Kraut Science lady (Sabine Chudettefelder) says she doesn't trust soyentists

!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?