Can AI really improve itself recursively until it becomes powerful enough to cause human extinction? Nobody sponsored this video, I turned down funding speci...
Claims of Scientific Stagnation: Hossenfelder argues that foundational physics has made no real achievements in 40 years. She labels areas like string theory and supersymmetry as “mathematical fiction” and a waste of taxpayer money.
Accusations Against Academia: She has asserted that a large portion of tax-funded academic research amounts to “nonsense” produced solely to keep professors and institutions funded. (this comes from her failed academic career).
Institutional Fallout: Tensions regarding her sharp rhetoric culminated in public friction, including her departure from the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, where she argued that much of modern foundational physics no longer follows the scientific method.
The “Motte-and-Bailey” Approach: Commentators point out that she often uses extreme, provocative statements (“science is dying”) to grab attention, but retreats to milder, defensible observations about administrative publish-or-perish pressures when challenged.
Aiding Science Denial: Science communicators, including Dave Farina (Professor Dave Explains), argue that portraying academia as a corrupt enterprise creates an undercurrent that inadvertently fuels science denialists.
I feel like her stuff against particle physics academia feels likely true, and the cosmology criticism is just — string theory is not testable, it’s not science
It’s her Motte and Bailey style is what led to me dumping her channel
You can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. There is no argument to be done except by Sabine, the one making the claim that science is dying.
I’ve seen the Marxists “debunking” her economics video few years ago. Hours of vids, few minor good points you could fit into 10min of solid criticism and the rest was complete garbage. I haven’t watched this video, but I expect the same.
She has no credibility.
Claims of Scientific Stagnation: Hossenfelder argues that foundational physics has made no real achievements in 40 years. She labels areas like string theory and supersymmetry as “mathematical fiction” and a waste of taxpayer money.
Accusations Against Academia: She has asserted that a large portion of tax-funded academic research amounts to “nonsense” produced solely to keep professors and institutions funded. (this comes from her failed academic career).
Institutional Fallout: Tensions regarding her sharp rhetoric culminated in public friction, including her departure from the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, where she argued that much of modern foundational physics no longer follows the scientific method.
The “Motte-and-Bailey” Approach: Commentators point out that she often uses extreme, provocative statements (“science is dying”) to grab attention, but retreats to milder, defensible observations about administrative publish-or-perish pressures when challenged.
Aiding Science Denial: Science communicators, including Dave Farina (Professor Dave Explains), argue that portraying academia as a corrupt enterprise creates an undercurrent that inadvertently fuels science denialists.
She failed in academics for good reasons.
I feel like her stuff against particle physics academia feels likely true, and the cosmology criticism is just — string theory is not testable, it’s not science
It’s her Motte and Bailey style is what led to me dumping her channel
Yet I see little to no arguments disproving the “accusations” . She on the other hand shown some really juicy mails supporting her claims.
You can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. There is no argument to be done except by Sabine, the one making the claim that science is dying.
O a replying to the whole thread. I have watched a few of her videos but always found them off putting and then https://lemmy.ca/u/SaveTheTuaHawk and https://slrpnk.net/u/ProdigalFrog gave me a blackhole to fall down for a while this morning.
Have you seen this?
I’ve seen the Marxists “debunking” her economics video few years ago. Hours of vids, few minor good points you could fit into 10min of solid criticism and the rest was complete garbage. I haven’t watched this video, but I expect the same.