9 ms·

I think it's interesting to hear how some people are upset with her non-physics videos and how that compares with how her videos are received by experts in thos

I think it's interesting to hear how some people are upset with her non-physics videos and how that compares with how her videos are received by experts in those fields. Her videos are generally well received, whereas people complaining rarely have more to say than some form of "stay in your own lane". When people have a hard time coming up with complaints that are actually about the subject matter, you're probably doing a good job :) I like the quote in the article from Patricia Rankin: "[challenging] people's assumptions ... because that's really what science is all about." I have much more respect for someone who disagrees with me, with whom I can discuss differences reasonably, than with someone who agrees with me, but does so dogmatically. The latter is unfortunately more common than the former, and I think that's why Sabine holds a special place in my heart.

varjag 3y ago
I like Sabine's work but in the areas where I do have substantial context or expertise she is sometimes subtly off. It tends to happen in feature videos more than in her weekly science summaries. To her credit, she does tend to issue corrections when it's pointed out.
- vagab0nd 3y ago
  Same. I appreciate her "hard" science videos very much, but dislike and skip the rest. Usually I have no problem switching to entertainment mode on YouTube, but her authoritative tone puts me off enough to not watch them.
- tobiasSoftware 3y ago
  I have substantial layman's expertise in quantum physics and while she correctly points out many mistakes that are even in textbooks, she also follows the very niche Superdeterimistic viewpoint and then presents hypotheses that follow from that viewpoint (Hidden Variables and Einstein's gloves) as if they are facts. For a science educator, this is a massive problem, and so she's become my least popular quantum physics educator even though she explains many quantum physics concepts very well.
  - mayd 3y ago
    Then I suppose it's a good thing that Einstein did not live long enough to have his own Physics Youtube channel.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      A canary in the coalmine, Einstein did not stay silent on social issues, and did use his fame to write social commentary. Unlike most of his peers, however, his position was that of empathy and solidarity: https://onbeing.org/blog/albert-einsteins-essay-on-racial-bias-in-1946/ https://onbeing.org/blog/albert-einsteins-essay-on-racial-bi...
  - rationalthug 3y ago
    Can you be more specific about how how her viewpoints create problems for you as a science educator? (I am speaking specifically about her content relevant to physics/particle physics/cosmology.) Generally, she is careful to point out when she is voicing views based on her own preferences, speculating about things that have no observational data to back them up or giving personal hot-takes on various topics. For everything else, aka, the things she accepts provisionally as true, she appears to favor the least speculative among current solutions/theories/approaches in physics. Much of her popular work is focused on critiques of the many speculative musings of physicists who, in her opinion, have moved into a kind of post-science research program. Her acceptance/popularizing of the standard model and of general relativity as humanity's current best models of the universe indicate that her viewpoints tend to be highly conservative and evidence-based. Again, most (all?) of her musings about things that might be true or things that might be interesting directions for research are clearly called out as such.
    - tobiasSoftware 3y ago
      Looking around, it does look like she's explained things better in other videos than the one I saw, so maybe I was too harsh. The video I saw at the time is "Why is quantum mechanics weird? The bomb experiment" where she describes entanglement as a photo being torn in half and then sent apart, and then vaguely says that it is a "stronger" correlation than that. On looking for that video though, I watched "What did Einstein mean by “Spooky Action at a Distance"?", where she describes things a bit more thoroughly with socks, where she explains that the correlations were created locally but when you measure the one particle on one side the other particle's wave function changes. She then goes on to actually explain that the sock explanation does not work as it does not sufficiently create strong correlations, which I think is a much better explanation Looking back, I think I've learned a lot more about quantum physics since I last watched her videos. Back then, I think I saw her repeated use of explaining entanglement as a "stronger correlation" to be a cop out. Now that I've dove into the actual Bell Inequality experiment and understand how it works, I actually quite like that description as a placeholder for a very strange phenomenon that none of us really understand yet. Still, I do think she should have clarified just a bit better on the first video I mentioned, but I guess when you make lots of videos on one of the most complicated topics of all time it's rather easy to omit a crucial detail here or there.
