Can AI really improve itself recursively until it becomes powerful enough to cause human extinction? Nobody sponsored this video, I turned down funding speci...
Thank you, that’s the first thing that came to mind. She’s a horrible person both to listen to as well as in terms of not being an empathetic human being.
I have this theory that when you are public facing, it behooves you to put your best foot forward.
For example, if you are going to talk to people in a grocery store trying to sell your pasta sauces, make sure your breath doesn’t smell like a seagull died behind your uvula. (I’m looking at you, Stefano Faita)
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.
Sabine is an idiot fraud
Thank you, that’s the first thing that came to mind. She’s a horrible person both to listen to as well as in terms of not being an empathetic human being.
I think Professor Dave says it best
She’s no prize to look at either.
Honestly - that’s low, dude. Don’t diss people’s looks. Weak.
I have this theory that when you are public facing, it behooves you to put your best foot forward.
For example, if you are going to talk to people in a grocery store trying to sell your pasta sauces, make sure your breath doesn’t smell like a seagull died behind your uvula. (I’m looking at you, Stefano Faita)
Pull your dick off your ear next time you’re speaking
What an interesting idiom! Thanks for believing me when I say my dick is three feet long.
You have no idea how much I suffer.
Oh, man. Have you ever heard her sing? It’s something else.
the most important part of her ugly inside is her face true
I don’t even know what about her is supposed to be ugly on the inside. She bores me.
Your post is a 10 out of 10 on the bullshit meter.
Edit. The bait was taken, t was just a joke people.
Lmao
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.
Thanks, Claude.
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.