially those that already made predictions, failed, changed up their theory just to fail again. Take string theory fir example. Since at least 30 years they predict stuff that is never found. Then they "adjust" the theory, so that even more energy is needed in experiments, always slightly outside the current range. That money could be spent a lot better.
Wegener had enough evidence to convince me, but at that point in time his stuff sounded whack. Drifting continents? Seriously? And there was the church, which still had a lot of influence back then. They didn't like that one bit, i bet...
Two totally different cases.
@DavidKolbSantosh Right, because as we know, personal incredulity is a great standard to apply to scientific theories.
@Disillusioned-k1s Well, Wegener's idea is teastable, conformal Cyclic Cosmology is not. And his theory is based on a solid foundation that is the continent shape and rocks formular AND speciation on these continents. Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is a guess at best.
in case anyone wonders, this video has 4.1K/3.8K like/dislike ratio using an extension rn (4 days after the upload).
4.9/4.8k ratio now
What does that tell us? How many, in each category, are her followers?
@kimmotoivanen it tells us the like/dislike ratio. Any inference you make from this is your own problem.
@kimmotoivanen most people who care to install the ext miss the one useful facet of dislikes functionality, namely - the "BS-meter". Since this video does grossly misrepresents both her character and intentions - there are a lot of ext-users who did dislike it. so the ratio is most probably higher than if it would be, if the dislikes were a core-thing. yet it is telling nevertheless.
How does one go about installing that extension? Seems like the ratio is important information.
i'm very happy this video exists. i once really liked her content, but i've been having this feeling that she is consistently becoming more and more controversial, to the point i can't believe in her anymore, at least when it comes to controversial topics... But idk, maybe i'm just too easy to influence, but i was starting to think i'm crazy, so it's nice that there's someone to actually do this research and put everything together.
Thank you dude
what kind of a comment is that, "dude"? xD
You are happy that some unrealised jobless person roasted some creator on the internet (that you don't like now)? "fallacy of sabine" or "biasness of every single dumb person who has nothing to say", what's more apparent here?
Also, that seems like a generic comment because you praise the quality of research and editing, like what the fk? There is not even a poll needed in the comments to see, that he had no real points and the quality of visuals was subpar.
I'd love your answer.
YT admin
I appreciate the video. I think Sabine challenging and speaking truth to power is important, just as holding her accountable and challenging her to validate her position is important.
Sabine may in fact be a great thing for sciemce. She asks / postulates things that is often not talked about, creating a debate.
She may not always be right, but what sceinctist can say they have always been right?
You can tell Sabine isn't really committed to Superdeterminsm. It's just a logically defensible alternative to showing favor toward any of the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, not to mention the only way left to nullify Bell's Theorem. Superdeterminsm is a perfectly unassailable premise - once you admit the possibility of predestination, nothing short of magic is off the table.
'only way left to nullify Bell's Theorem'. Not sure what this means. But if it is about locality. There is two ways, for a local quantum reality, Many Worlds and Superdeterminsm. And nether of these in any way, nullify Bell's Theorem, as they are solutions, like non-locality to Bell's Theorem.
@yziib3578 Bell's Theorem makes the assumption of Measurement Independence, i.e. that an experimenter is free to make measurement choices that cannot be statistically correlated with any previous event. Superdeterminism violates this assumption, nullifying the predictions of Bell's Theorem. Many Worlds claims that no experimenter is able to make any specific choice, which I suppose is par for the course with MWI.
@QuicksilverSG Bell's Theorem is based on 3 assumption and you described one of them,. And based on the experiments one of them has to be wrong. Based on your logic, non-locality nullifies the locality assumption. So there is now 3 ways , may be more, to nullify Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Superdeterminsm and Non-locality. I prefer, using solution, instead of nullifies.