mistermann 3y ago
> like the quote in the article from Patricia Rankin: "[challenging] people's assumptions ... because that's really what science is all about. Depending on whether the person being challenged is a scientist, and the specific assumption/"fact".
- fao_ 3y ago
  Burden of proof is on you to explain why the person being challenged should be a scientist for it to matter :)
- kbelder 3y ago
  >Depending on whether the person being challenged is a scientist Has no bearing whatsoever.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    You do not have access to all historic conversations between humans.
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
I think scientists (and actually people of other trades) are best when they talk about stuff they actually know. Sometimes people start thinking that because they got successful in one area it gives them blanket check to talk about everything. Usually, the end result is they greatly overestimate their capability. This is how many youtube channels die. The authors think they exhausted the topic and are looking to talk about other stuff and they start alienating their fan base because not only they are much less knowledgeable about those other topics, but also because the fan base just did not expect/appreciate those other topics. They came here because they liked the original videos and now the channel became something else which is unlikely to be what they wanted. As for Sabine, I watched some of her videos on quantum physics and they were very interesting. Then I stumbled on one or two newer videos on other topics she started adding later and they were jarring, on the verge of misinformation/pseudoscience.
- sdenton4 3y ago
  Sometimes called 'engineer's disease.'
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    Being an engineer, I prefer "Dentist's Syndrome", for my know-it-all father in law. The man is constitutionally unable to say "I don't know".
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  > verge of misinformation/pseudoscience. Yeah one was 5G. I did not like she didn’t cut off speculation and stopped watching her videos afterwards. But ultimately she is correct - there just isn’t evidence that microwave heating is safe. I wanna roll my eyes as much as next guy, but need to respect objective reporting.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    The 5g one was wrong on many levels and very definitely pseudoscience. I also disagree that there is no evidence that microwave heating is safe. There is in fact no real evidence that it isn't safe (and largely no physics mechanism that would suggest otherwise).
phyzome 3y ago
Her non-physics videos tend to be a bit off, but not terrible; on the whole, they're still reasonably well-researched and educational. Where she really gets into trouble is farther out into the social sciences. I think she should be much more careful there. I don't want her to stop, I just want her to be more careful! An interesting example is one of her two videos on transgenderism. It had an absolutely appalling both-sidesing intro that literally called people who crazy who are just concerned about suicide rates among trans people. The contents of the video were actually pretty reasonable, although she messed up a few key interpretations so that some parts ended up being misleading. I don't think she's transphobic, but on an issue like this I think a bit more care needs to be taken. More recently she had a piece on capitalism that was incredibly anemic. I think she tried to bite off more than she could chew (for a 20 minute video) and so she kind of missed the entire "what are the problems" side of the topic, even while laying out some reubttals to common statements. I feel like she'd have done better than that on a more close-to-home topic. (Her physics videos are of course fantastic.)
- kiba 3y ago
