The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing

[@hyfy-tr2jy]

I worked in Academia and during the 90s I bore witness to the moment that research changed. I saw all the Professors have their path to tenure be shifted from "How well have your grad students done and how many prestigious journals have you been published in" to "How many millions of dollars in grants have you garnered for the university". When your metric of success shifts from good science to how much money you can attract to the University fundamentally changes how science is done and motivated

[@bacchusinstituteofscience8650]

This has been codified and has been extended to what now is known as the "impact agenda". This type of extreme end goal focused endavour, undermines the entire process of knowlegde generation. However, what is worst of all, that it is so deeply ingrained in the system, that the people operating within academia are both blind to its corrupting effect, and cannot think of a science and research envrionemnt without it. Henceforth, what happens - psychologically - is that any type of criticism is moralised as "science deniers" or "conspirarcy theorists", pre-empting the impetues for self-reflection.

[@whatnow9653]

It does not matter the discipline, once bonuses are introduced most people start producing bonuses rather than the thing, because no matter the discipline people are people.

[@EbenBransome]

It does show that the economists and game theorists who came up with "perverse incentives" were entirely correct.

[@JB-fh1bb]

And it gets so much worse when the people in charge of the grants have an agenda 📉

[@lesseirgpapers9245]

Honestly the science was failing since the Analen of Physics were bought 1898.

[@J-Kimble]

I have a degree in psychology, and while it's not a STEM branch, I wrote parts of my thesis on scientific fraud, and junk-science. Without getting into the details, one of the biggest problems that I (and many other researchers) discovered is that (in most fields) there is little or no reporting on negative results/failed experiments. Papers only publish novel results. While this in itself is not a problem it's incredibly wasteful. I was arguing on establishing a database for failed experiments or null-results, where researchers can explore what was already tried and didn't work. This way a lot of (unintentional) replication of failed results can be avoided and experiments can be better adjusted. We'd also have a fuller picture of phenomena and potentially we could explore more thorough reasoning through seeing more clearly what worked and what didn't.

[@wanderer7480]

Good point

[@fepeerreview3150]

Excellent idea. I could see a specific journal just for this purpose.

[@ryantaylor7078]

We need people like you to partner up and make a YT vid exposing this. Sabine has opened a door, but I think we must walk through and drive it home.

[@egghead55425]

That is a great idea!

[@laserlight568]

Failure should be considered a data point.

[@tddybr78]

Please keep talking about the issues in science. Reform is desperately needed.

[@A1G-v1u]

i'm very sorry to say this, but that has 0% probability of happening, without much greater socio-economic reforms...

[@kaio0777]

correct she right she needs too ii don't care what other people thinks she is right on this point.

[@dudemanismadcool]

Unfortunately it's all by design. These world wars are planned well in advance. There is a reason everyone is giving up on producing quality products right now, hollywood being the shining example. There isn't much point when you are on the door step of world war 3.

[@legro19]

@@A1G-v1u Since our economy is going in the wall at one point or another someone will look at the billions going in physics and ask ''is this well spend money'' and at that point the community will have no choice to respond or see the money go away.

[@A1G-v1u]

@@legro19 i dont see it brother/sister, never underestimate the mental gymnastics and distortion a conditioned mind can produce, and by all evidence, convince foremost its self, and others of its truths, if you try to get the candy away... with its colourful wrappings and all...

[@normduch]

I've recently had to dig into a discipline to change the units used, wherein I've found I have to rewrite the entire foundation just to achieve accurate results that aren't simply "close enough". After noticing this, I think it's time to revisit the foundations of everything - which doesn't take that much time per. While we have some very nice achievements, our constants are shortened and mutated with time to achieve a "close enough", which is why a lot of practical applications suffer from the nuances and have to adjust for some "unknown factor", which gets filled in with some strange theory that's likely not real. Can we please start this discussion? Truly.

[@ZiriYounsi]

As a "professional" (astro)physicist, it's my observation that many scientists are now driven by popular trends and what is most "attractive" to funders. They don't want to undertake any serious research which runs counter to these trends for fear of being ostracised, or simply having the work/paper/proposal rejected (sunken cost). The actual scientific value (knowledge, deeper understanding etc.) seems to be secondary. It could be argued that the path of least resistance, and of greatest opportunity for funding, career advancement, prestige etc., is simply to conform to the status quo and climb the academic greasy pole. As an aside, I remember meeting you many years ago in Frankfurt/FIAS when I was a postdoc, where I was taken aback, and impressed, by your forthrightness! I'm glad you're continuing to raise awareness of these (and other) important issues - thank you.

[@DiegoLopezVlog]

@@ZiriYounsi in many places young students are encouraged to do trendy stuff and disencouraged to do what they would like to do. My friend is doing phd in economics, and was softly forced to do it on behavioral econimics, because its cool and people got Nobel in it.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Hi, industry guy here. What u say just means there's not much carrier in science. Apart from tenured track, most are very ill paid with little chance of growth. Hence the current situation.

[@mark314158]

​@@DiegoLopezVlog I deny that there is a Nobel prize for economics....

[@FrenkieWest32]

I find it amusing how these sort of brash criticisms always seem to paint the person in question as the purist exception. So are you also a victim of this looking for the easy path or are you "one of the good ones"?

[@ZiriYounsi]

Money (and lack thereof) is certainly a big part of the problem, but on a more fundamental level I think this is connected with how academics, academic departments, and universities themselves are evaluated by different bodies (foundations, councils, government bodies etc.). I can only speak for my geographical region and discipline, but the criteria by which productivity and success are measured/quantified today are onerous and problematic. Many of the current problems can be interpreted as academics simply adopting the strategy of maximising these productivity/success metrics for internal/external assessment success (for which the pressure is enormous). Actual, original and long-term research is now a luxury and hobby rather than a prerogative.

[@urbaniv]

I am especially happy that you as a non English native has managed zo get this importance. Every discussion is dominated mostly by US YT and they bring a certain culture and approach to discussions and its good that we get an different approach wih you

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Interesting pov, hadn't considered this at all.

[@andredelacerdasantos4439]

Yeah the US culture is super saturated in science communication. I'm yet to find relevant videos of people talking about climate change in my native language. The people around me all acknowledge the problem, of course, but no one is talking about it and no one knows the nuances.

