4 ms·

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

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.
- jahnu 4y ago
  She absolutely 100% accepts human caused climate change is happening and is a big problem
- tene 4y ago
  I think it's normal and expected that people who are skeptical are looking for people who will take their questions and concerns seriously. I am very personally convinced of anthropogenic climate change and that it's a serious risk for humanity. I still believe that it's important to take people's questions seriously, and to respect that people who aren't convinced have been making their best attempt at understanding the world. For these people, biased stories that don't put numbers in context are seen as deceptive, and I think that perception is legitimate. The only way to actually meaningfully reach them is to credibly demonstrate that you're actually checking the evidence that disagrees with your conclusion.
jahnu 4y ago
I really don’t think it’s her problem to fix that the crazies latch on to it. I have no problem getting when she is offering a view or criticising consensus. And to be honest it seems you don’t either.

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.

jahnu 4y ago
She absolutely 100% accepts human caused climate change is happening and is a big problem
tene 4y ago
I think it's normal and expected that people who are skeptical are looking for people who will take their questions and concerns seriously. I am very personally convinced of anthropogenic climate change and that it's a serious risk for humanity. I still believe that it's important to take people's questions seriously, and to respect that people who aren't convinced have been making their best attempt at understanding the world. For these people, biased stories that don't put numbers in context are seen as deceptive, and I think that perception is legitimate. The only way to actually meaningfully reach them is to credibly demonstrate that you're actually checking the evidence that disagrees with your conclusion.

jahnu 4y ago

I really don’t think it’s her problem to fix that the crazies latch on to it. I have no problem getting when she is offering a view or criticising consensus. And to be honest it seems you don’t either.