  I think it's important to increase our range on our knowledge. You aren't always going to have an expert's opinion to evaluate every piece of information coming at you, and there's only so much that an authoritative source can do for you. Now, making videos on topics outside of your expertise? That's a dangerous minefield, but there are ways to approach it. For example, there's whole youtube channels to taking on challenges and learning new stuff.
- grebel 3y ago
  > An interesting example is one of her two videos on transgenderism. It had an absolutely appalling both-sidesing intro that literally called people who crazy who are just concerned about suicide rates among trans people. This was what she actually said in the introduction to that video: "Should transgender teens transition? This rather personal question occupies a prominent place in the American culture war. One the one side you have people claiming that it’s a socially contagious fad among the brainwashed woke who want to mutilate your innocent children. On the other side there are those saying that it’s saving the lives of minorities who’ve been forced to stay in the closet for too long. And then there are normal people, like you and I, who think both sides are crazy and could someone please summarise the facts in simple words, which is what I’m here for. So what’s going on?" What's objectionable about that? Sounds quite fair to me.
Avshalom 3y ago
I would like to see the actual quote from Patricia Rankin because [challenging] people's assumptions is not at all what science is about. I mean, sure sometimes it turns out that people's assumptions don't actually line up with the natural world but science certainly doesn't have any particular focus on those cases.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  If you believe something because it is assumed, that is not science. When you challenge that assumption, it may ultimately be that your guess was right, but your _assumption_ has nonetheless been challenged. Some things seem prima facie to be true, but turn out not to be consistent with the rest of our scientific understanding. If we're to be thorough then we should not just assume knowledge, we should put it to the test. This is scientific IMO. Did you assume that challenging an assumption meant opposing it?
  - davorak 3y ago
    > Did you assume that challenging an assumption meant opposing it? I think the phrase 'challenging an assumption' leaves a bad taste in some people's mouth due to negative associations. I have definitely seen people use 'challenging assumptions' as a shield for their argument or actions when it was not justified. Or worse be upset when the phrase does not get people to back their idea or actions. Questioning, reexamining, challenging what have you is important in scientific progress. 'challenging assumptions', 'challenging the establishment', and probably other similar phrases I am not familiar with have been used conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists and the association has tainted the phrase leaving a bad taste in some people's month.
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      Thanks, that's a useful expansion on the baggage that some read into the phrase, I was taking it on face-value only. Obliged.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jjoonathan 3y ago
> people have a hard time coming up with complaints that are actually about the subject matter Do they? That's not what I've seen. The criticism of her most recent video "Capitalism is good, let me explain" [1] is surprisingly concrete and substantive for a subject that usually degrades into a vitriolic dunk-fest within seconds. In particular, the popular reply videos [2] and [3] raise the criticism that: * She opens with the "money emerged to fix barter" origin story, which fell out of favor a while ago [2] * The focus on money as opposed to credit and ownership isn't just ahistorical, it avoids the core of what is usually meant by "capitalism" [2] * She handwaives the problems of the industrial revolutions and the capitalism critic by saying "that's another story." Is it? [2] * She botched the Penicillin example [3] * Her discussion on externalities absentmindedly missed the problems with positive externalities [2] * She attributes successes to markets and failures to regulation without justifying why [2] ... and more. Regardless of what you think about the underlying debate or whether you agree with these points, it seems pretty clear to me that they are substantive. Not only that, a few of them pretty clearly seem to be the result of an expert leaving their lane and speaking authoritatively on a subject they don't have deep knowledge of. Do you disagree? [1] SH Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPHp2EjNR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPHp2EjNR8 [2] Reply 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfGgBfpD-Ao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfGgBfpD-Ao [3] Reply 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7XAxiJGJdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7XAxiJGJdg