@yziib3578 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Bell's Theorem lists both of these loop holes as "Supplementary Assumptions", i.e. taken for granted in the main body of the theorem, which is primarily concerned with matters of locality and causality. The Superdeterminism and MWI exceptions aren't targeted specifically at Bell's Theorem, they have broader implications that undermine the validity of the scientific method in general.
Magic has no explanatory or predictive power, scientific theories should have both, and that's why magic is not scientific. Your position is basically asserting that there exist no superdeterministic theories that have both explanatory and predictive power. What is the basis for this conclusion?
The system of funding and university ranking has pervert effects in all domains of science. That is wat Hossenfelder says. The industrial production of academic papers has nothing to do with science are knowledge sharing, but with university ranking, hence with funding. If you want references to your paper, you should also refer to your academic friends, so you get reciprocal referrals. It has become a void system comparable with the recommendations on linkedin. Physics has been a science that described and explained what we saw in nature. Now physics must describe and explain that what we cannot see, it becomes a world of phantasy, living in an ivory tower, this should be avoided, but has contaminated many domains of science.
So how do we actually fix that? Has she offered any genuine, workable, real-world solutions other than "It's evil! Do better", or nah?
@justseffstuff3308 we fix it by liberating science of the crazy hunt for financing. This includes that the stupid university rankings must stop. Science is not a sports-competition. The main scientific achievement of the 19th century has been developed by a hobbyist, during weekends and evenings after his working hours at the patent office, no ranking was involved. There was no university interested in his profile.
Has been this way or comparable for ages. Everyone knows about it. Also absolutely does not mean there is not good science or science has been ruined. Its way more nuanced than that. This clickbait notion that science is being corrupted is a joke. Also very unscientific, might I add. And all the viewers lapping it up, ironically, could use some more skepticism.
@FrenkieWest32 nobody said that there is no good science. But there is a lot of bad science, and remarkable is the agressive behaviour of this bad scientists against falsifications of their scientific achievements, or should it be called non-achievements.
I can't even explain how happy I am that you are specifically calling out her black hole paradox video. I feel so validated! I called it out in the comments minutes after it came out because it's just so ridiculous that a supposed particle physicist would ever be that narrow minded about scientific progress
"Instead of reading her papers, let's see what this expert has to say" LMFAO
Experts who she is criticising 🤣
didnt even fucking talk about their points just showed the video and thats it was about to leave the video thinking this was just a clickbaity very broad stroke type video but then he hits me with the experts and no content or discussion about what they said shit video a few good points from him here and there but otherwise massively pissed how much time got wasted
There is no room for experts in science: Nature always has the final say.
I did actually lol at that part.
Let’s just ignore her proof and listen to some slander! Woot!
Honestly, as a PhD-Student in Neuroscience, I resonate with Sabine a lot. Even though I sometimes think some of her oppinions is a bit extreme, I see where it is coming from. There's a lot of BS-Research out there, in my opinion driven by the publish-or-perish system of academia together with the Grant-System. Basically, the deal is NOT: you are granted money to do science for Y years. It is rather you are granted money to publish X amount of papers in Y years. Together with this strange rule of publishing only positive results. And if there is a negative result, then only because the study tried to falsify a former studie. This mix is toxic af. Extreme stress, crazy overhours etc. As my Prof used to joke: PhD-Students have no human rigths. Though, if I look at him, he doesn't even give human rigths to himself. And I see my (quiet big) lab or our graduate school. Not a single one of the PhD students wants to stay in academia, because of this toxicity. The effect off this on me: I turned from a very positiv personality to extreme bitter and cynical. (To be fair, I am from Germany which amplifies this problem even more. As you only have a total of 12 years in science to become a Professor including your time as PhD. The reason: German Law requires the universities to give you a permanent position after these 12 years. The only permanent positions are professorships with rare exceptions. So if you are not a professor you are fired and your career is over.)
