3 ms·

I have to say I find that Sabine is more pondering to the nutjob crowd. I really enjoyed some of here posts with deep insights into quantum physics and cosmolog

I have to say I find that Sabine is more pondering to the nutjob crowd. I really enjoyed some of here posts with deep insights into quantum physics and cosmology, an area where she is a subject expert. Now she is posting on all sorts of topics, some of them where she clearly has very little background and limited understanding. They also have this strongly science sceptic undertone. While I appreciate that an healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing, the undertones in her posts are much more of a general criticism of science/scientists without any actual arguments.

bawolff 4y ago
She cited sources for her two claims. I didn't read said sources so it is of course possible she either misrepresented them or cherry-picked, but assuming she didn't i'm not really sure what more you want from her.
dxuh 4y ago
Could you explain where you get these undertones from? From my perspective she is representing her points in favor of meteorologists, which are scientists and critical of various organizations which are economical organizations. She is also pointing out critisizing about many of the studies that investigated 5G, which is what a scientist should do. Not every study is good. And being critical of bad studies doesn't make you anti-science, but pro-science! She said multiple times that she does not believe there are health-risks to 5G radio.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  So, the undertones are not so strong in this article, but I have to say already the choice of topic is pondering to a certain crowd. As a good scientists she should know what she doesn't know, and her understanding is clearly limited. She also clearly plays with the uncertainty. First stating that yes she doesn't believe there is an issue, but then starting a discussion about the quality of the publications. Now quality of health impact studies is an interesting discussion, but I don't think it's relevant here. Moreover, the way she summarizes the shortcomings in the studies is somewhat selective/misleading, the full quote is: > Our meta-analysis showed that the bulk of the studies had a quality score lower than 2 out of a possible 5, with only one study achieving a maximum quality score of 5 [9]. The meta-analysis further showed that studies with a low quality score were more likely to show a greater effect. I think leaving out that last sentence gives a misleading impression. Another quote from her video/post: > So scientists say there’s nothing to worry. Well, they also said that smoking is good for you and alcohol doesn’t cross the placenta and that copies of you live in parallel universes. If you actually follow the link to "they said smoking is good for you" you find it links to the The Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) collection. That's advertising, not scientists who said that smoking is good for you. Again a misleading quote/citation. And this is not the first time she does this. They are always somewhat plausible deniability kind of sentences, but the repetition of these memes makes me suspect she is purposefully pondering to a specific audience.

bawolff 4y ago

She cited sources for her two claims. I didn't read said sources so it is of course possible she either misrepresented them or cherry-picked, but assuming she didn't i'm not really sure what more you want from her.

dxuh 4y ago

Could you explain where you get these undertones from? From my perspective she is representing her points in favor of meteorologists, which are scientists and critical of various organizations which are economical organizations. She is also pointing out critisizing about many of the studies that investigated 5G, which is what a scientist should do. Not every study is good. And being critical of bad studies doesn't make you anti-science, but pro-science! She said multiple times that she does not believe there are health-risks to 5G radio.

cycomanic 4y ago
So, the undertones are not so strong in this article, but I have to say already the choice of topic is pondering to a certain crowd. As a good scientists she should know what she doesn't know, and her understanding is clearly limited. She also clearly plays with the uncertainty. First stating that yes she doesn't believe there is an issue, but then starting a discussion about the quality of the publications. Now quality of health impact studies is an interesting discussion, but I don't think it's relevant here. Moreover, the way she summarizes the shortcomings in the studies is somewhat selective/misleading, the full quote is: > Our meta-analysis showed that the bulk of the studies had a quality score lower than 2 out of a possible 5, with only one study achieving a maximum quality score of 5 [9]. The meta-analysis further showed that studies with a low quality score were more likely to show a greater effect. I think leaving out that last sentence gives a misleading impression. Another quote from her video/post: > So scientists say there’s nothing to worry. Well, they also said that smoking is good for you and alcohol doesn’t cross the placenta and that copies of you live in parallel universes. If you actually follow the link to "they said smoking is good for you" you find it links to the The Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) collection. That's advertising, not scientists who said that smoking is good for you. Again a misleading quote/citation. And this is not the first time she does this. They are always somewhat plausible deniability kind of sentences, but the repetition of these memes makes me suspect she is purposefully pondering to a specific audience.