[@urbaniv]

@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you for the answer and the great work. I just became a member. Servus und schöne Grüße aus Wien

[@daduzadude1547]

@@SabineHossenfelderplease lower your microphone -some of us need to read your lips 😅

[@miersdelika5016]

@@daduzadude1547 So what you're saying is is that Sabine is against deaf people? (jk, that's supposed to be my take on "Professor" Dave logic)

[@courtlandcreekmore1421]

No funnier scientist exists. I have done the math(s).

[@osmosisjones4912]

She still believes climate models that failed for 50 years. She's a physicist who believes trapping heat in a certain area explains why certain areas in that area are cooling

[@DanielMasmanian]

Oh thank f-. Someone who notices that mathematics is plural.

[@SireJoe]

​@@osmosisjones4912 Sabine! We found one!

[@hasanhan900]

It is not all about Math, there is physics going on here too, uncertainty principle of fun states that you cannot measure both the fun factor and the number of scientists at the same time, wait for the video function to collapse ( go viral) then make your measurements again

[@osmosisjones4912]

​@@SireJoechemist have predicted Elements and paleontologist have had expeditions to find predicted specie's and why doesn't she mention 50 years of climate models

[@tobyw9573]

MORE DETAILS, PLEASE, Sabine

[@functionalpatterns]

Thank you, Sabine. In my field, the research cited to justify traditional approaches is complete bullshit at best. The confidence with which therapists, nutritionists, and trainers speak can be nauseating at times. To say I’m a fan is a massive understatement. We need more of you on this planet. Please stick to this path. It’s desperately needed.

[@inveterateforeigner2780]

what's your field?

[@functionalpatterns]

@@inveterateforeigner2780human biomechanics

[@vaguelycertain8968]

One of my hobbies is running, and it's always remarkable to me how little evidence most approaches are based on and how cyclical many trends are

[@instanttregret]

​@@inveterateforeigner2780 sounds like clinical health

[@functionalpatterns]

@@vaguelycertain8968the certainty influencers in my space who say they are “evidence based” is pure insanity. It’s evident in labs under the most controlled scenarios, but people in real life don’t ever see improvements.

[@hi12235]

We got Sabine and Professor Dave beef before GTA 6

[@TheLuminousOne]

Dave's a joke.

[@gustavolopes5094]

Dave treats science like it's his religion. It's really not healthy for anyone involved.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

​@@TheLuminousOne why? Sabine pretty much agreed with him. The difference is, he expects her to be an educator while she doesn't want to be one.

[@pretentious_a_ness]

For my first impressions of that channel. I found it mostly a rage bait shithole that dunks on idiots for easy views. The way Sabine dunks on them is more subtle and intelligent than him.

[@randomizer2240]

"Professor" Dave

[@SHJ_1990]

I think the statement that "science is failing" is a bit too glib - Sabine's real discontent seems to be more narrowly aimed at the most fundamental theoretical physics, and to be fair I don't disagree with her sentiment there. But Sabine is a theorist by training, and I think her view of science is skewed by her background. Just want to present a different point of view, to play devil's advocate if nothing else :P For starters, over the last 50 years there has been tremendous progress in experimental / observational physics, which Sabine herself (too) briefly touches on. This experimental / observational progress has been unprecedented in essentially every field, including astrophysics, cosmology, materials science, photonics, precision metrology, the list goes on. And yes, like Sabine says, even elementary particle physics. Some incredible experimental / observational advances include Bose-Einstein condensates, ultrafast lasers, quantum teleportation, the measurement of several quarks and the Higgs boson, neutrino oscillations, cosmic microwave background, exoplanets, gravitational waves, kilonovae and their production of heavy elements, pulsar timing arrays and other phenomena like pulsar glitches, fast radio bursts, LEDs, orbital angular momentum in light beams, atomic clocks, scanning electron and tunneling microscopes, metamaterials, graphene and its bajillion associated discoveries, new phases of matter, the list goes on. These things have even led to, or otherwise coincided with, major new technologies which have changed our lives, including the internet, and a large variety of associated software / database products, as well as all sorts of materials which we now use in everyday appliances, electronics, vehicles, etc. There has also been significant advancement in data analysis and statistics methods, which has been fueled by the needs of scientists. Machine learning is rapidly changing our world, and this stems from foundational science efforts. And rigorous methods for efficient analysis of enormous datasets have become commonplace with the advent of computers, dramatically changing what can be learned from experimental results. Monte Carlo sampling allows for the use of much more realistic models. The list again goes on. And finally, there has also been exciting theoretical advancement, including in computational physics and applied physics as well as the physics of complex phenomena, which Sabine does not talk much about. This includes simulation of binary black hole mergers, galaxies, methods for computing stochastic processes, gravitational wave emission, astrophysical accretion and jets from compact objects, electromagnetic emission from neutron stars, studies of physical chemistry and complex molecular structure, etc. etc. I got too tired writing this comment to even list all of the things that I was thinking of - this is just to say that there is still a lot going in science that is very productive, even if academia sucks, and the foundations of theoretical physics have been a bit boring. Things could be better, but then again things could be much much worse : )

[@Rex1Mundi]

I think so too, she can be more open to other fields of research, not just her own.

[@alicewyan]

I wanted to point this out too. You did a far better job at it than I ever could. There's tons of good physics happening, it's just not the ultimate-theory-of-everything kind of physics.

[@galileog8945]

Wouldn't it be more honest to say "particle physics is stuck" instead of the grandiose "science is failing" as though she had any idea about science in general?

[@K.A7287]

Actually she mentions this in another previous video. We all understand what she is talking about and she means the same phenomena is a common topic in thd collective behaviour so it can be warned to other fields and group of science community.after all u are being so obssesive about one person.Sabine can talk about a phenomena to discuss a problem worth being noted.so why should she be 💯 right.I think she has been more than enough.

[@galileog8945]

@@K.A7287 Can you try this again in English?

[@Imyourzero90]

The answer to progressing lies in realizing after 100 years of physics coming up empty on unification the answer is NOT right in front of us. Was it Holmes that said when all probable solutions are exhausted the answer must be improbable, paraphrased of course.

