6 ms·

Not to highjack this topic, but she was recommended (like to many others of you no doubt) quite a bit in my Youtube feeds over the last few months; and the firs

by roel_v 2y ago

Not to highjack this topic, but she was recommended (like to many others of you no doubt) quite a bit in my Youtube feeds over the last few months; and the first few videos I watched seemed to be solid enough. Yet as I watched a few more, I couldn't shake the feeling that she's so out of left field that she's not just a 'quirky renegade' anymore, but rather a quack who dresses up her quackery with just enough 'real' physics to make it all sound very convincing. (By that I don't mean that she says factually wrong things, but that her conclusions or extrapolations from established facts seem to me, well, outrageous). However, I don't know enough physics to be able to tell if this is a correct feeling, and the Youtube comments are, as usual, one big fanboy fest, which is true for any large enough channel - even those of flat earthers and similarly delusional content). So my question is - just how serious should she (and others like her, who denounce 'mainstream' academia as much as those other fringe groups who go on and on about the corruption of 'mainstream' media) be taken? Anyone have an opinion on this?

Tazerenix 2y ago
As an expert in at least some of the things Sabine makes videos about (string theory), Sabine is a contrarian who, if you are not otherwise an expert on what she is talking about, it would be best to avoid. Sabine, like many contrarians, takes advantage of the fact that there are smart and convincing criticisms of many mainstream ideas, and she does her best to rely on those criticisms. However like all contrarians she presents a biased and exaggerated view of things in order to stoke engagement, and unless you are an expert it can be difficult/impossible to determine whether the view she is giving is balanced. This is a classic issue with string theory critics, because string theory has many legitimate problems with it, but many of the critics are intellectually dishonest and you probably shouldn't listen to their criticisms on principle (but even I must admit it's quite hard to find good quality intellectually honest criticism of string theory which is digestible, so these contrarians tend to be the only loud voice). In Sabine's case it is not so bad, because it is clear from some of her other positions that she is basically a crank. MOND and superdeterminism are basically crank physics at this point but she supports them purely because she is a contrarian. On this evidence alone you should not trust anything she says on any other subject, otherwise you're falling for a kind of Gell-Mann amnesia.
- n4r9 2y ago
  Likewise. I did my PhD in quantum foundations/information, albeit some years ago now. I'm not aware of any serious researchers in the field that look kindly on superdeterministic interpretations. It's bizarrely parochial to suppose that every single photon is magically correlated with the experimenter's future measurement choices in a way that will exactly violate Bell's Theorem. Another way to put it: > If such a theory did exist, it would require a grand conspiracy of causal relationships leading to results in precise agreement with quantum mechanics, even though the theory itself would bear no resemblance to quantum mechanics. Moreover, it is hard to imagine why it should only be in Bell experiments that free choices would be significantly influenced by causes relevant also to the observed outcomes; rather, every conclusion based upon observed correlations, scientific or casual, would be meaningless because the observers’s method would always be suspect. It seems to us that any such theory would be about as plausible, and appealing, as, belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control. Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell, Wiseman & Cavalcanti, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06413 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06413
- prof-dr-ir 2y ago
  As another 'mainsteam' academic with relevant expertise I think this comment is spot on. I would like to add that Sabine's video on her academic experience was quite a tragic thing to watch. If her allegations are true then the behavior of her PhD supervisor was completely outrageous. She also did seem a bit too dreamy-eyed about academia. Sure you can criticize everything you want, but she never seemed to have understood that tone of voice still matters. Academics are busy people with emotions, and not likely to engage with someone whose claims appear to have more loudness than substance.
  - Tazerenix 2y ago
    I certainly am not making any comments about her experiences for sure! Academia is difficult and full of terrible stories, and its not surprising that it causes many people to become exceedingly bitter and contrarian (Peter Woit is famously of the same ilk as another string theorist critic who fell out of academia like Sabine). Unfortunately a chip (even a legitimately earned one) on ones shoulder about the bad parts of academia doesn't save you from being criticized for being crank-y.
stdbrouw 2y ago
I'm not a physicist so I can't answer that question, though personally I trust in her expertise and really loved her book Lost in Math, but many of her most recent videos and tweets are not about physics at all but instead about nuclear power, capitalism, climate change, not having children, trans athletes, AI and so forth. The lure of punditry...
- eru 2y ago
  I tend to disagree with her on superdeterminism. See eg https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215
fruffy 2y ago
>So my question is - just how serious should she (and others like her, who denounce 'mainstream' academia as much as those other fringe groups who go on and on about the corruption of 'mainstream' media) be taken? Anyone have an opinion on this? I know nothing about her but the video on her experience in academia is spot on. It's a pretty common experience among STEM academics. You will face the point where you have to compromise your academic "purity" and curiosity for trendy topics to survive. This also implies publishing "bullshit" papers and "bullshit" grants. Only certain types of people make it through that.
