!ifrickinglovescience !physics !nooticers
TL;DW Scientists (especially physicists) produce mostly junk pseudoscience papers or hype up their work for grant gibs/attention whoring.
Climate Change however is not only real, but worse than the public believes and climate scientists are better than particle physicists because they suffer from public scrutiny and undermine Climate Change effects so they're not accused of being alarmists. Don't trust people, trust data, math and logic.
At least this is what she states on the video.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1epjmq1/is_sabine_hossenfelder_right_about_current/
Is Sabine Hossenfelder right..."
As a general principle, no.
don't know what she said exactly but given that it's Sabine Hossenfelder I would assume it is nonsense
Lol
What did she say exactly?
Just because it's falsifiable doesn't mean it's good science.
Title says it all, really, but it's such a common misunderstanding I want to expand on this for a bit.
A major reason we see so many wrong predictions in the foundations of physics – and see those make headlines – is that both scientists and science writers take falsifiability to be a sufficient criterion for good science.
Now, a scientific prediction must be falsifiable, all right. But falsifiability alone is not sufficient to make a prediction scientific. (And, no, Popper never said so.) Example: Tomorrow it will rain carrots. Totally falsifiable. Totally not scientific.
Why is it not scientific? Well, because it doesn't live up to the current quality standard in olericulture, that is the study of vegetables. According to the standard model of root crops, carrots don't grow on clouds.
What do we learn from this? (Besides that the study of vegetables is called "olericulture," who knew.) We learn that to judge a prediction you must know why scientists think it's a good prediction.
Why does it matter?"
Physicels of rdrama, thoughts?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
People think shes a climate change denier for some reason
i could never stand physics not only is it too much math but at the higher levels its all super theoretical and not all that useful. Ill just stick to medical research which is more directly useful to humans.
The raining carrots example makes no sense. It's perfectly scientific if stupid to hypothesize "its going to rain carrots tomorrow " you see it doesn't rain carrots mark it off as wrong. Whats not scientific to run to the public with untestable theories like string theory and talk about it like it's general relativity 2.0.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's because Sabine is a hack. She started her YouTube channel as an educator for the general public and as a critic of clickbaity soyence (and of fields in physics which are purely mathematical without data backing it like String Theory). Nowadays she's just a contrarian
pushing polemics. I can't blame her, I bet she's making much more money this way and selling her books than she would doing research.
I'm actually surprised she became a climate doomer the past few months. Just a couple of years ago she recorded a video criticizing "longtermists" like Musk and she ended the video saying something like: "if I owe the future anything, i'll wait until it sends me an invoice"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Who knows maybe a forensic scientist will be hit by lightning and be able to prove string theory making fools of us
ill just say growing up as a i fricking love science kid who did quiz bowl and science bowl all the science stuff i read took string theory as a given it was true
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Seriously what is that user talking about? Its like AI level of syntax confusion.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Actually
, you fail to confirm your hypothesis.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context