Researchers at Nordita at Stockholm University have analyzed flashes of light on astronomical plates from the early 1950s and found statistical connections between the times of these flashes, nuclear weapons tests and reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). The results are presented in two studies published in Scientific Reports and Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
A, I see.
It’s mainly about her extreme critics regarding current scientific methods and academic communities?
I have to confess that I am ignoring these, as I am not involved enough with basic research to assess the validity of her accusations. And I also thought of these videos as being somewhat over the top, too shrill and somewhat overly harsh for my taste.
I didn’t notice anything questionable in her normal science topics though, e.g. when discussing papers as in my link.
She always seem to me very grounded and also handles critics well and readily admits errors.
There’s quite a bit more on the same channel, including a video where several practicing scientists explain what she wrong or deliberately lying about.
Out of interest I extracted the transcript of the video (watching was out of the question, >3 h 😯) and went over the summary.
Basically three main topics they seem to cover:
String theory in its present form is crap/is sound: Both sides have valid points here, my personal gut-feeling would actually be slightly on the side of the critics (Sabine is not the only one).
Scientific academia has a problem/is good as it is: From my personal experience (I am involved with partly government sponsored research and academic people, but in applied sciences) Sabine might actually has some valid points here. But also no acceptable solutions while being somewhat over the top in her expressions. As mentioned, I tend to ignore that content of her because of that.
Possible financial dependency on billionare oligarchs, possibly influencing her content: Speculation, but could well be. She published some weird stuff a few months ago that could originate there.
.
So, while points 1. and 2. seem nothing to bother about, the third point actually might be something to keep in mind. But this is true for basically all youtubers beyond the hobbyist stage, with some notable exceptions, like the TLDR channel, that try to be as transparent as possible regarding their finances.
In most cases you just don’t know what hidden agendas exist, mainly because of financial pressures.
To slightly adept one of Sabine’s statements Dave was criticizing:
“I don’t trust YouTubers” is a reason to confirm before believing, which should not be too hard as the video has practicing scientists in the relevant fields address Sabine’s statements in detail. I understand not wanting to watch long videos, but the length is an effect of Brandolini’s Law.
I have watched all the five videos, and I also watch Sabine’s channel. I don’t think you have enough information to justify equivocation especially given that you have more familiarity with Sabine’s position, but I like that you try to assess her content for yourself. I’m sure you will be able to spot the next time she is makes misleading statements for clicks or contradicts herself (as she has done in the past).
Sabine Hossenfelder discussed this recently in one of her videos.
Got to be careful with her videos though. She has descended into unhinged right-wing conspiracy territory.
That’s new.
You certainly have a source or link?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70vYj1KPyT4 and at least 3 other videos on the same channel.
A, I see.
It’s mainly about her extreme critics regarding current scientific methods and academic communities?
I have to confess that I am ignoring these, as I am not involved enough with basic research to assess the validity of her accusations. And I also thought of these videos as being somewhat over the top, too shrill and somewhat overly harsh for my taste.
I didn’t notice anything questionable in her normal science topics though, e.g. when discussing papers as in my link.
She always seem to me very grounded and also handles critics well and readily admits errors.
There’s quite a bit more on the same channel, including a video where several practicing scientists explain what she wrong or deliberately lying about.
Out of interest I extracted the transcript of the video (watching was out of the question, >3 h 😯) and went over the summary.
Basically three main topics they seem to cover:
.
So, while points 1. and 2. seem nothing to bother about, the third point actually might be something to keep in mind. But this is true for basically all youtubers beyond the hobbyist stage, with some notable exceptions, like the TLDR channel, that try to be as transparent as possible regarding their finances.
In most cases you just don’t know what hidden agendas exist, mainly because of financial pressures.
To slightly adept one of Sabine’s statements Dave was criticizing:
“I don’t trust youtubers.”
“I don’t trust YouTubers” is a reason to confirm before believing, which should not be too hard as the video has practicing scientists in the relevant fields address Sabine’s statements in detail. I understand not wanting to watch long videos, but the length is an effect of Brandolini’s Law.
I have watched all the five videos, and I also watch Sabine’s channel. I don’t think you have enough information to justify equivocation especially given that you have more familiarity with Sabine’s position, but I like that you try to assess her content for yourself. I’m sure you will be able to spot the next time she is makes misleading statements for clicks or contradicts herself (as she has done in the past).
This guy has a few videos. And if you search YouTube you can find other critiques of her too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70vYj1KPyT4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oipI5TQ54tA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJjPH3TQif0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P_tceoHUH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EERX9QyS-Xc