- cage433 3y ago
  These are fair criticisms. No matter which side of the 'capitalism is good' debate you are on this video was so bad, with errors of history and even of definition, that I was left doubting how good a scientist she actually is.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    I don’t think this is—nor should it be—a judgment on her quality as a scientist. Rather this should be a judgment on her as a person. Instead of questioning her as a scientist, rather ask your self, why she applies this non-scrutinizing philosophy to the field of economics and sociology (as well as health care; see video about gender affirming care), while she so well known and successful for her extreme skeptical takes on the field of her expertise. Like she must have a personal reason—not a scientific one—for this dissonance.
cycomanic 3y ago
Many here see only problems with her technical videos, but what I find is that after initially talking about and criticising research in her areas of expertise it is very obvious she became popular with a certain "anti-scientific establishment" (for lack of a better word) crowd and now really peddles to that audience. In the process she has diverted from topics she knows to scientific areas where she has at best a undergraduate level understanding but still talks like she is a subject expert and always taking a contrarian stance. After seeing videos where I have significant expertise where she was clearly wrong (and again peddling the "anti-establishment" angle) I stopped watching. That she is now making videos about capitalism and other social science topics just illustrates the point.
- vegetablepotpie 3y ago
  I agree that she absolutely is fostering an “anti-establishment” audience, she’s also doing it in a lackadaisical way and that’s harmful. A good example of this was on her video on free will, she made the argument that free will does not exist because human brains operate on principles that are deterministic. She followed that conclusion with a tirade on climate change and how people should stop trying to build the “political will” to do something on climate change, because free will does not exist. I have to wonder what the reasoning behind including that in a video was. It absolutely alienates anyone working on building coalitions for climate solutions, and she didn’t even need to bring up the topic to make her point. You could say that she could be making that point to curry some favor with people who do not believe in climate change and would like to see content by a scientist, with credentials, indicating skepticism. However, she has videos that talk about the drivers behind climate change in detail that are in line with the scientific consensus on the issue. It makes zero sense to me from a messaging stand point why she takes contrarian views on social issues. I can appreciate the scientists who stay out of the limelight because, while many are smart, not all are “media trained” and are wise enough to know it. Scientists who drift into fame, but are not equipped to navigate it, are controlled by the whims of the public they serve.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ben_w 3y ago
I like her sense of humour. I respect her as a physicist. I respect her as a general science news reporter. These are however very different things, and "science reporter" is something where my expectations in general — not just her, everyone doing this — is that at best and when trying sincerely and with skill, they will still misunderstand and misrepresent as per a game of telephone. This means I do still listen to what she has to say "out of her lane", but I don't rank it as highly as her videos in her own domain of expertise, instead treating them more like a Tom Scott video. (Tom, if you're reading this, that's still a decent standard). I do appreciate that she explained how she does the research for these: https://youtu.be/nD6hS8WV3ic?si=raJ3UySkXZOgZfIn https://youtu.be/nD6hS8WV3ic?si=raJ3UySkXZOgZfIn
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SpikeDad 3y ago
Interesting - you don't seem to have researched your own opinion. A cursory search of Youtube for rebuttal videos shows plenty of people that provide evidence and sources to show how wrong she is in her "out of her lane" videos. She's no better than any YouTuber looking for clicks and monetization.

