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
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 think this is a very effective critique of Hossenfelder. Some of her videos are magnificent, how she manages to explain extremely complex subjects. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and scientists argue about stuff all the time. Saying that she is "anti-science" because of the clickbait thumbnails is not a strong argument. Perhaps she should allow contrary viewpoints in her videos more, considering the size of her audience. Her argument with Penrose looks like one of those spats between scientists that one reads about years later. I assume Penrose is right since he got the nobel prize, but I'm certainly not able to check the math to see which of them is right... I actually really love Penrose's kooky ideas he came up with more recently.
Anyway- it's good that we have science communicators like Hossenfelder.
"Saying because she is "anti-science" because of the clickbait thumbnails is not a strong argument".
She clearly panders to the "anti-mainstream' conspiracy theory-minded people with those thumbnails and titles, but it's not just that - as professor Dave's video explains some of the stuff she said in her videos is very much driving the "science is failing/doomed" narrative and not just for some areas of science (like theoretical physics, whether that's true or not) but just in general.
@@TheCabIe Sabine Hossenfelder wants science to adhere to the highest standards of rigor. Anti-mainstream people will find zero support for their views in her videos. Her viewers are pro-science.
"Clickbait" works in the complete opposite way. You see a video that looks possible anti-science, so you click on it, wondering "Has Sabine lost her mind??", and when you watch it, you realize, "No. She hasn't."
@@dannylad2774 but when her own standards of rigor are not existent by spewing ideology, clickbaiting, and fundamental mistakes in most of her videos, then it is very much in doubt, if she may even claim standards for others, let alone for all of science.
I talked with viewers of this show and i can confirm, that most of her viewers have the physics knowledge of an infant. And theres always a huge amount of science deniers under them. Your assertions have been rejected.
u are relativising abject failures in the fundamental understanding on the topics she discusses. She is not a science communicator, shes a stain on the community. Also u are committing a fallacy by strawmanning the argument. She is not anti-science because of some clickbait, shes anti-science because she claimed to be in much of her content.
@@dannylad2774 how you seen the amount of climate change deniers in her comment section? Its like 90% of her comments by now lmao
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.
@@andrewguthrie2 Pure anedoctal ? After years of working what you see has some value way bigger than anedoctal.
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. 🤡
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.
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 am in the middle of a Ph.D. in beyond-the-Standard-Model physics (BSM), trying to figure out what dark matter is from the perspective of particle physics and cosmology. I started this journey with the goal and illusion of becoming an academic, but as time progressed, I realized I was just getting burnt out and not achieving my goals, given that, as we know, theoretical physics is a highly competitive environment with little funding. Then, I encountered Sabine's content and resonated a lot with it, especially with the fact that BSM physics is stagnating due to the lack of technology to test the overabundant theoretical proposals. It came as the slight impulse that made me realize that pursuing an academic path is not worth it for me, and I will always be grateful to her for that.
I recommend to read her excellent book "Lost in Math", if you didn´t.
I get where she's coming from. I made the same choices, but far earlier in my career. I was offered the chance to get a PhD and be a professor -- essentially becoming like the people I was working for. I didn't want to do that. That wasn't my calling. So I finished my Master's degree and thanked them for the offer of a PhD, but I knew it wouldn't make me happy. Now that I'm retired, I'm absolutely sure I made the right choice.
It's a tough choice. There's this illusion that you can "have it all" -- work, career, marriage, children. But the truth is you have to prioritize what is important to YOU. Otherwise you may end up with a lot of nothing.
Can you imagine how pursuing a theology degree must feel? " due to the lack of technology to test the overabundant theoretical proposals"
mikefinucane6687
Don't be ridiculous
@@mikefinucane6687 Buddy, that is so stupid. To bring that into a physics chat under the premise of a PHD is just banal.
I 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.
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 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.
"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.
"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!
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.
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 have seen 9 minutes and that is enough for me to say that this is not the channel for me.