[@flagmichael]

With half a century of troubleshooting in my past, I thoroughly despise that concept. We never know when the last possible answer is presented, so jumping the gun has a very high probability of being convinced of our error being the right answer. Until we know what the proposed answer is we have no way of measuring its probability.

[@daynecreveling7623]

I know nothing, but it all has to do with Gravity somehow. Further, the idea that there is nothing in the vacuum of space, and also an interstellar medium, and also the 'pressure' that dictates how fast waves can go (some value that is or the same as the cosmological constant?) means that the universe, even the 'empty' space, is made of 'stuff'. Call it Aether, a field, whatever but if it's there and you have to account for it in mathematics, please stop telling me there is nothing there. But, as I said, I know nothing.

[@andykrull9297]

Science is evidence based; funding is eminence based.

[@carmenmccauley585]

Good one.

[@kevinbill9574]

The entire problem is that science has stopped being evidence based. Every area of intellectual life has been infected by the same mind worm that seems to be behind wokeness. Everything is a proxy argument for deeply held personal philosophies

[@kmbbmj5857]

Perhaps. But as someone who has been on review panels for grant funding, often it seems funding is BS based. As in the one who can BS the best gets the most votes.

[@YourFriendlyGApilot]

​@@kmbbmj5857having been on many of those same panels, absolutely yes. It also has a very random component (i.e. who are the three-five random people that get to review a given grant..).

[@quasarsupernova9643]

I disagree. Science and funding both ought to be evidence based. But sadly both are eminence based..

[@TheActionLab]

wait, so Sabine is my sister?? Sweet.

[@mike-jn5ot]

The "theactionlab" channel is Shiite 🤡

[@ςγτε]

Wow ActionLab ! Collab with her

[@AS-zc8mr]

that made you my brother. Coooool

[@Skibbityboo0580]

Claim its true now, prove it later.

[@truerthanyouknow9456]

The Thanksgiving dinner conversation will be awesome this year. You bring the snark and I’ll bring the disdainful side eye.

[@mhm5906]

As someone who has followed you for about four years, I’m very eager to hear your insights on these problems in physics. It would also be incredibly helpful, as I’m currently a physics graduate student. Thank you for all these years of guidance and education.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for the feedback!

[@akhilalpha]

​@@SabineHossenfelderOH NOW THIS MAD FURIOUS LADY HAS HER OWN SET UP LIKE A PROFESSIONAL SO CALLED SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS. GOOD PRETENDING TO BE GOOD, BUT FROM THE BOTTOM OF HELL, WE KNOW THIS LADY IS GOOD FOR SCIENCE. I rarely seen a person, that too a lady so furious to get the science on right track like a bad mummy. GOOD MOM FOR SCIENCE bad kids. KEEP ON modern science MOM. KEEP SLAPPING THESE NERD PHYSICS KIDS, WHO DO ANYTHING TO GET TAX PAYERS FUNDED GRANT CHOCKLETS. NOW ITS ENOUGH, SOME MOM ANY WHERE HAS TO RAISE HER VOICE AND HANDS. THIS LADY MOM IS PERFECT FOR THESE GRANT KIDS/ RETIRED SO CALLED PHYSICIST. keep your bitter words onn for good of science. OLD SCIENTISTS, NO NEED TO HURT HER. she is doing it for good of physics and NEXT GENERATION PHYSICISTS. KEEO IT ON WIERD MOM.

[@tnndll4294]

@@SabineHossenfelder Your written response to Professor Dave is being hidden. Is that KZbin or Dave's doing?

[@ordinaryrat]

@@tnndll4294 KZbin's doing. KZbin has it that if a comment gets enough dislikes or engagement without likes its considered unpopular and moved to the bottom of the comment section (if you scroll to the bottom you will see negative comments (if they exist and the video is popular enough to make the negative comments unpopular). Its because her comment got many many responses quickly enough that it tricked the algorithm to think her comment was incredibly unpopular and moved it to the very bottom. Its still there, just very very far down. I think Dave should of just pinned it to fix the whole issue. He can still access the comment and there are links to it so I have no idea why he hasn't.

[@mcbaggins12]

​@@SabineHossenfelderyou don't trust scientists anymore? I don't trust you to give me non hyberbolic science info anymore if you continue to make statements like this. If you want to call out real problems and concerns in academia, you really need to watch yourself from becoming too extreme. But that's not where the money is, is it? Ironic. Subscribed for the science, unsubscribed for the conspiracy theory anti science pandering that pretends to be real criticism about a genuine problem. You really do just come across as someone who is only so vocally against this because you got rejected from being a part of the club

[@frankwalders]

At 4:30, you speculate about other sciences making things up and then try to prove it, but Sabine... they don’t do that. When you simply Google the last 10 scientific breakthroughs, you’ll find that they are quite profound.

[@rubikscubeearf6218]

@@frankwalders this is why her opinions should be entirely ignored. She isn’t trying to be rational or reasonable, she’s specifically stoking anti-science rhetoric and she knows very well that she’s doing it. Lying and obfuscating just goes to show you how far she has sunk. It’s quite disgusting.

[@john_michael_white]

@@rubikscubeearf6218 She's a crank, and that's all of it. She failed at physics and assumes her inadequacy must point to physics itself being broken. She should be ashamed of herself, but she has none.

[@DustRustRapture]

@@rubikscubeearf6218 this is how a fringe crackpot is born, she is just going "everyone else is wrong I am right" just bitter about poor employment luck, well that can happen to any scientist across the fields, should have gotten over it, now they are stuck this way since they've generated a following to convince them they're on the right track. a completed circle.

[@rubikscubeearf6218]

@@john_michael_white it’s incredible how obvious it is, but look at the responses in this video! These people are cheering her on. Many of them are claiming they have science degrees and have seen the same things. Nobody is saying the institutions of science are perfect or ideal, but it is a far cry away from saying they’re failing. The way her rhetoric has turned around in the last year or so is absolutely bizarre. Really calls into question her motivations.

[@joakimlindblom8256]

@@rubikscubeearf6218 Yes, I think she has become beholden to the KZbin algorithm where her "science is bad/failing" are getting significantly greater views than her more normal science communications videos. This has unfortunately happened to a number of science KZbinrs. One of the absolutely worst offenders is John Campbell, who was semi-reasonable until his anti covid Vaccine videos exploded in views, and now he only spreads blatant covid disinformation :(

[@MlokKarel]

Don't change, Sabine, ever. 😊

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thank you for your support!

