!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.
Any youtube science person i find inherently untrustworthy. At the very least they don't have an in depth understanding of what they're talking about when it comes to pop science youtubers and at the worst they're purposely misleading/contrarian to get views.
The fact that these get views and fool people also makes me skeptical about media reporting on scientific papers/concepts. Maybe some are correct but I'm not just going to take their word for them and for concepts I don't care about I'm not going to learn enough to find the truth so most of these I just leave them with "that's a nice idea but I'm not going take anything away from this"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Fluid dynamics!
jewish lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I WISH it was that based.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Sabine is a theoretical physicist, so she falls on the latter. She used to be a mixed bag but now she's just a clickbaity polemicist.
This is actually a big problem, not so much for certain fields like theoretical physics which have zero impact for the general population, but it's big when it comes to climatology and public health.
Just because a paper is published doesn't mean it's good or true, so the public has reasons to distrust, however the public is unable to understand what the papers contents are. To make matters muddier, the experts themselves will argue over them because that's how science works, data can be interpreted in different ways, but that doesn't make a compelling argument for making scientists policymakers.
!ifrickinglovescience
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context