This is a channel for nobody, ran by a nobody.
If he gets backlash and changes his channel name right after it, then it surely is a credible source of videos.
I quite agree.
I lasted for 11 minutes then came to the same conclusion.
523....I'll persist but it's. " flounder droppings "....godspeed am gutdaze
I couldn't even last 1 minute..
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! 😜
How do you distingish between Penrose being right and Sabine being wrong?
You can't just ask Penrose if he's right about his thesises, right?
As much as I like Penrose and his work, you didn't provide good arguments for this situation.
I believe anyone will defend his life long projects, right?
Penrose has some pretty wacky ideas these days bordering on pseudoscience both conformal cyclic cosmology and especially Orch Or with that highly annoying Hameroff.
@@DavidKolbSantosh That's scientific progress for you. One has to push the boundaries of 'wackyness' to see if it is indeed wacky. Wegener's continental drift theory (back when) was roundly laughed at and regarded as 'wacky', but it appears that Wegener had a little more comprehension than others (okay, dissenting geologists aren't renowned for progressive thinking, but...). Most of the ideas will be wrong, but just occasionally one makes a breakthrough. It's good to think outside the box now and then.
He also didn't have any way to distinguish whether Tim Maudin critique of superdeterminism was valid or not (it's not).
Video was straight up using appeal to authority
@@Disillusioned-k1s I get what you mean, but today the situation is a bit different. Sabine is talking about hypothesis with zero data to support them, and especially those that already made predictions, failed, changed up their theory just to fail again. Take string theory fir example. Since at least 30 years they predict stuff that is never found. Then they "adjust" the theory, so that even more energy is needed in experiments, always slightly outside the current range. That money could be spent a lot better.
Wegener had enough evidence to convince me, but at that point in time his stuff sounded whack. Drifting continents? Seriously? And there was the church, which still had a lot of influence back then. They didn't like that one bit, i bet...
Two totally different cases.
@ True, and understood. String Theory is a prime example of a theory with no evidence 🙄.
I 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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ar around 3:00 Quantverse highlights why Sabine once got fired and called her petty. What Sabine spoke of is very true. Post docs write most of the books and papers while Sr. Professors put their name on it. Your attempt to slander Sabine is what is actually petty. Sabine rightly calls out what academia and science have become. Over bloated paper machines seeking more and more grant $ with little return on investment. This Quantverse video is nothing more than a hit piece on Sabine.
That's why the guy is no longer Quantverse but Mr Versiettoo69420 :) Very credible channel and a very quality content.
3:21 "It must have been disappoint to learn that such a respected academician could be so petty"
In the context of just having heard her story, I interpreted this as referring to Greiner's treatment of her after her refusal to work on the textbook. I interpreted this way mostly because at the time of the story, he was the only party that could be described "a respected academician". For this reason, I don't think creator was calling her petty, but Greiner, and empathizing with her experience in that situation.
This is further supported by the arc of the narrative, describing the experiences that led to her disillusionment with academia
The video clearly calls Greiner petty and not Sabine. I'm baffled so many people liked your comment, must be a lot of Sabine apologists grasping at straws to defend her from nonexistent attacks.
@Nobody will watch this video if he isn't mad at Sabine, so they can only get some confirmation bias from this hit-piece. The dogverse quantverse or whatever you want to call it, has changed his channel name and retracted his future videos after backlash from just this video. Didn't care to see if he reuploads some of this or not, but I guess he is too uncapable of doing anything productive, instead focusing on hating others - like ask yourself: if she has X fallacy, then WHO CARES.
Nobody cares.
correct.
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.
Perhaps Sabine's usefulness is in trying to keep the science community accountable. Anyone dealing with reviewing scientific papers will tell you how much bad science, as in flawed process, is being done. Having a science qualification doesn't guaranty you'll follow the scientific method.
You're framing it as a very individual problem, as if the attitudes of individuals can change the fundamental system.