[@JimPaul0627]

And don't read the comments. Oh, you just did.

[@khosrowanushirwan7591]

​@@SabineHossenfelderIn India we have a saying where people posses the same ideas that place is full of rotten minds. Keep up the good work the day scientists stop disagreeing that day science is dead.

[@krautsky]

"Don't change, Sabine, ever." Bad advice, and I am polite here. Not changing is what happened to physics, stuck in a rut, unable to grow. To change is to learn and adapt to new situations and work with new ideas. To change is to live. Even rocks change.

[@akhilalpha]

OH NOW THIS MAD FURIOUS LADY HAS HER OWN SET UP LIKE A PROFESSIONAL SO CALLED SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS. GOOD PRETENDING TO BE GOOD, BUT FROM THE BOTTOM OF HELL, WE KNOW THIS LADY IS GOOD FOR SCIENCE. I rarely seen a person, that too a lady so furious to get the science on right track like a bad mummy. GOOD MOM FOR SCIENCE bad kids. KEEP ON modern science MOM. KEEP SLAPPING THESE NERD PHYSICS KIDS, WHO DO ANYTHING TO GET TAX PAYERS FUNDED GRANT CHOCKLETS. NOW ITS ENOUGH, SOME MOM ANY WHERE HAS TO RAISE HER VOICE AND HANDS. THIS LADY MOM IS PERFECT FOR THESE GRANT KIDS/ RETIRED SO CALLED PHYSICIST. keep your bitter words onn for good of science. OLD SCIENTISTS, NO NEED TO HURT HER. she is doing it for good of physics and NEXT GENERATION PHYSICISTS. KEEO IT ON WIERD MOM.

[@BeesKneesBenjamin]

My background is electrical engineering, it's crazy to see how problem solving went from designing ingenious new components and circuit topologies to "digitize asap and slap it into a microcontroller" way of thinking. I remember from university, they quite aggressively went to boycott most older technologies, you're nudged to solve every problem in the digital domain and you're technically told to reject whatever paper from the past since it is useless and outdated anyways. I ended up specializing myself in the analog domain purely at home as a hobby, but it ended up being the entire reason I got hired. Piles of "dated" lab equipment being thrown in the trash for not having touchscreens, being completely oblivious about the past, complaining about budget etc. They collectively killed an entire field of electrical engineering, but people fail to realize the guys who ARE doing most of the design in the analog domain WILL be retiring in a decade or two. Papers became quite unrepeatable, often I run into circuitry where simply the parts for conditioning a signal to put it safely into a microcontroller could've entirely taken over the TASK of the microcontroller to begin with. Why did your electronics become unreliable? It's not planned obsolescence, its because in most cases we get actively taught to design crap with as many stupid functionalities as possible, whilst using over complicated chips resulting in circuits 10000 times the transistor count than they technically need to have. "People landed on the moon with a computer the power of a pocket calculator" yeah, plus the million analog subsystems that did the majority of the heavy lifting where the majority of the literature ended up into archives. Innovation nowadays feels like problem solving, not through having a good brainstorm session, but by scaling up everything, faster clocks, more cores, wider buses, but little optimization. Both technologies can coexist, I get digital stuff is more approachable, but academics should know better and also provide the stuff people sometimes don't want to study because it is necessary. Another LARGE issue is there's no space to test good and actually innovative new ideas. You can't write a paper anymore where you show something that doesn't work, it MUST be a success. The easiest way to guarantee this success is by taking a known technology and do the absolute slightest optimization. Sometimes there needs to be space for fundamental change, but in the end, most of the "innovative" stuff has been proven, sometimes as far as a century ago, literally one or two decades after linear amplification becoming possible after the invention of the triode. If you completely neglect the knowledge of your predecessors using devices and schematic symbols that you've never worked with or seen before, papers in this domain became entirely unreadable and not understandable, obviously it's gonna be neglected. It results in reinventing the wheel for the millionth time. Research becomes super inefficient if you can not make use of the work of your predecessors. I wonder where our field is going to go once the old guys retire. I'm eternally grateful for my parents, radio amateurs, and colleagues for actively investing in me to really provide the materials and resources to dive deep into this field autonomously. One way I'm a bit excited for the wrong reasons, as the specialization becomes scarcer, the job opportunities will increase severely. The other way, I feel tech is going to eventually really stagnate and plateau. As long as people keep using as an excuse that all the easy stuff was invented, whilst 60 years ago they were building entire colour television sets with the use of less active devices than what's now in one of the many singular modern opamps used just in the audio circuit of a modern television, the motivation to think out of the box just went out of the window. I'm still stuck in the academic system, I am not going to give up not getting a good title as that's what seems to matter most nowadays, but I can tell you, the most talented guys that could've changed the world I met during my time at uni almost all ended up losing their minds and got either kicked out, burnt out, made massive career changes or in some rare cases, ended their lives. I can mindlessly trust whatever paper being written in the 80s and before to be true and repeatable, but if you do not personally know an author of a modern paper in this field, you should take the results with a grain of salt. Although I do have to say, research became so incredibly specific, I barely stumble upon anything thats both useful and recently written XD

[@mikethe1wheelnut]

..wow I just learned a lot. and I've only read two paragraphs..

[@axle.student]

I felt all gooey and warm from the way you said "Analog" :P

[@jessicav2031]

To be fair, we all know the race to put every feature into an MCU and/or "highly integrated" IC packages is about cost, both per-device and development. What you have is a situation where hard problems used to be solved every time, but now they are only solved once and everyone can reuse the solution. This is exactly the same as the rise of libraries in programming. Yes, the side effect of hard problems being rarely solved is that few people get practice solving hard problems, but it is vastly more efficient. I also have to nitpick your point about reliability. Bloated software contributes to unreliability and/or reduced lifespan (especially products that rely on some junky "app") but in my experience the mere use of an MCU does not, even at modern small process sizes. The MCU itself is by far the least frequent failure point in a modern product. Indeed, 1980s and 1990s ICs were greatly more vulnerable to failure due to poorer integrated protection and less reliable processes. In my experience, the main reason electronics are less reliable is smaller package sizes (and leadfree process of course). Everything is physically weaker, contamination is much more likely to affect the entire joint, and no-lead packages are inherently vulnerable to differential thermal expansion fatigue.

