3 ms·

Sabine Hossenfelder, who is a theoretical physicist and science communicator seems to share your opinion. She is not very kind to the current state of research

by GuB-42 3y ago

Sabine Hossenfelder, who is a theoretical physicist and science communicator seems to share your opinion. She is not very kind to the current state of research in particle physics. Not really because it doesn't have any application, but because particle physicists don't really know what they are looking for, and take up funding from more promising branches of physics. Edit: For clarification, I have no opinion on that matter. I think her argument is interesting, that's why I mentioned it here, but this is not an endorsement. I don't have the qualifications to make an endorsement anyways.

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
Yes, and most of the physics world is very tired of her grandstanding contrarianism every single time something interesting happens in particle physics, but because people here are also highly biased towards reflexive contrarianism these posts always show up. It's extremely tiresome. If Hossenfelder wants to advance a different research agenda she is free to do so. If enough other people agree she will get her funding. She doesn't need to continuously trash other people's genuine work where the bulk of the field does in fact think this is worthwhile, and her characterizations of particle physicists as villains wasting money is past my line. She's a great educator outside of that behavior however.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  To be honest, I indeed find that her attitude towards particle physicists goes beyond her usual sarcasm. Being cold and sarcastic is her style, no one is spared, including herself. You may or may not like this style, I personally like it, but for particle physics it borders on hate. I mean, her arguments have merit, that's why I posted that but it is true that it makes me a bit uncomfortable. Personal reasons? Conflict of interest? Something irrational? Or maybe particle physics are indeed villains, I mean, the LHC makes a pretty good not-so-secret lair :)
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    > "You may or may not like this style, I personally like it, but for particle physics it borders on hate. I mean, her arguments have merit, that's why I posted that but it is true that it makes me a bit uncomfortable." My understanding is that she is a particle physicist who wants to understand the contradiction between gravity and quantum mechanics, and I feel like you are mixing passion vs. hate. Or you only see the hate and not the passion. She hates that they are wasting so many decades and hundreds of billions of dollars because of stupid reasons like sunk cost fallacy or because of people putting bad faith arguments to continue dead end research paths. I feel like she hates it so much because she loves the science of it and wants to see it resolved, and that she might not get to see it because they are wasting so much time and money. It's like the ones who hate the star wars sequels. Many people might be cold and sarcastic about them but the ones who truly hate them are the fans of star wars.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
      The problem is the vast majority of the physics world disagrees with her on the material points, so her allegations of bad faith and stupidity are themselves incredibly bad faith behavior.
      - ftxbro 3y ago
        > the vast majority of the physics world disagrees with her on the material points Maybe it's true I don't know > so her allegations of bad faith and stupidity are themselves incredibly bad faith behavior. Even if the first thing is true, this other thing doesn't follow from it.
        davrosthedalek 3y ago
