Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I never thought that I'd see a Sabine Hossenfelder video that would violate the CF Guidelines, but today's YT! video certainly does that in spades. So without linking it directly I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts on it are.
I never thought that I'd see a Sabine Hossenfelder video that would violate the CF Guidelines, but today's YT! video certainly does that in spades. So without linking it directly I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts on it are.
I don't know what the "violation" part is, but I stopped watching about 90 seconds in as her "correspondent" was going on about uncounted physicists losing their jobs because they were working on "bad physics". I was wondering how long it would take for this video to get its own thread.I never thought that I'd see a Sabine Hossenfelder video that would violate the CF Guidelines, but today's YT! video certainly does that in spades. So without linking it directly I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts on it are.
I don't know what the "violation" part is, but I stopped watching about 90 seconds in as her "correspondent" was going on about uncounted physicists losing their jobs because they were working on "bad physics". I was wondering how long it would take for this video to get its own thread.
I skipped a head a few times and found that. I don't care about her swears. I care about her message. I'm done with her.Judging by the video's comments there are a lot of people who agree with her. FYI, you need to go beyond the seven minute mark to find the violation... you can't miss it.
I skipped a head a few times and found that. I don't care about her swears. I care about her message. I'm done with her.
'Twould be interesting to see her go one-on-one with Lisa Randall.
.. Now that one would be worth payin' money to see!
Judging by the video's comments there are a lot of people who agree with her. FYI, you need to go beyond the seven minute mark to find the violation... you can't miss it.
At this point I don't care what her physics is, nor do I care what actual science communication content she has created.Gotta love her "existential" physics, Hans. Come'on! Don't be such a stick in the mud.
At this point I don't care what her physics is, nor do I care what actual science communication content she has created.
So, what do you think of what she said?
She's also being motivated by what she perceives as discrimination against her, during her professional career, by 'the system'.As to the merit of her criticisms, I'm not qualified to address them. But I do think that her swearing was more tactical than emotional. It definitely got my attention. Neither do I fault her for it. Sometimes attention is hard to get, and entrenched systems are difficult to change. So it's not my place to judge her for that either. It's just her doing her... as she should.
She's also being motivated by what she perceives as discrimination against her, during her professional career, by 'the system'.
She's released YouTubes describing those experiences and how she's ended up as a Youtuber.
The language was one thing but the vitriolic delivery of it, I believe, was pure anger coming from those past professional experiences(?)
Doh! ..I don't blame her. I don't blame Lee Smolin either ('IF(f) and only if what they say is essentially 'true.')
It seemed emotional to me. But I've heard that guy Gordon Ramsay was a chef with a very small following until he started cursing and being angry, then he blew up, so you could be right, it could be tactical. As for her message I say put her in DOGE. Shrimp belong on my dinner plate, not on treadmills.But I do think that her swearing was more tactical than emotional. It definitely got my attention. Neither do I fault her for it. Sometimes attention is hard to get, and entrenched systems are difficult to change. So it's not my place to judge her for that either. It's just her doing her... as she should.
Sabine has chosen to use her platform to get rage clicks from anti-science people and has repeatedly encourage their viewership and make her money. Videos that are used by anti-science people to say "angry science lady says scientists are evil/greedy/whatever" (it's already in this thread). In other videos (and I didn't spot it in this one) she goes from "particle physics is a waste to academic science is corrupt and wasteful in the same sentence. After reading the letter she spends the rest of her time (before the ad) libeling groups people and attacking two HEP experiments/facilities (DUNE and EIC), calling them make-work projects pursing made up problems. She's capable of reading the science cases for both and understanding them. The old Sabine would be explaining what could be discovered and what questions will be addressed even if she thought one of the public facing reasons was hype.That's fine. She's not at the top of my list of sources, but I do like listening to her and sometimes learning from her. For me, she's just amplifying the course of criticism Lee Smolin has had. And I'm fine with that.
Smolin did write her rant or post the video. The two experiments she demonizes are moves *away* from the issues in HEP theory and experiment Smolin wrote about 20 years ago. (String theory, quantum gravity, etc., are not the scientific goals of these experiments.)I don't blame her. I don't blame Lee Smolin either ('IF(f) and only if what they say is essentially 'true.')
Smolin did write her rant or post the video. The two experiments she demonizes are moves *away* from the issues in HEP theory and experiment Smolin wrote about 20 years ago. (String theory, quantum gravity, etc., are not the scientific goals of these experiments.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?