her opinions must be at least a bit extreme, she does front-line work
a few quibbles about the refutation at the end:
- I have studied over 6 years of higher maths, specialising on topology, and have read a fair amount of divulgation of theoretical physics, but I don't even remotely understand enough of the maths involved to understand the refutations on the topic of black force information loss, or her disagreement with Penrose;
- the only one where I understood, both because I have more background, and because maths was not a heavy part of the argument, was the refutation on superdeterminism;
- but that was no refutation at all! Maudlin merely expresses distaste for her theoretical position. worse, he calls it "crazy" and "conspiratorial", both pointless ad hominems, and says he doesn't like the philosophical underpinnings of science under superdeterminism. now, to an extent I agree, I also find non-locality more attractive than superdeterminism, but "like" does not cut it as a refutation, and, by all means, I appreciate that those who don't like non-locality go off and explore their own weird alternatives; the argument is not at all settled until someone can show that non-locality and superdeterminism have divergent predictions, and experiments are carried out, or at least, until someone shows some mathematical inconsistency in one of the positions.
- moreover, the video has over 200,000 views, and over 10,000 combined likes and dislikes. how many of them have enough theoretical background to understand these refutations, especially the two more mathematical ones? how many have even my shallow understanding of these issues? because then, to those that understand even less than I do, asking them to accept those refutations that they don't understand is tantamount to asking them to accept a "proof by authority".
Penrose talks BS almost all the time. it is rare for him to talk real physics
i Think she is making good points, it's important to have people like her, being very honest and asking serious questions.
"She is herself a treasure" [King Lear]🙃
🙃
I have no issue with anyone challenging any of Hossenfelder's positions. I'm in no position to take sides on any of this stuff. However wackos will glom onto anything that ostensibly seems to support them, and I don't think that she's at all responsible for said folks. It's really up to viewers to decided how they feel about positions presented in her videos, and I don't think her larger viewership give her any added responsibility. She should be free to state her positions in any way she likes, the same as anyone else.
If she increases controversy and plays by science-deniers to gain more followers and money, I'd say she takes responsibility. She has options to choose how she phrases and presents her claims.
Freedom of speech is never without obligation and responsibility.
@kimmotoivanen I've seen no evidence she "plays by [sic] science-deniers to gain more followers and money". That's pretty subjective. You may disagree with her. She may even be completely wrong on some things. But that's the nature of this medium. In fact, that's the nature of free speech.
@kimmotoivanen What a terrible take!
you should be held accountable for that comment, too, until the end of your life, if someone misinterprets it (and the channel grows to 500 million in 10 days) - I'll be the first person to call you a "science denier".
I don't think you have any room to criticize fallacies when you're committing the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy in your own argument...
Yes, but do you know where?
There is, even if he did do that (sometimes appeal to authority is presented) it doesn't mean he can't do that, you are making fallacy fallacy
@theoryianabsolute8777
You can't prove a negative. You are making a fallacy fallacy fallacy.
@rickyhils you can prove a negative... Can this errorous claim finally leave the world?
@FrenkieWest32
You can prove a negative when talking mathematics. But you can't prove that someone will never make a particular statement. That is the equivalent of seeing into the future.
She is Right 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I have observed pettiness within academia first hand and while it is unnecessarily obstructive it does not invalidate the work performed under it.
I do not enjoy Sabine's videos as much as anymore, sometimes skipping them all together, even though she still does have valuable insights to convey.
I'm a doctor in Sweden and already in medical school it amazed me how so many students planned to get into research, but I soon realized that their sole motivation was that it's mandatory to produce an academic paper if you want a reasonable career as a doctor in a university hospital, which in practice means all hospitals in 7 of Sweden's 10 biggest cities.
And I've seen the lack of critical thinking and frankly lack of IQ among these so called researchers in the medical field, who often don't even grasp very basics of how you design a study, how to interpret data and what the common most biases are. And seen so many scientific papers that were completely useless. The vast majority, at least in the medical field, are exactly like Sabine claims 9:58 BS.