        It's true, otherwise she would get the funding she demands. Grant money is, in most countries, but certainly Germany and the US, distributed based on ratings of other physicists. The fact that HEP continues to get funding is a reflection of the consensus in the field.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  Incidentally, this is exactly what I've seen described as the strength of the fragmented US science funding strategy. The US has the National Science Foundation, but that is only a portion of our basic science budget. Basically every government agency -- each branch of the military, the NIH, the DOE, the Department of Agriculture -- also funds science research independently, and for any given field there are six or twelve major funding agencies you could apply for a grant with. And each of these funding agencies has different people evaluating and they are all appointed and operate independently, and appointed so far down the chain of command that it's hard to tie their appointment to a particular President or Congress. This means that you occasionally get oddballs who will throw money at stupidly heterodox notions, but even when that happens they don't control all the funding for the agency, let alone any of the funding for any of the other agencies. And hey, sometimes some of the weird stuff they'll fund turns out to be interesting.
  - davrosthedalek 3y ago
    Hmm, for NP and I think also for HEP, it's essentially only two: NSF and DOE. That's not so different from Germany, where it's BMBF and DFG. That's at least for the main stream grants. There is little money from private foundations (Moore foundation for example).
borissk 3y ago
Sabine Hossenfelder is the worst science communicator ever.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  That's overstating it, for example basically all university PR departments wildly distort local results in their attempts to hype them up. And especially in nutrition its a freaking wild west out there, so many completely contradictory results being put forward as certain every year, no way she's the worst. You might find a specific section of science communication where she is worst, but the general competition is very fierce.
TexanFeller 3y ago
She has the credentials of a reputable source and most of her claims seem to have some support. I've learned a lot from watching her. But... I believe she's chasing money and popularity through leaning into the YouTube algorithm and social media strategies. Her video titles are clickbaity and much of her content injects elements of controversy - controversy drives conversation and sharing, gonna go viral! I think of her much like Michio Kaku, someone with vast knowledge but you can't take what they say completely at face value because they seem to be willing to mildly stretch the truth, speculate slightly irresponsibly, speak on subjects outside their area of expertise, and generally use a little poetic license in order to say something that captures the public's attention. To be fair to Michio Kaku he did suck me into reading popular theoretical physics and inspire me to read other sources like Sean Carroll and Leonard Susskind who tell it a bit straighter.
- davrosthedalek 3y ago
  What irks me the most is that she left the usual way of discourse in science. Write papers (even pre-prints), cite your sources, so that the scientific community (many of whom don't want to have a youtube channel) can answer. But she is peddling her books and amplifies her opinion with youtube, which, without proper context, leaves people suspicious of the scientific community at large.
  - raattgift 3y ago
    > she left the usual way of discourse in science ... > cite your sources Well, OK <https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search_result?query=hossenfelder,%20sabine&pdf=true https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search_result?query=hossenfeld...>. > (even pre-prints) Well, OK <https://arxiv.org/a/hossenfelder_s_1.html https://arxiv.org/a/hossenfelder_s_1.html> (a longer list, with two this year; imho there's decent qg phenomenology in there amid the foundations of physics stuff). Lots of paper-writing paper-citing theoretical physicists have written pop-sci books they'd like you to buy (or at least read). Some even amplify their opinions with youtube, sometimes even "robustly". Many offer up opinions on matters in which they have little or even no expertise. (As an abrasive example I offer theoretical physicist, cosmologist, book-writer, podcast/vlogger and sex-pest Lawrence Krauss.) I am fairly sure you know this, so I don't know why you single out Hossenfelder in particular. If it's because she's popular on HN, I'd rather it be her than a depressingly large number of comparable publicly visible physicists who happen to advocate more generous research funding strategies but who keep reminding colleagues, staff, students and other victims that they are awful human beings.

