5 ms·

It’s a mystery to me how people with an outlook as parochial as Sabine Hossenfelder’s even get a job in the sciences. This is really mind bending and quite fra

by nubero 6y ago

It’s a mystery to me how people with an outlook as parochial as Sabine Hossenfelder’s even get a job in the sciences. This is really mind bending and quite frankly unsettling.

Barrin92 6y ago
I'm not sure if you're being satirical or so unaware that you're actually just proving her point without even noticing it. Physics has been captured by so much rent-seeking activity that many people who feel like Hossenfelder don't even speak up any more because they're afraid of killing their career.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
So concentrating on science to "fix" climate change is less important than a new particle collider? What good will a particle collider do if the human race has radically changed the climate in the next 50 years? That's her point and it's very relevant.
nubero 6y ago
Looking at the replies to my comment, it seems clear that the brain rot is well advanced with some people. Therefore some random points in no special order: 23 billion is nothing for a project that has 23, mostly western European, member states paying for it. The GDP of Switzerland alone (which has a population of only 8.5 million) was around 700 billion in 2019. Climate change is not going to be solved by an “International Center for Climate Modeling”. That is so completely nonsensical that I didn’t even thought it worth pointing out. We already have climate models – that’s how we know we have a problem. Also, we have solar, wind, hydroelectricity and nuclear fission already. The first two could be refined a lot. The last one I am not a fan of but it’s either that or coal in many places. THAT is what’s going to solve our energy and thus climate problems. It will also solve some longstanding geopolitical problems as a bonus (no more western money for the Saudis). That being said, nuclear fusion could be developed much faster (than ITER is) with the right minds and organizational structure behind it. Just look at the Space Launch System (SLS) which still doesn’t exist, has cost 20 billion already and whose ultimate goal is throwaway rockets vs. what SpaceX has done with a fraction of the money, faster. Then there’s individual transportation which is being solved right now with electric cars and batteries. Both of which are just at the beginning of their development. More interesting to me however, is the loss of energy through badly built homes that have almost no insulation at all (U.S. and Japan come to mind). Hossenfelder rhetorically asking “why, you may have wondered recently, do we not have a center for epidemic modeling” is the worst kind of pandering to the fears of the people at this moment. It’s also wrong because epidemic modeling has been done for a long time at many universities and the pharmaceutical industry. Hossenfelder says a lot of extremely idiotic things in her piece but “the potential rewards are unclear” is on my number one spot: The potential rewards in experimental science are always unclear – that’s one of the key characteristics of experimental science. The only point she could potentially have would be the one about inertia in funding. That’s something I don’t see into as I don’t work in that field. Given, however, how ill-informed and, I have to assume, ill-intentioned her other twaddle in that article is, I would rather hear that information about funding problems from a more trustworthy source than her.

by nubero 6y ago

It’s a mystery to me how people with an outlook as parochial as Sabine Hossenfelder’s even get a job in the sciences. This is really mind bending and quite frankly unsettling.

Barrin92 6y ago

I'm not sure if you're being satirical or so unaware that you're actually just proving her point without even noticing it. Physics has been captured by so much rent-seeking activity that many people who feel like Hossenfelder don't even speak up any more because they're afraid of killing their career.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

So concentrating on science to "fix" climate change is less important than a new particle collider? What good will a particle collider do if the human race has radically changed the climate in the next 50 years? That's her point and it's very relevant.

nubero 6y ago

Looking at the replies to my comment, it seems clear that the brain rot is well advanced with some people. Therefore some random points in no special order: 23 billion is nothing for a project that has 23, mostly western European, member states paying for it. The GDP of Switzerland alone (which has a population of only 8.5 million) was around 700 billion in 2019. Climate change is not going to be solved by an “International Center for Climate Modeling”. That is so completely nonsensical that I didn’t even thought it worth pointing out. We already have climate models – that’s how we know we have a problem. Also, we have solar, wind, hydroelectricity and nuclear fission already. The first two could be refined a lot. The last one I am not a fan of but it’s either that or coal in many places. THAT is what’s going to solve our energy and thus climate problems. It will also solve some longstanding geopolitical problems as a bonus (no more western money for the Saudis). That being said, nuclear fusion could be developed much faster (than ITER is) with the right minds and organizational structure behind it. Just look at the Space Launch System (SLS) which still doesn’t exist, has cost 20 billion already and whose ultimate goal is throwaway rockets vs. what SpaceX has done with a fraction of the money, faster. Then there’s individual transportation which is being solved right now with electric cars and batteries. Both of which are just at the beginning of their development. More interesting to me however, is the loss of energy through badly built homes that have almost no insulation at all (U.S. and Japan come to mind). Hossenfelder rhetorically asking “why, you may have wondered recently, do we not have a center for epidemic modeling” is the worst kind of pandering to the fears of the people at this moment. It’s also wrong because epidemic modeling has been done for a long time at many universities and the pharmaceutical industry. Hossenfelder says a lot of extremely idiotic things in her piece but “the potential rewards are unclear” is on my number one spot: The potential rewards in experimental science are always unclear – that’s one of the key characteristics of experimental science. The only point she could potentially have would be the one about inertia in funding. That’s something I don’t see into as I don’t work in that field. Given, however, how ill-informed and, I have to assume, ill-intentioned her other twaddle in that article is, I would rather hear that information about funding problems from a more trustworthy source than her.