Can Sabine actually, personally, hold every single scientist accountable on her own? Can her angry, disorganized YouTube mob do so? No, clearly not. You need actual policy, enforced policy, to remedy this problem. It's a basic alignment issue, the wrong behaviour is being motivated, so you have to actually remove the behaviour instead of acting like it's individual scientists and universities who are Bad and Evil.
@@justseffstuff3308 The attitude of a single individual is unlikely to change the whole system, even if it's @sabine, but that's not her point; I think her point is more, "There is a HUGE problem, and WE need to address it collectively, or it will be addressed for us and not in a good way" (nb. not an exact quotation; cf. her recent video on the defunding of academia). Furthermore, I agree with @every1665 that when doing peer-reviewing, plenty of theoretical and experimental issues should have never reached the submission phase in the first place. If any scientist in the room knows of just one field where researchers only submit properly written papers, please raise your hand. I want to be a part of it.
She is not even accountable to herself. In one of her last YouTube diatribes, she posits that the Holocaust and the evils of Nazism were not about Hitler but about post-WWI German economics, sweeping aside Hitler's absolute diabolical plots and mind. She smacks of neo-Nazism. That should be enough to dismiss her. We do not have to live our existence as if she is necessary to give attention to.
who holds her accountable? Certainly not her comment section.
She's a good science communicator, but it seems she has realized that the videos that give her most views are the ones where she criticizes science, which resonates very well with a certain crowd currently, which is a good motivation to produce more. And while it's perfectly fine to point out flaws, in the world we currently live in we have to be very careful with how we use whatever platform and influence we have. Some people jump at any chance to discredit the scientific method and the science community for nefarious reasons so we should avoid giving them fuel unnecessarily and be very specific in our criticism.
She also seems to take her own disappointment with not being able to become the researcher she hoped as evidence academia as a whole is useless and this is flawed reasoning, but again resonates with the narrative of a brave, unique individual bravely going up against the big bad "establishment". She makes broad claims that all of science is BS, even though she in reality has limited experience in one particular field and doesn't know about the community outside of that area.
Even if we look at particle physics specifically, I think she's promoting the wrong conclusions. The recap of the field is that for decades, "Supersymmetry" was the hypothesis that all theorists in the field were convinced was true, and a mathematically beautiful ecosystem of models that made all kinds of sense were created, including a plethora of theoretical particles that would need to exist for the models to be confirmed. But, after the LHC was completed, run, recalibrated, run again, over and over, it has failed to produce the results that would confirm the models, to the point where finally it had to be abandoned. Sabine seems to be saying two things here;
First she seems to be saying that this was a bad thing, that it's somehow a failure for science that the theoretical models were proven wrong, which is just a weird thing to imply; disproving hypotheses is what science is about. Yes, some theorists did cling to their models to long, which is bad, but understandable. This leads to the second thing she seems to imply; that this is ongoing, which it isn't. Many of the Supersymmetry proponents have since moved on to different fields, and those who still work in particle physics are working to understand how the prior hypothesis was wrong and how to solve the hierarchy problem without leaning against Supersymmetry and "inventing particles", which is something Sabine accuses theorists of.
The one criticism that may be raised is that it shouldn't have taken a $10 Billion particle accelerator to disprove a hypothesis and that parts of the hypothesis should have been tested before spending so long developing it and so much on testing it; but here is when reality shows up - there's just was no way to test individual parts of the hypothesis. They tried using the available particle accelerators but they just weren't up to it.
So, I don't see the so called crisis. Yes, plenty of theorists were upset that they were wrong for so long, but that's it. People aren't still "kicking the dead horse" but are actively working to find other solutions, exactly how science is supposed to work. The fact that no breakthroughs have been made in a long time is hardly the fault of science, it's the fault of nature being to darn complicated.
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.
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".
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.
