4 ms·

The irony here is that Sabine Hossenfelder falls into exactly the same patterns as the science media that she is criticizing. A punchy headline, with significan

The irony here is that Sabine Hossenfelder falls into exactly the same patterns as the science media that she is criticizing. A punchy headline, with significant oversimplifications. For example, she makes it sound like science news is always aimed at scientists, and that they do not explain the science (I have several excellent counter examples). That doesn't mean there is not some very good points in there (e.g. put your dates at the top, cite your sources...) As a side note, I hate how her channel has become something which exemplifies much of what I dislike about the now typical youtube channels: Top ten lists, grossly overstated titles, "give me your opinion in the comments", the awful generic CGI backgrounds ... The other irony is that likely she does it for exactly the same reasons as why science media is often bad: economics.

rob_c 4y ago
Thank you for saying it
diognesofsinope 4y ago
> The other irony is that likely she does it for exactly the same reasons as why science media is often bad: economics. Can we all stop blaming 'economics'. Economics says people are largely self-interested, selfish and maximize their own utility (happiness-whatever). It's not 'economics', it's people. Labor unions are also maximizing their revenue.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Yes, the processes of incentives driving outcomes is economics.
- feet 4y ago
  You're assuming that the entire field of economics isn't bullshit
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > Economics says You mean, "many Economists with a simplistic, reductionist view of human societies' behavior say".
jahnu 4y ago
I feel differently about her work. I think she is doing the less popular and therefore less lucrative work of summarising what is just not correct out there. She spends time deflating amazing claims. The medium of YouTube is not conducive to lengthy expositions and is definitely not academic grade but it shouldn’t be! She is making pithy responses to headline grabbing sensational mainstream hype reporting. There is an audience for that and she caters to it. You don’t like her aesthetic, fine. That’s a valid opinion but it doesn’t invalidate her work or make her the equivalent of what she is criticising. Headlines are to grab attention and sorry but that’s a fact for YouTube, trade books and even peer reviewed papers. The content is what ultimately should be judged and her content is high quality for what it aims to be. Want academic level peer reviewed literature? Go read a paper, text book or take a course. We need more Sabines not fewer.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  The issue for me with her videos is that she mixes two very different kinds of criticism. The first is criticism of things that are clearly wrong, such as the aforementioned science journalism. This is a good public service, I agree. The second is criticism of other physicists’ ideas. i.e. her personal opinions and professional disagreements with other physicists. She doesn’t delineate the two clearly enough to her audience, so some of her viewers may come away thinking that views that are held by physicists who are her peers, are in the same bucket as junk pop science articles. Just read the comments on her videos, they are full of “physics is a scam” type people who feel vindicated.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    On top of that, in her more recent videos I get a weird feeling of her leaving some things purposefully ambiguous for that audience. For example in the video to this article she was using a lot of climate science examples, which will be interpreted in a certain way by the "science is a scam" crowd. I'm not sure she is doing this on purpose (I have the impression she strongly believes in climate change), accidentally or if I'm just oversensitive to some things.
    - 4y ago
kortex 4y ago
> Top ten lists I couldn't find any "listicle" style top N list, the closest was "top players in quantum computing" > awful generic CGI backgrounds That's pretty par for the course for this tier of channel. Arguably the "quirky room with nerd tchatckies backdrop" is more authentic, but both are just filler behind a talking head. > give me your opinion in the comments Necessary evil to drive engagement to appease The Algo. Imho her work is a step above the lion's share of science reporting, but I can see how she might be polarizing.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  >> Top ten lists > I couldn't find any "listicle" style top N list, the closest was "top players in quantum computing" The whole premise of the video of this article is "I give you the ten reasons why I think science suck". Sure it's not in the title (which is even more polarizing), but it's still a top ten list. >> awful generic CGI backgrounds > That's pretty par for the course for this tier of channel. Arguably the "quirky room with nerd tchatckies backdrop" is more authentic, but both are just filler behind a talking head. She could just be sitting at her desk though, but I agree this is more aesthetics and it would have not grated me if it wasn't for the other things >> give me your opinion in the comments > Necessary evil to drive engagement to appease The Algo. That's exactly my point. I don't necessarily blame her, but am more lamenting the fact that all videos seem to have to become like this, if a creator wants to make a living on youtube. > Imho her work is a step above the lion's share of science reporting, but I can see how she might be polarizing. I'm not sure, her work is definitely not on par with quanta magazine for example.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wrycoder 4y ago
She also mugs for the thumbnail, like so many others. This seems unique to YouTube.

