5 ms·

Sabine's early video's seemed pretty sincere, and had a lot of valid points. But later, I think the pressure of creating constant content, and moving into non

Sabine's early video's seemed pretty sincere, and had a lot of valid points. But later, I think the pressure of creating constant content, and moving into non-expert areas, has gotten just as pop-sci as anybody else. Still think she is on another level from Eric who will throw out any crazy idea he can if someone will listen.

depr 1y ago
I think "just as pop-sci" is a bit generous. https://x.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1956336194352230570 https://x.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1956336194352230570 explains it better than I can.
- FrustratedMonky 1y ago
  I think that list applies more to Eric. He is definitely in the 'conspiracy of nefarious forces are aligned against me' camp. Sabine, I think she was just referring to how institutions can become calcified around certain ideas. The old concept that 'new' ideas need to wait for the founders of old ideas to die off. (can't remember exact quote).
  - tux3 1y ago
    Max Planck is the source of the famous quote. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - NitpickLawyer 1y ago
    > Science progresses one funeral at a time
  - analog31 1y ago
    >>> The old concept that 'new' ideas need to wait for the founders of old ideas to die off. (can't remember exact quote). I think Paul Feyerabend debunked that idea. Disclosure: Old physicist.
tombert 1y ago
Something I've noticed is people who are extremely talented in one field will sometimes think they're extremely talented in every field. I know a lot of engineers like that (and I'm certainly guilty of that kind of thinking sometimes though the jury is still out on if I'm extremely talented). I have no doubt at all that she understands her niche of physics better than most other humans on the planet, but that doesn't really translate to most other fields. I stopped watching her after I saw her video on transgender stuff and then another video basically acting like we can't trust any kind of academic science. I also have no idea why the hell she thinks it's a good idea to try and simp for Eric Weinstein who, as far as I can tell, hasn't made any significant contribution to physics and primarily exists to add an air of credibility to right-wing talking point. I will admit that I don't know enough about physics to talk shit about his weird unified field theory attempt, but I do know actual physicists who said it was pretty silly. Again, I am sure that Eric Weinstein is good at a specific niche of physics, he does have a real PhD from a good school, but he's using that status to try and branch out into stuff he has no fucking clue about.
- boxed 1y ago
  > Something I've noticed is people who are extremely talented in one field will sometimes think they're extremely talented in every field. I'm pretty sure Sabine has made this exact statement too.
  - tombert 1y ago
    Probably, kind of funny that the irony is completely lost on her. I am not in a PhD program anymore and I didn't finish but I was enrolled in one from a good school for a few years. It was for formal methods in computer science, and specifically with regards to functional programming and temporal logic. I probably understand that niche better than most people and I probably could give reasonable educated opinions on it, but that doesn't mean I would be qualified for having strong opinions on biology or physics, or even other fields of computer science really (e.g. data science), even if I had finished my PhD. A PhD basically means that you were willing and able to work really really hard for a certain amount of time on a very specific subject. Being smart helps but I don't think that's sufficient; I think most people could get a PhD if they were willing to do the work for it. Importantly though, PhDs are extremely focused; in a strange way saying that you have a PhD in physics sort of makes you less qualified to talk about biology.
jordanpg 1y ago
She has gone way beyond this. She is actively undermining the entire academic scientific enterprise, even as she makes money popularizing it. It's unclear why she does this. She portrays herself as speaking truth to power, but -- much like certain actors in US public life these days -- is simply doing the easy work of tearing things down, without doing the hard work of building things.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  the scientific enterprise has undermined itself already. Look at how we lost decades of research in alzheimer's as a good example. This problem is WAY worse than even sabines says. If a scientist publishes something sketchy, even sometimes just a little bit, they might wind up sinking years of research of other people who are honest truthseeking researchers just chasing the sketchy results. These good people then burn out or flip to the dark side, only leaving rotten people. It's like a fucking market of lemons, except if becoming lemons were viral.
  - kelipso 1y ago
    As oppose to industry that blows hundreds of billions of dollars on hype bubbles every couple of years.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      Yeah, that's a problem too. Keynes: By a continuing process of inflation, Governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
indy 1y ago
Sadly this is a common path for many people on Youtube. Once they reach a certain level of popularity the original topic of their channel becomes a vehicle for "content creation" which they try to maximize for "engagement". The quality of the original content always nosedives.
thomassmith65 1y ago
For anyone who doesn't already know, the term for the phenomenon is 'audience capture' https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
You must be one of the aliens trying to deceive humanity.

depr 1y ago

I think "just as pop-sci" is a bit generous. https://x.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1956336194352230570 https://x.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1956336194352230570 explains it better than I can.