So, let me get this straight, a guy calling himself "Professor Dave" took issue with Sabine's title for a video, that title being something along the lines of "I don't trust scientists". Is anyone shocked that the a guy who trades on science in order to gain income and influence, would take issue with a title that undermines his claim to fame? The worst part about this is that the entire scientific method is essentially a method in which you "don't trust" the current findings. The scientific method isn't about "trust", it's about questioning.
Isn't Dave just as human as the rest of us, or does putting "Professor" in front of his name confer superhuman powers of incorruptibility. "I'm incorruptible. Can't you see the word 'Professor' in front of my name???" The problem is some of us had professors, and some of us have a long history of watching science evolve.
HE IS A PROFESSOR in his mind. And in the mind of his brainless children who don't know any better.
I am also a president of my country, a sir, a lord and GOAT.
1. Sabine trades on science to gain income and influence... If youre going to use that as some sort of critique, at least dont be biased...
2. Professor Dave is not a scientist.
3. no, the scientific method is not about not trusting current findings. It being about ´´questioning´´ is fine as an entry-level or findamental conception, but its a bit simplistic imo. Regardless, questioning doesnt mean making videos trying to call out the field or whatever.
4. Thats ironic, because why exactly do fans of her channel not hold Sabine to those standards? She talke as the no. 1 authority on everything science in the world with opinionated and generalizing videos without much in the way of any evidence and the whole comment section laps it up.
@@FrenkieWest32 "She talks as the no. 1 authority"??? Hmmm. I don't recall her calling herself the #1 authority on all science disciplines, but I do think it's fair to say her experience in the process university's follow to publish scientific papers is relevant. You say she "trades on science to gain influence and income". Please show me the hermit scientist who donates their works to the world. That tack tends to lead one down the path Tesla followed. Every scientist trades on science to gain influence and income. If that's a bad thing, then the entire community is doing a bad thing.
@ 1. thats what I said to you ... Reading please.
2. and 3. you thought fit to not respond to I guess.
4. talking as something is not the same as calling yourself something, obviously...
Frankly, my reading of your responses is that you present yourself as the #1 authority on everything science. Hell, I can't even state a fact, which is that science isn't about trust, without you both agreeing, and then throwing your penny into the pot of gold with snide remarks about it being simplistic. Ok, if it's simplisitic, then you go on to describe how it is so. You don';t then use a tactic to avoid educating me by saying, "Reagardless, questing doesn't mean videos. . . " Thanks for that. I suppose questioning also doesn't mean bungee jumping, but that's not particularly enlightening.
I get it, you don't like Sabine's success. All I can say is, tough shit, and find your own path to notoriety.
Sabine isn't anti-science and the fact that deniers parrot her de-contextualized statements in support of their movement isn't her fault. Her points are more nuanced than that; if anything, she's anti-academia, or at least calling out that the institution is due for reform, even if that nuance is lost upon the deniers (or even other scientists). It is, however, fair to say that her thumbnails/headlines probably make it easy for them to do that. Most YouTubers do the best they can to appease the algorithms somehow and she is, unfortunately, no exception.
1. Not completely her fault but also a responsibility that comes with being public speaker. You cannot craft such clickbaity titles for the algorithm and then act like its not your fault people supposedly ignore the ´´context´´.
2. I find little nuance in her videos. Regardless, positing the notion that anyone who disagrees is wrong because they cannot fathom her ´´nuance´´ is just completely ridiculous. For one, it would mean she should communicate better. For two, its just false.
I like her. She is warning society and people to the unhealthy direction academia is taking, and giving light to many bullshit behaviour and procedures in academia. I am researcher and profesor at a Spanish University and I mostly identify with her critiques. She is open-minded (as a scientist should be) and brave and of course if she speaks about some topic which is not expert such as IA, we shouldn’t judge her as she would. She makes many videos per weeks, mostly of them interesting. She cannot be expert on all of them. String theory was just a mode followed by a human egocentric show of non brilliant people.