[@mistermiau9949]

Zgadzam się z tobą obecny system opiera się na wkuwamiu wiedzy bez jej zrozumienia więc ktoś potem mówi co wie, zamiast wiedzieć co mówi.

[@piotrd.4850]

AMEN. And before long, as microcontroller = PC from few years back with heap of badly written Software-as-Service , we'll see "Blackout" novel scenario or worse. Long time ago friend of mine said, that it was hard to find people in analogue or mixed-signal design.

[@ascohn]

You're better than a cheerleader for science - you're science's best friend who loves it enough to tell it if it stays on its present course, it will get thrown in jail for drunk driving.

[@insidiousfate5154]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 you're jewish

[@osmosisjones4912]

Why no mention of 50 years ago climate models and chemist have predicted Elements and paleontologist have had expeditions for specie's they predicted

[@notanemoprog]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 You are the only actual tool here.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@notanemoprog Wow, look at that! This person claims that Science is failing, yet he can’t even come up with an actual counter-argument! Another hypocrite fails…

[@notanemoprog]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Did you just assume my gender? You ghastly bigot.

[@Ben-ql2pr]

This video as a response to Dave's critique video is a real problem for me. I've been watching all of Sabine's videos consistently for perhaps a year or so... and just looked past the rhetoric. But Using a video entitled Science is Failing in response to what Dave had to say couldn't have emphasized his point, or Sabine's complicity, any more clearly. I'm sorry Sabine, but this is a deal breaker for me.

[@0NeverEver]

Dave is a bully and profeesional manhunter with videos that often consist 30 percent of ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks have no place in science. If you are a fan of Daves style... well people always look for excuses to bully and doing it "in the name of science" seems to become a popular one. Sabine already had her fair share of bullying through males so please decampe.

[@homerjnick]

Me too....unsubscribed.

[@ericcorrea1901]

I had been feeling this way and skipping through her videos. Dave nailed it and then she plays right i to it. I too unsubscribed, but she probably got two anti-vaxxers to subscribe in my place. She could have been a hero.

[@johnjordan3314]

@Ben-ql2pr Same. Sabine had a bad experience with her own scientific career and now wants to burn down the entire house for YT clicks

[@tjs8433]

I agree, I haven't been watching her stuff regularly but the stuff I've seen is sensationalized and unrepresentative

[@KonroBane]

As a biologist, I feel for you. Our questions are much easier to answer because our systems are so much more malleable. We can delete a gene and see the effect. I can't imagine how it is to work on such a non-malleable system.

[@euanthomas3423]

OTOH your systems are extremely complex, e.g. the brain - which is also difficult to experiment on for ethical reasons.

[@pacman-x3m]

Yet biologists don’t know anything about Life: what, where, when, why, how…

[@seandavidson2149]

Unfortunately, the problem isn't limited to physics. See: Ioannidis JPA et al PLoS Med 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Epub 2005 Aug 30. Why most published research findings are false

[@ide94]

@@pacman-x3m Consider reading a biology book?

[@TomdeArgentina]

I think the idea is physicists pose it as if it were very malleable.

[@moors710]

I received my Physics Master of Science degree in 1983. I did not like the constraints of academics at that time, so I went into weapons design( a common thing in the cold war). I found far more money and far more latitude in what I did as I solved problems that had not been solved in 40 years of direct research. In the cold war weapons business we were not paid for research , but output of novel designs to outpace the other guys. The competition was in production of specific devices and it really showed advancement. When I defeated the evil empire ( I did have some help from a few hundred million other people) the contracts and the jobs ended. I went back to school to get my PhD, but found such obtuse behavior in academics holding to theories long abandoned in the weapons design business. When I tried to introduce the working theories from weapons industries,I was told that those ideas were misinterpretations and I had to be "reeducated" . The research of these thousands of researchers was buried under secret classification and so was dismissed by academics as unpublished drivel . I am not the only one with this experience as several other people I worked with had similar experiences.

[@takanara7]

That's actually fascinating.

[@TomdeArgentina]

Maybe this is why DARPA hosts meetings to propose futuristic science and their possible implication in the weapons race.

[@95percentair]

wow. thank you for defeating the evil empire

[@nightmareTomek]

This is a human mindset, "either you agree with our methods or you have to be reeducated", somewhat religious or cult like, and even science hasn't gotten rid of it. I'm not even surprised.

[@candyman4769]

If there is anything you are allowed to say about it, I’m curious what scientific theories you were talking about being genuinely outdated.

[@eddiet7473]

I hate it when others say you shouldn't criticize the institution of academic physics because it causes others to lose trust in it. They are more concerned about the optics of science rather than the integrity of it.

[@toymaker3474]

MM was null. null is the not the same thing as disproven. u want to "fix" physics... its easy light need REQUIRES a medium. waves are NOT things. THeir way of thinking if fundamentally flawed. like they say bad data in bad data out.

[@chrisdistant9040]

This isn’t the criticism at all. Criticisms is great! But titles like “I don’t trust Scientists” are not. See the difference?

[@paintspot1509]

​@@chrisdistant9040 100% this.

[@panzer00]

​@@chrisdistant9040 why would a title stating, "I don't trust scientists," be problematic? If we have verifiable reasons to not trust scientists (some or all) why is that a problem? I dont trust Fauci and I have the evidence for my distrust to back it; why would that be a problem?

[@aaronmicalowe]

@@chrisdistant9040 That's a feature of KZbin. If you don't clickbait, your video never gets recommended.

[@bohenriksson2330]

I started doing the Science program in our local “gymnasium” as its called in Sweden in 1976. What I learned kept me in good stead through the years and I’ve tried to keep up with it. But what is new? I don’t see much, at least that is understandable to a layman like me.

[@MarkAitken-kn6xi]

The French diarist Anais Nin stated we don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. It is an easy trap to fall into and it sure looks like it might apply here. I applaud your calling it out. Keep it up!

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Love that quote, thanks for sharing!

[@uthman2281]

​@@SabineHossenfelder Das Problem mit der Subjektivität. Wir können der Subjektivität nicht entkommen.

