!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.
Didn't read, but my experience is that the higher I go in employment, education, age, whatever, the more I realize that almost everyone is r-slurred and should not be blindly trusted.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've visited two different sausage factories.
Art school inoculated me to the repulsive pretense of an art world that never evolved past Duchamp's Fountain. A century they've spent, crashing down the same open doors over and over and congratulating themselves more with each silent crash, making sure art stays frozen and zombified.
I could participate in the charade, or move on. So I moved on. My branch of social science was in a better state than the rest of it. Still it was often not very good science, more often not science at all, and rarely ever useful, insightful, meaningful, helpful, or a breakthrough of any sort.
It was stats mashed together, slapdash methodologies, droning interviews, conclusions first, and references after. Just a mill for long-winded permission slips giving the state its excuse to spend even more of other people's money on tat, and giving NGOs more angles to embezzle what they hadn't already.
It all made me the chud I am today. Well, that and the r*pefugees
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I genuinely cant tell if everyone is r-slurred or they've all been disillusioned too and are just playing the game
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
My art professors made me attend "performance art" for extra credit
Talk about "big todo about nothing". Hundreds of dollars were spent on the performance art that could have been used on art supplies. I was mad, and the "performance" was unsettling because it was supposed to be evocative or some shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The other guy already said it, they see themselves in her - ideological, childish, talentless, and ugly. But it's also a shibboleth. They aren't actually personally interested her aside from what they can gain from conspicuous public displays of appreciation.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Because she embodies the foid in her most base state. Consistently self absorbed, her primary subject being herself. Constantly crying about how bad she has it and what a girlboss she is for having it so hard (nvm she is firmly middle class in a barely post-medieval shithole). Also technically mediocre which goes hand in hand with art schools teaching that skill is pedantry and not necessary anymore and anyone can do whatever and be a serious artiste.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I had to do multiple assignments about her and I remember almost nothing
reminds me of Indian and Asian art students always complaining that they don't have ✨white privilege✨ so their parents don't support their dreams
even tho their parents are usually loaded and buy them stuff 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
there is so much bullshit out there that manages to pass muster, and then it gets diluted as the information gets dispersed
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context