3 ms·

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 ch

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.
  - davrosthedalek 3y ago
    Please compare the topics of her papers with the topics of her videos, especially with those that stir the controversy. There are papers on these topics, but from what I see, at least 5 years old. But my point was not that the she doesn't write papers -- she is doing more, which is the problem, and the "more" is not only outreach (which is a good thing), but feels to me like polemic arguments against people in the field who are not of her opinion. In this thread, I did at no point compare her to any other blogger. Please do not read this an endorsement of these others. I singled her out only in the sense that she was the topic of the thread. There are certainly worse people in the world.
    - raattgift 3y ago
      > compare the topics of her papers with the topics of her videos I did that but did not say so explicitly: >> opinions on matters in which they have little or no expertise especially when the opinions are delivered with excessive confidence and/or without nuance. I take your point that some apparent > stir the controversy videos particularly in the last year <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5c4IXKj82g-Kzbs0EXaq5T3 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5c4IXKj82g-...> at least support the notion that some of the point of her YouTube enterprise is to focus on in-the-news topics far from her own academic publication record. For those videos, I think "explain" is a poor choice of verb. To me, polemic arguments against people in the field (and importantly doing physics sufficiently close to her own research area) who are not of her opinion on directly relevant matters is less annoying than commentary critical of physicists (let alone scientists in other fields) who I think are less adjacent to her expertise than she appears to believe they are, considering differences in choice of journals or even where in the arxiv category taxonomy authors' preprints are placed (underlining this, c.f. §§4.1 & 5.2 of her own 2018 preprint in physics.soc-ph <https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04647 https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04647>; her own research in qg phenomenology is interdisciplinary (as are many of her forays away from that area) but not so broad as to include putting or even obviously considering preprints on bioRxiv, which was almost 5 years old at the time of that paper). > I singled her out only in the sense she was the topic of the thread Ok, I think that's fair. However I don't think the implication that she no longer "write[s] papers (even pre-prints), [or] cite[s her] sources" is justified.

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.
- davrosthedalek 3y ago
  Please compare the topics of her papers with the topics of her videos, especially with those that stir the controversy. There are papers on these topics, but from what I see, at least 5 years old. But my point was not that the she doesn't write papers -- she is doing more, which is the problem, and the "more" is not only outreach (which is a good thing), but feels to me like polemic arguments against people in the field who are not of her opinion. In this thread, I did at no point compare her to any other blogger. Please do not read this an endorsement of these others. I singled her out only in the sense that she was the topic of the thread. There are certainly worse people in the world.
  - raattgift 3y ago
    > compare the topics of her papers with the topics of her videos I did that but did not say so explicitly: >> opinions on matters in which they have little or no expertise especially when the opinions are delivered with excessive confidence and/or without nuance. I take your point that some apparent > stir the controversy videos particularly in the last year <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5c4IXKj82g-Kzbs0EXaq5T3 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5c4IXKj82g-...> at least support the notion that some of the point of her YouTube enterprise is to focus on in-the-news topics far from her own academic publication record. For those videos, I think "explain" is a poor choice of verb. To me, polemic arguments against people in the field (and importantly doing physics sufficiently close to her own research area) who are not of her opinion on directly relevant matters is less annoying than commentary critical of physicists (let alone scientists in other fields) who I think are less adjacent to her expertise than she appears to believe they are, considering differences in choice of journals or even where in the arxiv category taxonomy authors' preprints are placed (underlining this, c.f. §§4.1 & 5.2 of her own 2018 preprint in physics.soc-ph <https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04647 https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04647>; her own research in qg phenomenology is interdisciplinary (as are many of her forays away from that area) but not so broad as to include putting or even obviously considering preprints on bioRxiv, which was almost 5 years old at the time of that paper). > I singled her out only in the sense she was the topic of the thread Ok, I think that's fair. However I don't think the implication that she no longer "write[s] papers (even pre-prints), [or] cite[s her] sources" is justified.