varjag 3y ago

I like Sabine's work but in the areas where I do have substantial context or expertise she is sometimes subtly off. It tends to happen in feature videos more than in her weekly science summaries. To her credit, she does tend to issue corrections when it's pointed out.

vagab0nd 3y ago
Same. I appreciate her "hard" science videos very much, but dislike and skip the rest. Usually I have no problem switching to entertainment mode on YouTube, but her authoritative tone puts me off enough to not watch them.
tobiasSoftware 3y ago
I have substantial layman's expertise in quantum physics and while she correctly points out many mistakes that are even in textbooks, she also follows the very niche Superdeterimistic viewpoint and then presents hypotheses that follow from that viewpoint (Hidden Variables and Einstein's gloves) as if they are facts. For a science educator, this is a massive problem, and so she's become my least popular quantum physics educator even though she explains many quantum physics concepts very well.
- mayd 3y ago
  Then I suppose it's a good thing that Einstein did not live long enough to have his own Physics Youtube channel.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    A canary in the coalmine, Einstein did not stay silent on social issues, and did use his fame to write social commentary. Unlike most of his peers, however, his position was that of empathy and solidarity: https://onbeing.org/blog/albert-einsteins-essay-on-racial-bias-in-1946/ https://onbeing.org/blog/albert-einsteins-essay-on-racial-bi...
- rationalthug 3y ago
  Can you be more specific about how how her viewpoints create problems for you as a science educator? (I am speaking specifically about her content relevant to physics/particle physics/cosmology.) Generally, she is careful to point out when she is voicing views based on her own preferences, speculating about things that have no observational data to back them up or giving personal hot-takes on various topics. For everything else, aka, the things she accepts provisionally as true, she appears to favor the least speculative among current solutions/theories/approaches in physics. Much of her popular work is focused on critiques of the many speculative musings of physicists who, in her opinion, have moved into a kind of post-science research program. Her acceptance/popularizing of the standard model and of general relativity as humanity's current best models of the universe indicate that her viewpoints tend to be highly conservative and evidence-based. Again, most (all?) of her musings about things that might be true or things that might be interesting directions for research are clearly called out as such.
  - tobiasSoftware 3y ago
    Looking around, it does look like she's explained things better in other videos than the one I saw, so maybe I was too harsh. The video I saw at the time is "Why is quantum mechanics weird? The bomb experiment" where she describes entanglement as a photo being torn in half and then sent apart, and then vaguely says that it is a "stronger" correlation than that. On looking for that video though, I watched "What did Einstein mean by “Spooky Action at a Distance"?", where she describes things a bit more thoroughly with socks, where she explains that the correlations were created locally but when you measure the one particle on one side the other particle's wave function changes. She then goes on to actually explain that the sock explanation does not work as it does not sufficiently create strong correlations, which I think is a much better explanation Looking back, I think I've learned a lot more about quantum physics since I last watched her videos. Back then, I think I saw her repeated use of explaining entanglement as a "stronger correlation" to be a cop out. Now that I've dove into the actual Bell Inequality experiment and understand how it works, I actually quite like that description as a placeholder for a very strange phenomenon that none of us really understand yet. Still, I do think she should have clarified just a bit better on the first video I mentioned, but I guess when you make lots of videos on one of the most complicated topics of all time it's rather easy to omit a crucial detail here or there.

mistermann 3y ago

> like the quote in the article from Patricia Rankin: "[challenging] people's assumptions ... because that's really what science is all about. Depending on whether the person being challenged is a scientist, and the specific assumption/"fact".

fao_ 3y ago
Burden of proof is on you to explain why the person being challenged should be a scientist for it to matter :)
kbelder 3y ago
>Depending on whether the person being challenged is a scientist Has no bearing whatsoever.
- mistermann 3y ago
  You do not have access to all historic conversations between humans.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago

I think scientists (and actually people of other trades) are best when they talk about stuff they actually know. Sometimes people start thinking that because they got successful in one area it gives them blanket check to talk about everything. Usually, the end result is they greatly overestimate their capability. This is how many youtube channels die. The authors think they exhausted the topic and are looking to talk about other stuff and they start alienating their fan base because not only they are much less knowledgeable about those other topics, but also because the fan base just did not expect/appreciate those other topics. They came here because they liked the original videos and now the channel became something else which is unlikely to be what they wanted. As for Sabine, I watched some of her videos on quantum physics and they were very interesting. Then I stumbled on one or two newer videos on other topics she started adding later and they were jarring, on the verge of misinformation/pseudoscience.

sdenton4 3y ago
Sometimes called 'engineer's disease.'
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  Being an engineer, I prefer "Dentist's Syndrome", for my know-it-all father in law. The man is constitutionally unable to say "I don't know".
dzhiurgis 3y ago
> verge of misinformation/pseudoscience. Yeah one was 5G. I did not like she didn’t cut off speculation and stopped watching her videos afterwards. But ultimately she is correct - there just isn’t evidence that microwave heating is safe. I wanna roll my eyes as much as next guy, but need to respect objective reporting.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  The 5g one was wrong on many levels and very definitely pseudoscience. I also disagree that there is no evidence that microwave heating is safe. There is in fact no real evidence that it isn't safe (and largely no physics mechanism that would suggest otherwise).