by GuB-42 3y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago

Yes, and most of the physics world is very tired of her grandstanding contrarianism every single time something interesting happens in particle physics, but because people here are also highly biased towards reflexive contrarianism these posts always show up. It's extremely tiresome. If Hossenfelder wants to advance a different research agenda she is free to do so. If enough other people agree she will get her funding. She doesn't need to continuously trash other people's genuine work where the bulk of the field does in fact think this is worthwhile, and her characterizations of particle physicists as villains wasting money is past my line. She's a great educator outside of that behavior however.

GuB-42 3y ago
To be honest, I indeed find that her attitude towards particle physicists goes beyond her usual sarcasm. Being cold and sarcastic is her style, no one is spared, including herself. You may or may not like this style, I personally like it, but for particle physics it borders on hate. I mean, her arguments have merit, that's why I posted that but it is true that it makes me a bit uncomfortable. Personal reasons? Conflict of interest? Something irrational? Or maybe particle physics are indeed villains, I mean, the LHC makes a pretty good not-so-secret lair :)
- ftxbro 3y ago
  > "You may or may not like this style, I personally like it, but for particle physics it borders on hate. I mean, her arguments have merit, that's why I posted that but it is true that it makes me a bit uncomfortable." My understanding is that she is a particle physicist who wants to understand the contradiction between gravity and quantum mechanics, and I feel like you are mixing passion vs. hate. Or you only see the hate and not the passion. She hates that they are wasting so many decades and hundreds of billions of dollars because of stupid reasons like sunk cost fallacy or because of people putting bad faith arguments to continue dead end research paths. I feel like she hates it so much because she loves the science of it and wants to see it resolved, and that she might not get to see it because they are wasting so much time and money. It's like the ones who hate the star wars sequels. Many people might be cold and sarcastic about them but the ones who truly hate them are the fans of star wars.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    The problem is the vast majority of the physics world disagrees with her on the material points, so her allegations of bad faith and stupidity are themselves incredibly bad faith behavior.
    - ftxbro 3y ago
      > the vast majority of the physics world disagrees with her on the material points Maybe it's true I don't know > so her allegations of bad faith and stupidity are themselves incredibly bad faith behavior. Even if the first thing is true, this other thing doesn't follow from it.
      - davrosthedalek 3y ago
        It's true, otherwise she would get the funding she demands. Grant money is, in most countries, but certainly Germany and the US, distributed based on ratings of other physicists. The fact that HEP continues to get funding is a reflection of the consensus in the field.
saalweachter 3y ago
Incidentally, this is exactly what I've seen described as the strength of the fragmented US science funding strategy. The US has the National Science Foundation, but that is only a portion of our basic science budget. Basically every government agency -- each branch of the military, the NIH, the DOE, the Department of Agriculture -- also funds science research independently, and for any given field there are six or twelve major funding agencies you could apply for a grant with. And each of these funding agencies has different people evaluating and they are all appointed and operate independently, and appointed so far down the chain of command that it's hard to tie their appointment to a particular President or Congress. This means that you occasionally get oddballs who will throw money at stupidly heterodox notions, but even when that happens they don't control all the funding for the agency, let alone any of the funding for any of the other agencies. And hey, sometimes some of the weird stuff they'll fund turns out to be interesting.
- davrosthedalek 3y ago
  Hmm, for NP and I think also for HEP, it's essentially only two: NSF and DOE. That's not so different from Germany, where it's BMBF and DFG. That's at least for the main stream grants. There is little money from private foundations (Moore foundation for example).

borissk 3y ago

Sabine Hossenfelder is the worst science communicator ever.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
That's overstating it, for example basically all university PR departments wildly distort local results in their attempts to hype them up. And especially in nutrition its a freaking wild west out there, so many completely contradictory results being put forward as certain every year, no way she's the worst. You might find a specific section of science communication where she is worst, but the general competition is very fierce.

TexanFeller 3y ago

She has the credentials of a reputable source and most of her claims seem to have some support. I've learned a lot from watching her. But... I believe she's chasing money and popularity through leaning into the YouTube algorithm and social media strategies. Her video titles are clickbaity and much of her content injects elements of controversy - controversy drives conversation and sharing, gonna go viral! I think of her much like Michio Kaku, someone with vast knowledge but you can't take what they say completely at face value because they seem to be willing to mildly stretch the truth, speculate slightly irresponsibly, speak on subjects outside their area of expertise, and generally use a little poetic license in order to say something that captures the public's attention. To be fair to Michio Kaku he did suck me into reading popular theoretical physics and inspire me to read other sources like Sean Carroll and Leonard Susskind who tell it a bit straighter.

davrosthedalek 3y ago
What irks me the most is that she left the usual way of discourse in science. Write papers (even pre-prints), cite your sources, so that the scientific community (many of whom don't want to have a youtube channel) can answer. But she is peddling her books and amplifies her opinion with youtube, which, without proper context, leaves people suspicious of the scientific community at large.
- raattgift 3y ago
  > she left the usual way of discourse in science ... > cite your sources Well, OK <https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search_result?query=hossenfelder,%20sabine&pdf=true https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search_result?query=hossenfeld...>. > (even pre-prints) Well, OK <https://arxiv.org/a/hossenfelder_s_1.html https://arxiv.org/a/hossenfelder_s_1.html> (a longer list, with two this year; imho there's decent qg phenomenology in there amid the foundations of physics stuff). Lots of paper-writing paper-citing theoretical physicists have written pop-sci books they'd like you to buy (or at least read). Some even amplify their opinions with youtube, sometimes even "robustly". Many offer up opinions on matters in which they have little or even no expertise. (As an abrasive example I offer theoretical physicist, cosmologist, book-writer, podcast/vlogger and sex-pest Lawrence Krauss.) I am fairly sure you know this, so I don't know why you single out Hossenfelder in particular. If it's because she's popular on HN, I'd rather it be her than a depressingly large number of comparable publicly visible physicists who happen to advocate more generous research funding strategies but who keep reminding colleagues, staff, students and other victims that they are awful human beings.