Like my closest colleague wasted 50 000 euros on her very small part-time solo research project on covid, measuring the patterns of some immunofactors losely associated with rheumatic diseases. No conclusions could be even remotely drawn, it was completely useless and nobody read her paper, which also came out many years after most aspects about covid and the pandemic already had lost its relevance.
I love science but I hate the waste, the lack of transparency and sometimes outright corruption.
The first paragraph has nothing to do with the research field. It is a management/bureaucratic check box issue.
It is regrettable to waste 50k. Waste happens everywhere. More important is whether the initial premise for that research was reasonable or not. You can spend time/resource to find something and come up empty. That is why we call it research. Otherwise, we would call it engineering.
Praising her with faint criticism? It's pretty normal for scientists to be wrong. It's pretty normal for teachers to be wrong. It's pretty normal for bold and confident statements to be wrong.
She states her opinions and makes assertions as fact just like a normal scientist or teacher. I disagree with her or am skeptical of her views often but I don't have a problem with it because _that is normal_! If you expect never to disagree with your sources then you have serious problems with your approach to information.
She should keep doing it her way and her audience should be skeptical, because that is a healthy relationship.
There's world of the difference between well groudned conjecture and cynical pushing exotic, non testable ideas.
What sort of exotic non-testable ideas are were talking about here?
No? Normal scientists and teachers do not and should not do this. And this has little to do with disagreeing with sources. Sources arent even about opinions either. What a ridiculous defense. And her audience is anything but skeptical lol
@FrenkieWest32 They do, though. They always have done. The simplest evidence is that many things have been widely held as fact which were later discovered to be incorrect. Without contrary evidence scientists and teachers were free to hold these views as fact. And they did. And on other undecided topics they still do. And they always will. And if you pay any attention at all you'll see them doing it every day.
Pay attention!
@FrenkieWest32 What do you mean "Sources arent even about opinions either.", by the way? I can't make much sense of that.
Huh. I learn a lot from her channel and enjoy her very much (including the music videos she made years ago which are super fun and clever :)
Yep. Well done criticism. I was drawn to her mainly because of her ability to break down complex topics into chunks I can grok. She's entertaining. And the fact that she will criticize issues with especially institutionalized science is *needed*. But when someone does this (or anything, for that matter) one always has to keep in mind that the speaker DOES have his or her own biases and these people CAN be wrong at times.
This video also hints at the very real danger of making money using social media - click-bait headlines are intentionally misleading but that's what gets you clicks and clicks are what get you money. This very video kind of commits that error in its title, "The FALACY of Sabine Hossenfelder" as opposed to maybe "where Sabine gets it wrong" or "My disagreements with Sabine"). And, when one gains a super large following, one can easily get an overdeveloped sense of how important and ... correct ... one's opinions are.
And over the last couple of years I've seen evidence that this has gone on to at least some extent with her. And I wonder how self-aware she is concerning this.
When she retreats to her motte positions on some of these subjects, I have given her the benefit of the doubt and figured that yes, of course she knows she might have some things wrong. I think the farther you go out into the theoretical world, the more apologetic one needs to be about opinions expressed on these topics. She does often express some humility, which is what makes me tend to give her a pass on these things.
But ... I do have at least a rudimentary background in science, so maybe it's easier for me to keep these things in mind even when she isn't so apologetic about her opinions on these things, and maybe I project the skepticism, my skepticism that I take for granted -- onto people who haven't been exposed to this stuff.
I would love to see her continue to be a science educator in, as you say, well known, agreed upon scientific knowledge. Might be a good idea to have two series of videos. One sort of "basic science for dummies" for stuff we've determined -- and another "topics in theory" where she talks about things in which there is more uncertain things. Sort of a "hard news" vs "editorial" series.
She has long left the science educator profession. If you want to see science education, Dr. Becky is a very good example of that. Sabine Hossenfelder is just another Karen on an internet celebrity trip.