[@uthman2281]

​@@SabineHossenfelder Ich mag sehr Ihre Arbeit.

[@DanielMasmanian]

She said a lot of other things. Not all can be quoted here.

[@drbuckley1]

Anyone who quotes Anaïs Nin is okay by me!

[@IvanH0h0h0h0]

When I was a grad student I was working in an area that another scientist was working in. For baby steps, I replicated his results and gained experience with the analytic tools. When it came to three or four papers I could not replicate the results - not exactly but close. That gap was the difference between yawn & wow. One of my mentors looked at the papers and said " That was just before he was up for tenure review and was publishing tons of papers. Don't put too much stock in them."

[@ekstrajohn]

ouch… that sucks

[@geometerfpv2804]

Yup. And many researchers ONLY publish in this way. They don't know how to do real work with integrity, it was never the goal.

[@kellylegan]

This is the thing that scares me! When I search literature (as a grad student in physics at the moment) for more information about my field, there’s always a part of my brain that worries… what can I reliably trust here? How can I really know? It’s discouraging.

[@mannygee005]

heh he...

[@nomennudum4592]

In medical science no one ever believes an original result until it has been replicated at least twice by reputable groups. There are many reasons for that, and not all are discreditable. There are just many more variables than we really know the significance of.

[@flinn1946]

Way back in the 60s and 70s the great scientist Sir Fred Hoyle was bemoaning the fact that it was becoming very difficult for a bright young person in academia to do original research because any elaborate project usually had to be vetted by an equally elaborate committee whose senior members were determined to keep youngsters working along standard lines.

[@adamwho9801]

At every time it is easy to look backwards and notice that the lower hanging fruit has always been picked.

[@dufkers]

Fred Hoyle in later life supported the steady state universe, was a proponent of panspermia and baselessly claimed that the fossil of archaeopteryx was fake. He is not the best person to be referring to for support.

[@MySamurai77]

Hoyle was a bitter resentful old man after his steady state theory got busted. Academics can be petty and emotional.

[@TheGuyCalledX]

Paraphrasing Max Planck: "Science progresses one funeral at a time." In this case, Hoyle's funeral led to a lot of progress

[@DrPowerElectronics]

A great hero of mine. Right or wrong, science should be a matter of discussion and not dogma. But it’s become dogma, like a religion.

[@RmAndrei93]

I studies phsychology and the amount of articles discovering things that we have known for over 50+ years is incredible

[@dennismajor1]

The thing that reassures me about Sabine and her critiques of the science community(as her brother I can be familiar by using her first name) is her rigorous and frequent use of the phrase ‘I could be wrong’. Humility is an ‘if and only if’ condition for avoiding doing science for one’s ego versus doing it solely as a means of searching out new knowledge.

[@DanielMasmanian]

I'm guessing that's the only time a comment gets a heart and a hug

[@chrisanderson687]

I love that Dr. Hossenfelder's actual brother replied!

[@osmosisjones4912]

Why no mention of 50 years of climate models

[@notanemoprog]

@@DanielMasmanian You guessed wrong.

[@Mr.Anders0n_]

Be honest, growing up with her, were you able to win any arguments with her?

[@meleardil]

Science is not failing. Academia is failing. Many scientists just go and work for the private sector now.

[@adamwebster1666]

Exactically right. Too much of academia believes they *are* the science, and too many scientists mistake academic conventions (i.e. papers, peer review and publishing) for actual science. I appreciate the good and thoughtful ones like Sabine that recognize this problem.

[@michaelkelly3239]

You have discovered the The Root Cause, please now work on the southern border!

[@byronwilliams7977]

Fundamental science is done by academia, the private sector doesn't do any as far as I know.

[@MrMillefail]

"Particle physics" is failing. My sister is a biochemist, i assure you her lab is well funded and her salary is good enough, for her. A third of what the private sector is offering though.

[@Sweenus987]

@@Grauenwolf Physics underpins everything in the universe so you could argue that it is indeed failing in all areas :P

[@innuendo70]

Wow, as a data person I knew fields like medicine and nutritional science have problems like this (statistical significance basically means strong evidence, needed research is impossible for ethical reasons, and most in the field don't seem to realize that "placebo effects" are pretty much indistinguishable from the unavoidable regression to mean effect that results from RCT selection criteria), but a field that uses 5 sigma as lower bound, has no statistically questionable methods like RCTs with RTM guarantee, and have no ethical considerations that keep alternate hypothesis from getting tested? Wow. I think if physics is in trouble, then what field isn't?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Nutritional science is an interesting example, never looked at that. Thanks for the suggestion!

[@Widestone001]

@@SabineHossenfelder Based on what I see, hear and read nutritional science seems to be mostly what you know as "Kaffeesatzlesen". Or following whoever sponsors you most: The original food pyramid seems to have been heavily sponsored. I won't say by whom to not influence your research though - also, I don't remember. 😀

[@innuendo70]

@@Widestone001 There are I think two types of research in nutrition. Nutritional epidemiology and RCTs that are supposed to be the "golden standard". I don't think they are because of the RTM problem and the fact that they target seemingly random but "easy" surrogate end points such as BMI. The epidemiology branch has its own issues with self-reported data and papers that list loads of "adjusted for" variables without even a hint at a causal diagram. For both, the found correlations are "way" below the 5 sigma significance that physics uses, even for those bits of knowledge they are the most certain about. In the Netherlands, where I live, all of public policy seems to be based around three surrogate endpoints; BMI, blood pressure and LDL blood markers, each of which is correlated (somewhat) to health outcomes. LDL links to another interesting and I feel, questionable, subject in medicene because the strongest evidence for LDL as a suitable surrogate endpoints seems to be mendalian randomization. Randomization through the shuffling of genetic material throughout the population. But when you look into family trees of people doing genealogy, but also when you look into the actual mechanisms, it seems that mendelian randomization might be the world's worst croupier so to speak in terms of actual randomization. It makes sense that they can't do (much) better because of ethical considerations. Can't put a few thousand people on a diet of lard and butter for a decade to test if half of them die from heart desease. Put this all together, and physics looks like it has got its shit together pretty good. Quite an eye opener to see that even physics with its solid maths and 5 sigma significance has major problems too. Makes you wonder if there is any field of science that doesn't have major problems.