phyzome 3y ago

Her non-physics videos tend to be a bit off, but not terrible; on the whole, they're still reasonably well-researched and educational. Where she really gets into trouble is farther out into the social sciences. I think she should be much more careful there. I don't want her to stop, I just want her to be more careful! An interesting example is one of her two videos on transgenderism. It had an absolutely appalling both-sidesing intro that literally called people who crazy who are just concerned about suicide rates among trans people. The contents of the video were actually pretty reasonable, although she messed up a few key interpretations so that some parts ended up being misleading. I don't think she's transphobic, but on an issue like this I think a bit more care needs to be taken. More recently she had a piece on capitalism that was incredibly anemic. I think she tried to bite off more than she could chew (for a 20 minute video) and so she kind of missed the entire "what are the problems" side of the topic, even while laying out some reubttals to common statements. I feel like she'd have done better than that on a more close-to-home topic. (Her physics videos are of course fantastic.)

kiba 3y ago
I think it's important to increase our range on our knowledge. You aren't always going to have an expert's opinion to evaluate every piece of information coming at you, and there's only so much that an authoritative source can do for you. Now, making videos on topics outside of your expertise? That's a dangerous minefield, but there are ways to approach it. For example, there's whole youtube channels to taking on challenges and learning new stuff.
grebel 3y ago
> An interesting example is one of her two videos on transgenderism. It had an absolutely appalling both-sidesing intro that literally called people who crazy who are just concerned about suicide rates among trans people. This was what she actually said in the introduction to that video: "Should transgender teens transition? This rather personal question occupies a prominent place in the American culture war. One the one side you have people claiming that it’s a socially contagious fad among the brainwashed woke who want to mutilate your innocent children. On the other side there are those saying that it’s saving the lives of minorities who’ve been forced to stay in the closet for too long. And then there are normal people, like you and I, who think both sides are crazy and could someone please summarise the facts in simple words, which is what I’m here for. So what’s going on?" What's objectionable about that? Sounds quite fair to me.

Avshalom 3y ago

I would like to see the actual quote from Patricia Rankin because [challenging] people's assumptions is not at all what science is about. I mean, sure sometimes it turns out that people's assumptions don't actually line up with the natural world but science certainly doesn't have any particular focus on those cases.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
If you believe something because it is assumed, that is not science. When you challenge that assumption, it may ultimately be that your guess was right, but your _assumption_ has nonetheless been challenged. Some things seem prima facie to be true, but turn out not to be consistent with the rest of our scientific understanding. If we're to be thorough then we should not just assume knowledge, we should put it to the test. This is scientific IMO. Did you assume that challenging an assumption meant opposing it?
- davorak 3y ago
  > Did you assume that challenging an assumption meant opposing it? I think the phrase 'challenging an assumption' leaves a bad taste in some people's mouth due to negative associations. I have definitely seen people use 'challenging assumptions' as a shield for their argument or actions when it was not justified. Or worse be upset when the phrase does not get people to back their idea or actions. Questioning, reexamining, challenging what have you is important in scientific progress. 'challenging assumptions', 'challenging the establishment', and probably other similar phrases I am not familiar with have been used conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists and the association has tainted the phrase leaving a bad taste in some people's month.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    Thanks, that's a useful expansion on the baggage that some read into the phrase, I was taking it on face-value only. Obliged.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jjoonathan 3y ago

> people have a hard time coming up with complaints that are actually about the subject matter Do they? That's not what I've seen. The criticism of her most recent video "Capitalism is good, let me explain" [1] is surprisingly concrete and substantive for a subject that usually degrades into a vitriolic dunk-fest within seconds. In particular, the popular reply videos [2] and [3] raise the criticism that: * She opens with the "money emerged to fix barter" origin story, which fell out of favor a while ago [2] * The focus on money as opposed to credit and ownership isn't just ahistorical, it avoids the core of what is usually meant by "capitalism" [2] * She handwaives the problems of the industrial revolutions and the capitalism critic by saying "that's another story." Is it? [2] * She botched the Penicillin example [3] * Her discussion on externalities absentmindedly missed the problems with positive externalities [2] * She attributes successes to markets and failures to regulation without justifying why [2] ... and more. Regardless of what you think about the underlying debate or whether you agree with these points, it seems pretty clear to me that they are substantive. Not only that, a few of them pretty clearly seem to be the result of an expert leaving their lane and speaking authoritatively on a subject they don't have deep knowledge of. Do you disagree? [1] SH Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPHp2EjNR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPHp2EjNR8 [2] Reply 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfGgBfpD-Ao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfGgBfpD-Ao [3] Reply 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7XAxiJGJdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7XAxiJGJdg

