4 ms·

she really isn't, though. her papers are mediocre, so she compensates by pandering to conspiracy theorists and transphobes. edit: to be clear, my intention her

she really isn't, though. her papers are mediocre, so she compensates by pandering to conspiracy theorists and transphobes. edit: to be clear, my intention here is not to engage in ad hominem. instead I am saying that augmenting unimpressive research with social media is not a good model for the modern intellectual

xtrapol8 2y ago
Could you cite examples of these claims? For the purpose of distinguishing good role models. I’m not an academic, though the topics I have followed have been informative and interesting.
- tessierashpool 2y ago
  sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw this is a debunking video. it addresses a video where Hossenfelder says that "normal people" think it's crazy to suggest that transitioning saves the lives of transgender teens. but (as the video shows) the peer-reviewed evidence for this "crazy" idea that "normal people" don't believe is in fact overwhelming. anyway, dismissing peer-reviewed evidence as "crazy" is not a legitimate way for a scientist to act. but it gets a lot of clicks for Hossenfelder, because lots of people want to hear that, even though it isn't true, and they really like hearing a scientist say it, even though that scientist is a physicist talking about a very different field (and dismissing reams of peer-reviewed research in that field without even a moment's consideration, or a base level of professional courtesy).
  - xtrapol8 2y ago
    I responded to you after my first comment.
gemsnakkn 2y ago
I find quite refreshing to see her examine the evidence sceptically and rationally instead of just assuming whatever the current trend is true and working backwards to cherry pick evidence to fit it, as many popular science communicators do.
- tessierashpool 2y ago
  obviously, my reply to this comment's sibling repudiates these factually inaccurate characterizations.
  - gemsnakkn 2y ago
    That video you linked isn't as sceptical as it claims to be. Like for example, the presenter's supposed review of the literature is to carefully select a handful of research papers and read through the conclusions in the abstracts, without providing any critical analysis at all. She's clearly very biased and that comes across in how she presents this. I see she's doing exactly what I mentioned in my earlier comment: > assuming whatever the current trend is is true and working backwards to cherry pick evidence to fit it It's not really a debunking or a repudiation of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video, it's really just the presenter pushing her own staunchly held opinion while trying to pretend she's applying some sort of sceptical analysis. Unfortunately this is quite a common trick amongst self-styled "sceptic" types when it comes to topics they feel strongly about.

xtrapol8 2y ago

Could you cite examples of these claims? For the purpose of distinguishing good role models. I’m not an academic, though the topics I have followed have been informative and interesting.

tessierashpool 2y ago
sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw this is a debunking video. it addresses a video where Hossenfelder says that "normal people" think it's crazy to suggest that transitioning saves the lives of transgender teens. but (as the video shows) the peer-reviewed evidence for this "crazy" idea that "normal people" don't believe is in fact overwhelming. anyway, dismissing peer-reviewed evidence as "crazy" is not a legitimate way for a scientist to act. but it gets a lot of clicks for Hossenfelder, because lots of people want to hear that, even though it isn't true, and they really like hearing a scientist say it, even though that scientist is a physicist talking about a very different field (and dismissing reams of peer-reviewed research in that field without even a moment's consideration, or a base level of professional courtesy).
- xtrapol8 2y ago
  I responded to you after my first comment.

gemsnakkn 2y ago

I find quite refreshing to see her examine the evidence sceptically and rationally instead of just assuming whatever the current trend is true and working backwards to cherry pick evidence to fit it, as many popular science communicators do.

tessierashpool 2y ago
obviously, my reply to this comment's sibling repudiates these factually inaccurate characterizations.
- gemsnakkn 2y ago
  That video you linked isn't as sceptical as it claims to be. Like for example, the presenter's supposed review of the literature is to carefully select a handful of research papers and read through the conclusions in the abstracts, without providing any critical analysis at all. She's clearly very biased and that comes across in how she presents this. I see she's doing exactly what I mentioned in my earlier comment: > assuming whatever the current trend is is true and working backwards to cherry pick evidence to fit it It's not really a debunking or a repudiation of what Sabine Hossenfelder says in her video, it's really just the presenter pushing her own staunchly held opinion while trying to pretend she's applying some sort of sceptical analysis. Unfortunately this is quite a common trick amongst self-styled "sceptic" types when it comes to topics they feel strongly about.