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  I don't think this is generally true and the generalization is actively hurtful. Promoting a skewed/miserable perspective on academia. It all depends on the institution, your funding situation, your field etc. The miserable academics are the ones that moan the loudest. There is often an online circlejerk of whining academics that wind themselves up (esp PhD students). Also the ones that are barely scrapping by are the ones that need to resort to bullshit. You may be able to game your stats but people can smell bullshit from a mile away. Everyone will know you're just good at playing the system
  - CheddarB0b42 2y ago
    "Complainants and their critiques can be safely discarded because they need to git gud." She states in the first three minutes of the video linked above that she was excelling academically. How bizarre to observe a lack of research in a thread complaining about how the academy has drifted from the conduct of pure research. Three minutes. One hundred twenty seconds. That's all it would have taken.
    - einsteinx2 2y ago
      I think you meant “one hundred eighty seconds” ;) Sorry for being pedantic. I just thought it was funny in the context of a thread about PHDs.
- prof-dr-ir 2y ago
voxgen 2y ago
I've seen similar reactions and I can't help but think she's intentionally communicating provocatively to make people engage their brains. You shouldn't just "take her seriously", you should take what she says *critically*. Hear the information and opinions, then decide for yourself whether to accept them.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > Hear the information and opinions, then decide for yourself whether to accept them. This sounds awfully similar to the “do your own research” defense that is often used as a cop-out disclaimer for quackery topics. When someone presents themselves as an expert on a topic and invests a lot of time into making convincing videos about their beliefs, defending them with a “do your own research” feels like a tacit admission that they’re not actually the expert they present themselves as. This feels somewhat like the high-brow intellectual equivalent of Joe Rogan making confident statements about COVID and then defending himself with “I’m just a comedian, do your own research”. You can’t have it both ways.
  - imwillofficial 2y ago
    No, it sounds like he is promoting hearing somebody out and thinking for yourself if they are to be trusted.
  - voxgen 2y ago
    The difference is sources. Sabine shows her sources prominently on screen, with searchable citations to find the original. She makes it clear in her phrasing whether she's paraphrasing a source, or passing her own judgement. It's easy to know whether to internalize what she says when you view it critically. Ask "does the presented research seem legit, complete, and impartial?" and "is her conclusion logical?". She gives you the receipts to check. This is not the same as deciding whether to put blind faith into a comedian's off-the-cuff anecdotes and opinions. I often disagree with her conclusions, but at least she makes it very easy to validate her chain of though, find where our views diverge, and only absorb the information I trust.
- evilduck 2y ago
nonrandomstring 2y ago
> just how serious should she... be taken? Very seriously indeed if you value higher education and research. Lot's of people do. Over a decade ago now, Ben Ginsberg wrote "Fall of the Faculty". Political scientists like Wendy Brown have picked apart not only the evidence, but done deep analytical work on the reasons for the disintegration of academia in the West. Even Peter Thiel (who I profoundly disagree with on almost everything) has given knock-down commentary that I find impossible to ignore on how academia went to seed, and is now unfit for teaching, learning and honest research. From a personal perspective; I worked in universities for over 30 years. What we have now is unrecognisable from the institutions I started teaching at in the early 1990s. Almost all human values have been expunged and replaced by a puppet show of performative theatrics, led by MBA educated impostors and career administrators. It is fake to the core. I no longer recognise these places as universities. I've seen brilliant colleagues go crazy, retire early, turn to alcohol and drugs, commit suicide, or just wander off to live in the mountains and grow vegetables. I refuse to believe all those smart and dedicated people are/were "weak". Academia is a very toxic place and I would not advise any "smart and sensitive" person to go into that life if you value your health. When you consider how much it costs a nation to educate someone to PhD level and then look at the churn and attrition, it's a massive bonfire of wealth. I've written numerous pieces in the Times Higher on specific failings of universities, but one cannot halt a juggernaut of change with words alone. Now I am left only with curiosity at how higher education will change and what will come after. My response has been to conduct and publish my own research independently outside the "academic system" and to start my own companies for teaching. By my standards, both are successful. edit: grammar
- lll-o-lll 2y ago
  I think - no, I fear, fear is the right word - that there is much more than just academia disintegrating in the West. > Almost all human values have been expunged and replaced by a puppet show of performative theatrics, led by MBA educated impostors and career administrators. Not just academia. This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.
  - Miraste 2y ago
andai 2y ago
You're asking the crowd for their opinion on someone who goes against the opinion of the crowd?
gosub100 2y ago
Can you give any examples of her promoting "quackery"? I don't know how you can admit you are weak in physics but nevertheless sense she is phony. My biggest criticism of hers is that she is cynical and spends too much time tearing down other ideas rather than promoting anything. But overall she does great things with showcasing the more ridiculous side of academia. She is adept at taking published research and showing that it is quackery. She shows how they manipulate data and mislead the media, often for more research money. I also applaud her counterpoint in particle physics regarding the waste involved in building yet another gigantic particle accelerator. It's a POV I wouldn't have considered, but I agree that the money could be better spent in other areas.