cage433 3y ago
These are fair criticisms. No matter which side of the 'capitalism is good' debate you are on this video was so bad, with errors of history and even of definition, that I was left doubting how good a scientist she actually is.
- runarberg 3y ago
  I don’t think this is—nor should it be—a judgment on her quality as a scientist. Rather this should be a judgment on her as a person. Instead of questioning her as a scientist, rather ask your self, why she applies this non-scrutinizing philosophy to the field of economics and sociology (as well as health care; see video about gender affirming care), while she so well known and successful for her extreme skeptical takes on the field of her expertise. Like she must have a personal reason—not a scientific one—for this dissonance.

cycomanic 3y ago

Many here see only problems with her technical videos, but what I find is that after initially talking about and criticising research in her areas of expertise it is very obvious she became popular with a certain "anti-scientific establishment" (for lack of a better word) crowd and now really peddles to that audience. In the process she has diverted from topics she knows to scientific areas where she has at best a undergraduate level understanding but still talks like she is a subject expert and always taking a contrarian stance. After seeing videos where I have significant expertise where she was clearly wrong (and again peddling the "anti-establishment" angle) I stopped watching. That she is now making videos about capitalism and other social science topics just illustrates the point.

vegetablepotpie 3y ago
I agree that she absolutely is fostering an “anti-establishment” audience, she’s also doing it in a lackadaisical way and that’s harmful. A good example of this was on her video on free will, she made the argument that free will does not exist because human brains operate on principles that are deterministic. She followed that conclusion with a tirade on climate change and how people should stop trying to build the “political will” to do something on climate change, because free will does not exist. I have to wonder what the reasoning behind including that in a video was. It absolutely alienates anyone working on building coalitions for climate solutions, and she didn’t even need to bring up the topic to make her point. You could say that she could be making that point to curry some favor with people who do not believe in climate change and would like to see content by a scientist, with credentials, indicating skepticism. However, she has videos that talk about the drivers behind climate change in detail that are in line with the scientific consensus on the issue. It makes zero sense to me from a messaging stand point why she takes contrarian views on social issues. I can appreciate the scientists who stay out of the limelight because, while many are smart, not all are “media trained” and are wise enough to know it. Scientists who drift into fame, but are not equipped to navigate it, are controlled by the whims of the public they serve.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ben_w 3y ago

I like her sense of humour. I respect her as a physicist. I respect her as a general science news reporter. These are however very different things, and "science reporter" is something where my expectations in general — not just her, everyone doing this — is that at best and when trying sincerely and with skill, they will still misunderstand and misrepresent as per a game of telephone. This means I do still listen to what she has to say "out of her lane", but I don't rank it as highly as her videos in her own domain of expertise, instead treating them more like a Tom Scott video. (Tom, if you're reading this, that's still a decent standard). I do appreciate that she explained how she does the research for these: https://youtu.be/nD6hS8WV3ic?si=raJ3UySkXZOgZfIn https://youtu.be/nD6hS8WV3ic?si=raJ3UySkXZOgZfIn

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SpikeDad 3y ago

Interesting - you don't seem to have researched your own opinion. A cursory search of Youtube for rebuttal videos shows plenty of people that provide evidence and sources to show how wrong she is in her "out of her lane" videos. She's no better than any YouTuber looking for clicks and monetization.