@lepidoptera9337 I do like Dr. Becky. Not only is the content good, her enthusiasm is infectious.
@ Exactly. She puts the necessary work into her videos and her enthusiasm for her field is very infectious. I hope a lot of teenagers who are thinking about STEM careers are watching her videos. This is what science should feel like (even though there are days when you just want to quit and start a career as a marathon runner instead).
Why most of the top comments feel like propaganda or cult, what happened here
The people that like Sabine really like Sabine.
One of the reasons such grifters are so effective is that they assemble pseudo cults of personality around themselves ("I am the only one who will tell you the real truth", "everyone who criticizes me is part of the establishment that stifles independent thought", "everyone against me is obviously wrong and incompetent, and you're so much smarter than the so-called 'experts' for seeing the truth", etc.)
Sabine went down the same path as Harald Lesch. Started her channel with honest and genuine quality content, and then as she became popular and gained a certain amount of subs, she started to make less and less quality content. At some point she produced nothing but generic mainstream aligned BS videos for... money.
Disappointing and depressing that a smart scientist can be corrupted for something as banal as money.
You seem to be able to make quite some money by parroting views that are promoted by certain well-funded NGOs
Thanks for sharing a balanced perspective on the debate that seems to have turned somewhat, into mud slinging.
Sabine has the problem of her frustration from her self expectations. So she blames others for it.
Indeed she will not be talented like an yvette fuentes or javob barandes or the likes or roger penrose.
So sure everything is broken or wrong.
As sabine's frustration grew she became locked in her dunning-kruegger echo chamber of frustrations
She lacks humility. But most of all the talent of solving thinking.
So sure complaining gets clicks
She is very intelligent and more importance she 'questions' all these scientific papers that seem to come out like weeds on a hot summer day are are full of all kinds of suppositions. The one thing she does which is very important is to question theories that provide no observable proof. She also explains her beliefs.
"Love her or hate her, we have to learn to live with her." The best way to learn to live with her is to produce better scientific arguments and, above all, produce experimental results to validate those arguments. Jaw-jawing is just half of science. Experiment-experimenting is the other half. "The experimentalists must close the loopholes."
She made proposals foe experiments to test superdeterministic properties in quantum measurements. Nothing was funded.
those she criticizes, most of them don't have arguments. their weapon is defamation.
she is not defaming them, they are defaming her. she only beats them
@BlueSideUp - 2024-12-27
Sabine and I both worked with Walter Greiner. He was "special", especially with women. To be fair, there haven't been many to get used to, and still are not. Her life wasn't easy for sure.
Some people hate that Sabine takes their illusions away. Illusions like independent science that doesn't care if there is funding for a topic, isn't willing to work towards expected results, doesn't "tune" results to be published in mainstream journals that tend to filter what they publish heavily. Illusions like scientists would give up a topic they can still get funding for, just because it's not going anywhere. I think she deserves respect for this, not hate.
Science isn't democracy, consensus doesn't play a role, but hard, provable data. This is being forgotten, Sabine is right to remind us of it.
@Thomas-gk42 - 2024-12-27
Thanks for your perspective.
@Nat-oj2uc - 2025-01-01
I don't like her not because she takes illusions away but because she sometimes forcing her own illusions without any proof. She became too opinionated, especially outside of her expertise
@BlueSideUp - 2025-01-01
@Nat-oj2uc afaik nobody forces anybody to watch YouTube videos. I don't think it's healthy to dislike people because of their opinions differing from ones own. Especially as Sabine makes clear what is her opinion or assessment and what the facts are.
@Nat-oj2uc - 2025-01-01
@BlueSideUp then nobody forces you to believe the illusions she's trying to take away. You simping
@BlueSideUp - 2025-01-01
@Nat-oj2uc I don't agree with everything Sabine concludes from the facts available to her. I treat her channel like every other source of information. I consider it's bias and filter, and use it to create my own flawed picture and theory of the world. That's all we can do, isn't it?