[@friendlyone2706]

@@SabineHossenfelder There was an essay several years back that showed how every healthy nutrition trend didn't work in English speaking enclaves, with the conclusion it wasn't the food that Americans ate that made them sick. It was speaking English. The humorous article was both accurate and reflective of the way stats are used in nutritional studies.

[@nictamer]

@@SabineHossenfelder Gary Taubes wrote the book on the topic. He also wrote books on other bad science, like Cold Fusion.

[@mishasbar]

Hm, didn't expect ads in this one. But it's the author's right, of course.

[@JohnnStr1]

We need more people like this telling us truth! Just finished reading The 23 Former Doctor Truths by Lauren Clark. Its fascinating what they hide from society.

[@micahfoley9572]

Can i ask you something, my man? how do you know that what she's saying is true? What are you basing that conclusion on? It can't be her, cuz she's making the claim. So what then? Not calling you out, genuinely curious.

[@marting1056]

was this book before or after "Dancing Naked in Dixie"?

[@felixmoore6781]

I prefer facts to truth.

[@Lord_Wellhung]

I can't decide what is more annoying about this woman....her German porn accent, or narcistic, condescending attitude. She just radiates bitter sarcasm and frustration because she failed to become a real scientist. I hope she stops popping up in my KZbin recommendations.

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

The truth, or what you want to hear?

[@alphaomega5001]

I've reviewed over 80 papers on Elsevier and most of them have math errors or incorrect assumptions. I'm saddened by the state of science these days.

[@DwayneHicksCpl]

Ah the perils of the “I couldn’t care less” peer review process. I’m always shocked when I compare the three comments of another reviewer to the multiple pages of comments I submitted. It’s a flawed system.

[@donnasummer6285]

I once reviewed a paper that claimed amazing results….the author had used an incorrect two particle Schroedinger equation…which the author insisted was correct .

[@nil981]

Science is absolutely fucked.

[@DiegoLopezVlog]

Revievers of academic papers are not paid. Writers of those papers are not paid. Who gets money? Publisher. Publisher doesnt give a damn about quality of papers. For publisher everything that matters is sales.

[@justaguy3518]

I have seem so many medical and pharmaceutical papers with terrible statistical mistakes. You'd think they would be extra careful because they deal directly with people's lives, but no. It's infuriating

[@DanielSilva-cq6vz]

The amount of papers being published also dramatically increased during the 40s. Whereas before one could keep up with everything being published, now it's humanly imposible to track even a tiny fraction of it all, and 80% of papers don't get even 5 mentions. Even if a groundbreaking paper is published, if it comes from an unkown physist just like Albert Einstein was prior to 1905, it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever read it.

[@InXLsisDeo]

> Even if a groundbreaking paper is published, if it comes from an unkown physist just like Albert Einstein was prior to 1905, it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever read it. I am not sure that's true.

[@borodel619]

Agree. Just ask chat gtp. Is much easier.

[@galileog8945]

Absolutely false. There has been a lot of research NOT coming from top labs, and it has been read and reproduced. Possibly what does not get read or noticed is just crap?

[@manuel_ao]

While I agree on your first part (I find it hard to keep track of everything that's published in my field), I believe that your second part does not hold. In our working field we know which are the prestigious Journals to check out regularly (plus we have nature & science for the even more groundbreaking stuff), plus we get alerts for citations on our own publications (a groundbreaking article will cite the previous knowledge). If you are an unknown scientist and have made a groundbreaking work, apart from contacting an expert in the field to be sure, you can send it to one of these Journals and it should be accepted, if it is well proven. And if you are unlucky with the editor or with the reviewers, which can happen, you can submit to another one.

[@flagmichael]

I'm a dinosaur at age 72. I have been dedicated to actual science - employment of the scientific method - since it was introduced to me in grade school in 1963. The experience was intensified because it was very near the more visceral experience of the Cuban Missile Crisis with daily air raid drills... get under the tiny plastic deaths until the "all clear" siren sounded. I have learned more recently that all of us wondered if the bombs were not as as powerful as we were told, not knowing that the big goals were to control chaos in the event of a Real Thing and to more easily identify remains. Anyway, science was my path to a brighter future of troubleshooting (48 years living the dream), so I feel very strongly about science. The requirements are clear enough: state the theory in the form of a testable question; state the testing process; perform the test; evaluate the results. Theoretical physics is simply not a good field for that sort of science, so we are asked to accept hand-waving in various amounts. In my view, science hardly exists at all in modern physics. How could it, when we acknowledge it is "theoretical" physics?

[@Nat-oj2uc]

Imaginary physics

[@jimreed87]

Please keep doing this like you're talking to your brother. (I come armed with a degree in Electrical Engineering and a minor in Physics.) As others have already said, your honesty in calling out B S is a very large part of what makes your channel worth watching.

[@paintspot1509]

That's the problem though isn't it. This isn't very honest.

[@jimreed87]

@paintspot1509 Please clarify what you mean by "this" and explain what's not honest about it.

[@paulboulanger5]

@@jimreed87 Clickbait titles like "Science is failing".

[@eyeq7730]

@@paulboulanger5 I agree with this 100%. I start to snarl at the monitor now when I see my new favorite educational channel go from Informative vids/informative Title to 'OMG the Universe is going to End' coupled with the obligatory wide open mouth etc within a few months of gaining traction.They've all become clones of each other. Obviously click bait works, because why would a creator do this to themselves, it looks juvenile in my opinion. They must notice a shift in viewers when they change to this tactic. I'm sure there will be studies on various Internet sales tactics like this some day!

[@jimreed87]

Thanks for the clarification. It's a fair criticism.

[@TimeFlies-d8b]

As a physicist, I can confirm this is the norm today.

[@xokelis0015]

And yet, normies will sit there and complain about not having enough government money being allocated to science. When in reality government money comes with strings attached, and are generally wasted because rent seeking scientists milk tax payer money with nothing to show for it for their entire careers.

[@nkristianschmidt]

Because stupid funding is the norm.

[@RegularChatter-h1o]

Prove it anonymous Einstein.