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.
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?
I believe the biggest reason for believing her position on academia is the saturation of academia. There's an old saying that carries alot of truth. "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Many years ago in school teachers and professors did research after their job, which was teaching. Now they have grad students and assistance teach while they do research, with grants, of course. You very seldom see a research professor in class. That's what I believe she is partially trying to say. Having a grant for the purposes of research is one thing, doing research for the purposes of grants is quite another.
i am a physician scientist practicing in the US. pretty much everything sabine has said about academia is correct. i’m not qualified to comment on her physics work or related perspectives. however her analyses of academia is spot on.
Yep, most intelligent grown-ups understand this.
Two choices: Fix Sabine or fix science....
Guess which one the science team chose...
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.
You headline is an embedded ad hominem, not a strong start. You literally say that Sabine (as a person) is a fallacy.
An imbedded ad hominem... Hm... The fallacy of sabine = the fallacy she uses. Ad hominem referrs to the irrelevance of a response to an argument that focuses attention on a person over the argument, often the person making the argument, so that it appeals to the emotions of people to then dismiss their argument. I dont see that happening here.
@@JosefK-ud8io Maybe implied would be the better word.
@@JosefK-ud8io The title is perfectly subjective, and it asserts.. at face value, the fallacy of her character. OP should have attacked one of her arguments instead. That's what ad hominem means- to replace the argument with the person making the argument, and it's a logical sin. It's purely an egoic translation.
@@JosefK-ud8io As if Sabine hasn't given us enough information to challenge directly.
@@dieselphiend nope just pointed out a fallacy she is making with her arguments.
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.
It's always disappointing to hear the term 'consensus' in a discussion about science, irrespective of any opinion of Hossenfelder or her variably useful opinions.
"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.
The major problem I see is that she makes statements about how academia is broken, but she is not referring to academia as a whole, but physics in particular. She should level her critique specifically to physics - she has little knowledge about other branches of science. I guess physicists believe that physics is the one and only true science, but I beg to disagree.
Hmmm. it puts my father's experience into perspective. In the early or mid fifties he had written a dissertation on the on the Battle of Copenhagen, showed to his tutor who gratefully received it commenting that this was the last piece he needed for his book! My father had not been prepared for this....
recently she posted about autism and i was shocked bc literally, stay in your lane. you can influence people regarding the overdiagnosis problem without any basis. you're not a psychologist with a phd. this is not your field.
She reminds me of John Campbell. He’s the nurse that has gone on this Covid vaccine tirade. Now he made a video about the shroud of Turin. He’s just going after eyeballs.
Academia has richly earned its bad reputation.
One word: hubris. But hey, who cares when the cash is coming in? Problem is the times we live in.
The problem with this entire controversy, as far as I am concerned, is that few people, even scientists, really think about the foundations of their craft, which is the scientific method. These are 3 simple steps that have led to the proliferation of knowledge and the destruction of many centuries-long-held myths.
1 Using existing knowledge and the results of previous experiments, form a hypothesis.
2. Perform one or more experiments that demonstrate the truth or falsity of the postulate.
3. Using the experimental results from step 2, refine the idea and goto step 1.
This is the scientific method, as first firmly described by Galileo. its use has led to nearly all of our knowledge about the universe due to applying this method. What Sabine keeps saying is absolutely true, and that is, recently, the field of cosmology has not been using the scientific method. The method, known as easter egging, is to guess at the solution, test to see if it's correct, rinse, and repeat. The likelihood of this method producing results is about the same as the proverbial army of monkeys typing randomly, producing a Shakespeare sonnet.
Well, you were clearly not thinking about science during K-12, either. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 What a non-sequitur.
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
your video raises some valid points about the responsibility that comes with having a large platform, but many of your criticisms seem to fall into the same traps you accuse Hossenfelder of - oversimplification, provocative framing, and selective interpretation of evidence
@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?