3 ms·
I honestly never cared for Hossenfelder's science communication. She's far too dismissive and dishonest in representing theoretical views she disagrees with. An
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
I honestly never cared for Hossenfelder's science communication. She's far too dismissive and dishonest in representing theoretical views she disagrees with. And I don't necessarily have the physics understanding to pick these biases out too easily.
I think Sean Carroll for instance does a much better job at this when he interviews people whose views he disagrees with in his podcasts, which happens quite frequently.
- TheBlight 4y agoI have a similar difficulty in listening to her. I think she does it to provoke interest but it has the opposite effect on me.
- emerged 4y ago
- koshnaranek 4y agoI enjoy it. There are a lot of communicators who shy away from giving their own opinion about anything that isn't the overwhelming consensus. They might be wrong after all. It is refreshing to have somebody actually disagree with something and then back it up.
- green_on_black 4y agoIt depends on what you mean by "back it up", especially regarding rigor. The more "surprising"/disagreeable an idea is, the more rigor we (or at least I) expect of the arguments.
- UmbertoNoEco 4y agoagree but be aware carroll swings way way way way to the other extreme especially about the pet theories he happens to like: multiverses ; the everett interpretation of qm ;boltzmann's brains and so on
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoYes, he's opinionated. But he regularly interviews people who disagree with him and does a good job at both asking them hard questions and helping them explain their own view. And when he does agree with them, I think he does a decent job at playing devil's advocate and challenging their position.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]