FrustratedMonky 1y ago
I think that list applies more to Eric. He is definitely in the 'conspiracy of nefarious forces are aligned against me' camp. Sabine, I think she was just referring to how institutions can become calcified around certain ideas. The old concept that 'new' ideas need to wait for the founders of old ideas to die off. (can't remember exact quote).
- tux3 1y ago
  Max Planck is the source of the famous quote. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- NitpickLawyer 1y ago
  > Science progresses one funeral at a time
- analog31 1y ago
  >>> The old concept that 'new' ideas need to wait for the founders of old ideas to die off. (can't remember exact quote). I think Paul Feyerabend debunked that idea. Disclosure: Old physicist.

tombert 1y ago

Something I've noticed is people who are extremely talented in one field will sometimes think they're extremely talented in every field. I know a lot of engineers like that (and I'm certainly guilty of that kind of thinking sometimes though the jury is still out on if I'm extremely talented). I have no doubt at all that she understands her niche of physics better than most other humans on the planet, but that doesn't really translate to most other fields. I stopped watching her after I saw her video on transgender stuff and then another video basically acting like we can't trust any kind of academic science. I also have no idea why the hell she thinks it's a good idea to try and simp for Eric Weinstein who, as far as I can tell, hasn't made any significant contribution to physics and primarily exists to add an air of credibility to right-wing talking point. I will admit that I don't know enough about physics to talk shit about his weird unified field theory attempt, but I do know actual physicists who said it was pretty silly. Again, I am sure that Eric Weinstein is good at a specific niche of physics, he does have a real PhD from a good school, but he's using that status to try and branch out into stuff he has no fucking clue about.

boxed 1y ago
> Something I've noticed is people who are extremely talented in one field will sometimes think they're extremely talented in every field. I'm pretty sure Sabine has made this exact statement too.
- tombert 1y ago
  Probably, kind of funny that the irony is completely lost on her. I am not in a PhD program anymore and I didn't finish but I was enrolled in one from a good school for a few years. It was for formal methods in computer science, and specifically with regards to functional programming and temporal logic. I probably understand that niche better than most people and I probably could give reasonable educated opinions on it, but that doesn't mean I would be qualified for having strong opinions on biology or physics, or even other fields of computer science really (e.g. data science), even if I had finished my PhD. A PhD basically means that you were willing and able to work really really hard for a certain amount of time on a very specific subject. Being smart helps but I don't think that's sufficient; I think most people could get a PhD if they were willing to do the work for it. Importantly though, PhDs are extremely focused; in a strange way saying that you have a PhD in physics sort of makes you less qualified to talk about biology.

jordanpg 1y ago

She has gone way beyond this. She is actively undermining the entire academic scientific enterprise, even as she makes money popularizing it. It's unclear why she does this. She portrays herself as speaking truth to power, but -- much like certain actors in US public life these days -- is simply doing the easy work of tearing things down, without doing the hard work of building things.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
the scientific enterprise has undermined itself already. Look at how we lost decades of research in alzheimer's as a good example. This problem is WAY worse than even sabines says. If a scientist publishes something sketchy, even sometimes just a little bit, they might wind up sinking years of research of other people who are honest truthseeking researchers just chasing the sketchy results. These good people then burn out or flip to the dark side, only leaving rotten people. It's like a fucking market of lemons, except if becoming lemons were viral.
- kelipso 1y ago
  As oppose to industry that blows hundreds of billions of dollars on hype bubbles every couple of years.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    Yeah, that's a problem too. Keynes: By a continuing process of inflation, Governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

indy 1y ago

Sadly this is a common path for many people on Youtube. Once they reach a certain level of popularity the original topic of their channel becomes a vehicle for "content creation" which they try to maximize for "engagement". The quality of the original content always nosedives.

thomassmith65 1y ago

For anyone who doesn't already know, the term for the phenomenon is 'audience capture' https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago

You must be one of the aliens trying to deceive humanity.