by roel_v 2y ago

Tazerenix 2y ago

As an expert in at least some of the things Sabine makes videos about (string theory), Sabine is a contrarian who, if you are not otherwise an expert on what she is talking about, it would be best to avoid. Sabine, like many contrarians, takes advantage of the fact that there are smart and convincing criticisms of many mainstream ideas, and she does her best to rely on those criticisms. However like all contrarians she presents a biased and exaggerated view of things in order to stoke engagement, and unless you are an expert it can be difficult/impossible to determine whether the view she is giving is balanced. This is a classic issue with string theory critics, because string theory has many legitimate problems with it, but many of the critics are intellectually dishonest and you probably shouldn't listen to their criticisms on principle (but even I must admit it's quite hard to find good quality intellectually honest criticism of string theory which is digestible, so these contrarians tend to be the only loud voice). In Sabine's case it is not so bad, because it is clear from some of her other positions that she is basically a crank. MOND and superdeterminism are basically crank physics at this point but she supports them purely because she is a contrarian. On this evidence alone you should not trust anything she says on any other subject, otherwise you're falling for a kind of Gell-Mann amnesia.

n4r9 2y ago
Likewise. I did my PhD in quantum foundations/information, albeit some years ago now. I'm not aware of any serious researchers in the field that look kindly on superdeterministic interpretations. It's bizarrely parochial to suppose that every single photon is magically correlated with the experimenter's future measurement choices in a way that will exactly violate Bell's Theorem. Another way to put it: > If such a theory did exist, it would require a grand conspiracy of causal relationships leading to results in precise agreement with quantum mechanics, even though the theory itself would bear no resemblance to quantum mechanics. Moreover, it is hard to imagine why it should only be in Bell experiments that free choices would be significantly influenced by causes relevant also to the observed outcomes; rather, every conclusion based upon observed correlations, scientific or casual, would be meaningless because the observers’s method would always be suspect. It seems to us that any such theory would be about as plausible, and appealing, as, belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control. Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell, Wiseman & Cavalcanti, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06413 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.06413
prof-dr-ir 2y ago
As another 'mainsteam' academic with relevant expertise I think this comment is spot on. I would like to add that Sabine's video on her academic experience was quite a tragic thing to watch. If her allegations are true then the behavior of her PhD supervisor was completely outrageous. She also did seem a bit too dreamy-eyed about academia. Sure you can criticize everything you want, but she never seemed to have understood that tone of voice still matters. Academics are busy people with emotions, and not likely to engage with someone whose claims appear to have more loudness than substance.
- Tazerenix 2y ago
  I certainly am not making any comments about her experiences for sure! Academia is difficult and full of terrible stories, and its not surprising that it causes many people to become exceedingly bitter and contrarian (Peter Woit is famously of the same ilk as another string theorist critic who fell out of academia like Sabine). Unfortunately a chip (even a legitimately earned one) on ones shoulder about the bad parts of academia doesn't save you from being criticized for being crank-y.

stdbrouw 2y ago

I'm not a physicist so I can't answer that question, though personally I trust in her expertise and really loved her book Lost in Math, but many of her most recent videos and tweets are not about physics at all but instead about nuclear power, capitalism, climate change, not having children, trans athletes, AI and so forth. The lure of punditry...

eru 2y ago
I tend to disagree with her on superdeterminism. See eg https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215

fruffy 2y ago

>So my question is - just how serious should she (and others like her, who denounce 'mainstream' academia as much as those other fringe groups who go on and on about the corruption of 'mainstream' media) be taken? Anyone have an opinion on this? I know nothing about her but the video on her experience in academia is spot on. It's a pretty common experience among STEM academics. You will face the point where you have to compromise your academic "purity" and curiosity for trendy topics to survive. This also implies publishing "bullshit" papers and "bullshit" grants. Only certain types of people make it through that.