rob_c 4y ago

Thank you for saying it

diognesofsinope 4y ago

> The other irony is that likely she does it for exactly the same reasons as why science media is often bad: economics. Can we all stop blaming 'economics'. Economics says people are largely self-interested, selfish and maximize their own utility (happiness-whatever). It's not 'economics', it's people. Labor unions are also maximizing their revenue.

tomrod 4y ago
Yes, the processes of incentives driving outcomes is economics.
feet 4y ago
You're assuming that the entire field of economics isn't bullshit
einpoklum 4y ago
> Economics says You mean, "many Economists with a simplistic, reductionist view of human societies' behavior say".

jahnu 4y ago

I feel differently about her work. I think she is doing the less popular and therefore less lucrative work of summarising what is just not correct out there. She spends time deflating amazing claims. The medium of YouTube is not conducive to lengthy expositions and is definitely not academic grade but it shouldn’t be! She is making pithy responses to headline grabbing sensational mainstream hype reporting. There is an audience for that and she caters to it. You don’t like her aesthetic, fine. That’s a valid opinion but it doesn’t invalidate her work or make her the equivalent of what she is criticising. Headlines are to grab attention and sorry but that’s a fact for YouTube, trade books and even peer reviewed papers. The content is what ultimately should be judged and her content is high quality for what it aims to be. Want academic level peer reviewed literature? Go read a paper, text book or take a course. We need more Sabines not fewer.

zarzavat 4y ago
The issue for me with her videos is that she mixes two very different kinds of criticism. The first is criticism of things that are clearly wrong, such as the aforementioned science journalism. This is a good public service, I agree. The second is criticism of other physicists’ ideas. i.e. her personal opinions and professional disagreements with other physicists. She doesn’t delineate the two clearly enough to her audience, so some of her viewers may come away thinking that views that are held by physicists who are her peers, are in the same bucket as junk pop science articles. Just read the comments on her videos, they are full of “physics is a scam” type people who feel vindicated.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  On top of that, in her more recent videos I get a weird feeling of her leaving some things purposefully ambiguous for that audience. For example in the video to this article she was using a lot of climate science examples, which will be interpreted in a certain way by the "science is a scam" crowd. I'm not sure she is doing this on purpose (I have the impression she strongly believes in climate change), accidentally or if I'm just oversensitive to some things.
  - 4y ago

kortex 4y ago

> Top ten lists I couldn't find any "listicle" style top N list, the closest was "top players in quantum computing" > awful generic CGI backgrounds That's pretty par for the course for this tier of channel. Arguably the "quirky room with nerd tchatckies backdrop" is more authentic, but both are just filler behind a talking head. > give me your opinion in the comments Necessary evil to drive engagement to appease The Algo. Imho her work is a step above the lion's share of science reporting, but I can see how she might be polarizing.

cycomanic 4y ago
>> Top ten lists > I couldn't find any "listicle" style top N list, the closest was "top players in quantum computing" The whole premise of the video of this article is "I give you the ten reasons why I think science suck". Sure it's not in the title (which is even more polarizing), but it's still a top ten list. >> awful generic CGI backgrounds > That's pretty par for the course for this tier of channel. Arguably the "quirky room with nerd tchatckies backdrop" is more authentic, but both are just filler behind a talking head. She could just be sitting at her desk though, but I agree this is more aesthetics and it would have not grated me if it wasn't for the other things >> give me your opinion in the comments > Necessary evil to drive engagement to appease The Algo. That's exactly my point. I don't necessarily blame her, but am more lamenting the fact that all videos seem to have to become like this, if a creator wants to make a living on youtube. > Imho her work is a step above the lion's share of science reporting, but I can see how she might be polarizing. I'm not sure, her work is definitely not on par with quanta magazine for example.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wrycoder 4y ago

She also mugs for the thumbnail, like so many others. This seems unique to YouTube.