contrarian1234 2y ago
I don't think this is generally true and the generalization is actively hurtful. Promoting a skewed/miserable perspective on academia. It all depends on the institution, your funding situation, your field etc. The miserable academics are the ones that moan the loudest. There is often an online circlejerk of whining academics that wind themselves up (esp PhD students). Also the ones that are barely scrapping by are the ones that need to resort to bullshit. You may be able to game your stats but people can smell bullshit from a mile away. Everyone will know you're just good at playing the system
- CheddarB0b42 2y ago
  "Complainants and their critiques can be safely discarded because they need to git gud." She states in the first three minutes of the video linked above that she was excelling academically. How bizarre to observe a lack of research in a thread complaining about how the academy has drifted from the conduct of pure research. Three minutes. One hundred twenty seconds. That's all it would have taken.
  - einsteinx2 2y ago
    I think you meant “one hundred eighty seconds” ;) Sorry for being pedantic. I just thought it was funny in the context of a thread about PHDs.
prof-dr-ir 2y ago

voxgen 2y ago

I've seen similar reactions and I can't help but think she's intentionally communicating provocatively to make people engage their brains. You shouldn't just "take her seriously", you should take what she says *critically*. Hear the information and opinions, then decide for yourself whether to accept them.

Aurornis 2y ago
> Hear the information and opinions, then decide for yourself whether to accept them. This sounds awfully similar to the “do your own research” defense that is often used as a cop-out disclaimer for quackery topics. When someone presents themselves as an expert on a topic and invests a lot of time into making convincing videos about their beliefs, defending them with a “do your own research” feels like a tacit admission that they’re not actually the expert they present themselves as. This feels somewhat like the high-brow intellectual equivalent of Joe Rogan making confident statements about COVID and then defending himself with “I’m just a comedian, do your own research”. You can’t have it both ways.
- imwillofficial 2y ago
  No, it sounds like he is promoting hearing somebody out and thinking for yourself if they are to be trusted.
- voxgen 2y ago
  The difference is sources. Sabine shows her sources prominently on screen, with searchable citations to find the original. She makes it clear in her phrasing whether she's paraphrasing a source, or passing her own judgement. It's easy to know whether to internalize what she says when you view it critically. Ask "does the presented research seem legit, complete, and impartial?" and "is her conclusion logical?". She gives you the receipts to check. This is not the same as deciding whether to put blind faith into a comedian's off-the-cuff anecdotes and opinions. I often disagree with her conclusions, but at least she makes it very easy to validate her chain of though, find where our views diverge, and only absorb the information I trust.
evilduck 2y ago

nonrandomstring 2y ago

> just how serious should she... be taken? Very seriously indeed if you value higher education and research. Lot's of people do. Over a decade ago now, Ben Ginsberg wrote "Fall of the Faculty". Political scientists like Wendy Brown have picked apart not only the evidence, but done deep analytical work on the reasons for the disintegration of academia in the West. Even Peter Thiel (who I profoundly disagree with on almost everything) has given knock-down commentary that I find impossible to ignore on how academia went to seed, and is now unfit for teaching, learning and honest research. From a personal perspective; I worked in universities for over 30 years. What we have now is unrecognisable from the institutions I started teaching at in the early 1990s. Almost all human values have been expunged and replaced by a puppet show of performative theatrics, led by MBA educated impostors and career administrators. It is fake to the core. I no longer recognise these places as universities. I've seen brilliant colleagues go crazy, retire early, turn to alcohol and drugs, commit suicide, or just wander off to live in the mountains and grow vegetables. I refuse to believe all those smart and dedicated people are/were "weak". Academia is a very toxic place and I would not advise any "smart and sensitive" person to go into that life if you value your health. When you consider how much it costs a nation to educate someone to PhD level and then look at the churn and attrition, it's a massive bonfire of wealth. I've written numerous pieces in the Times Higher on specific failings of universities, but one cannot halt a juggernaut of change with words alone. Now I am left only with curiosity at how higher education will change and what will come after. My response has been to conduct and publish my own research independently outside the "academic system" and to start my own companies for teaching. By my standards, both are successful. edit: grammar

lll-o-lll 2y ago
I think - no, I fear, fear is the right word - that there is much more than just academia disintegrating in the West. > Almost all human values have been expunged and replaced by a puppet show of performative theatrics, led by MBA educated impostors and career administrators. Not just academia. This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.
- Miraste 2y ago

andai 2y ago

You're asking the crowd for their opinion on someone who goes against the opinion of the crowd?

gosub100 2y ago

Can you give any examples of her promoting "quackery"? I don't know how you can admit you are weak in physics but nevertheless sense she is phony. My biggest criticism of hers is that she is cynical and spends too much time tearing down other ideas rather than promoting anything. But overall she does great things with showcasing the more ridiculous side of academia. She is adept at taking published research and showing that it is quackery. She shows how they manipulate data and mislead the media, often for more research money. I also applaud her counterpoint in particle physics regarding the waste involved in building yet another gigantic particle accelerator. It's a POV I wouldn't have considered, but I agree that the money could be better spent in other areas.