[@xokelis0015]

@@RegularChatter-h1o Physics hasn't progressed in 70 years. There. Proved. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[@TheApplications1]

Most science are atheists. The big bang, big one human weak terms they believe earth and universe came from accident or nothing and until now cant find life outside planet earth. Still the life will survive and live inside our planet. And now cloud seed, climate change, man made weak terms human caused natural disast but until now no humans liable for criminal case because of disaster no evidence. All happening in our world are biblical facts dont add or add. Dont deceive by evil brainwashed believed in lies.

[@HughPryor]

About 20 years ago I got into an argument with a string theorist after I said I was a "Loop Quantum Gravitist". I had just read an article in New Scientist magazine about Loop Quantum Gravity. We continued our discussion for a good pint of beer with him absolutely convinced that I was a physicist. When I admitted i was just an artist after the conversation got a little out of my depth, he was noticeably furious, and I felt it was time to leave. Aside from feeling a little guilty for winding someone up, i was surprised by how easy it was to convincingly talk the talk about something i had just read about in a popular science magazine.

[@joedellinger9437]

New Scientist magazine is THAT good! :-)

[@justinwalker4475]

which is exactly why you lot live in a dream world

[@justinwalker4475]

the rest of us just enjoy life... peace :)

[@justinwalker4475]

we know there's stuff going on behind the scenes we just do not get worked up over it have a beer

[@hrzzzzzzz]

From the first half of that sentence, I half expected a Douglas Adams type joke. With a bit of editing, I think it could be.

[@richardmcbroom102]

My theory starts with a singularity where everything is connected into a single mass that initially divides into two, like in cell division, but with smaller masses with each division, united by proto-gravity. (Gravity and light were indistinguishable in the beginning.) If in choosing between the two, one of the theories contains a “unwanted message,” that “everything is connected,” then the former theory would be preferred (with blinders on), thereby conceivably allowing a misinformed majority to be manipulated for power and selfish gain by a elite minority.

[@ericberman4193]

Some would call it “lack of nuance”, while others would call it “complete honesty”. Thank God for your lack of so-called “nuance”!!!

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

The honest position is always the nuanced one. Unfortunately, you’ve set up a false dichotomy.

[@osmosisjones4912]

Chemist have predicted Elements and Set and performed test to find them and paleontologist have predicted specie's. And how doesn't mention climate model

[@oakpope]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Not always. Death penalty is barbaric and there is no nuance which could be more honest.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@oakpope Really? Would a death penalty be barbaric for a dictator? How about a genocidal maniac?

[@chrisanderson687]

Nuance is great when there is time and attention for it. Sometimes we have to boil important truths down to the basics. This is hard, let's accept that.

[@mariodegroote6756]

dear Sabine, im an old man, i seen many greed and lies in my life, more nowadays.... politics, religion, science, greed lies smokescreens, and then there is you. let me be clear about this. you are a summer breeze in all of this, honnest, open, direct, no crap, no bullshit, tellem like it is. lot of what you say is what i see everywhere reflected. and good people shoved out if they dont play "the game along". like you. i been working with victims of all kinda agression half of my life, people who didnt even had an honnest chance at a life because of the greed and lies. i respect what you do and how you do it, and if there is a fight, im on your side dear sabine, im also a stubbern man, i dont give in neither. my deepest respect sabine for what you do there.

[@Victorious_Victoria]

I can see your age from the poeticness in your soul.

[@ft7339]

I am 79 and I feel not a single day as beeing old! I wonder if I will be still alive when humans go to Mars, I am happy waiting Sabine's next video, I am happy when I can follow the Mathologer on YT and can follow how for example "i!" is calculated, I am happy when following the best Chess channels, I am happy when I play a good tournement of Bridge, I am happy when reading a good philosophical book, etc., etc,´.. So if you are not to old (then you have my respect), my wish for you is, don't waste time complaining about the past, enjoy your knowledge and wisdom and if you cannot do anything other, than try to evolute your soul! or, if you still can read, I recommend "Seneca, De brevitate vitae" (in english of course if you don't can read Latin!!).. I wish you all the best for your future life!

[@7secularsermons]

It's not just in science, it's also in the humanities, architecture and even poetry. The problem is that hiring and tenure committee members are selected among insiders who have self-interest, and therefore incentives other than those of non-insiders; especially to avoid devastating fundamental criticism.

[@FoxBatinaHat]

Nepotism destroying all these institution. Lovely.

[@joansparky4439]

_"who have self-interest, and therefore incentives other than those of non-insiders"_ AAND because of that this isn't restricted to science.. THIS. IS. EVERYWHERE. It's right at the core of our societies. It is what causes the repeated falls of civilization. I call it: Monopolism - a societal ideology in which the rule enforcing framework benefits a few at the cost of the rest.

[@johannjohann6523]

Humanity is on the "downward" spiral thanks to corporate interests, the 2 worse Pharma companies and Oil companies. Did ya know oil wells refill? Yeah, it takes a few years, but they do. Today, Saudia Arabia has 660 Billion more barrels of oil than 4 years ago. Saudia Arabia will NEVER run out of oil. The earth's crust is constantly making new oil or petroleum. Kinda like "lava". Pump it out, and the wells refill. There is so much that has been told as "lies" about oil for the last 100 years all thanks to John D. Rockefeller Owner Standard Oil. And the narrative is not changing. Telsa tried to offer "free" clean, non polluting electricity from the ground, all you need is the correct frequency and an extension cord and you got "free electricity" from your backyard. Every year the earth is hit with 3 billion bolts of lightning. That energy just doesn't "disappear". The earth is a giant capacitor. But we are all going to die from climate change because we burn "fossil fuels" destroying the planet. Well guess what, we don't need to. And a "fossil fuel" is incorrect. It is "carbon based" fuels that create pollution. Take out the carbon and no pollution. If oil was made out of fossils, why isn't it white? And we run our cars on Hydrogen gas. But it has carbon dirtying everything up. Petroleum = 1 Hydrogen + 2 Carbon. Dump the carbon and use pure hydrogen and you get steam out of the tailpipe. Carbon monoxide is the bad stuff. It even has "Carbon" in the name. All this has been known or at least suspected 100 years ago. I could go on about cure for disease (Resonant Frequently, re-discovered in the 1930's) and cancer, same thing. So that is why I say mankind is on the downward spiral, tossing away knowledge for profits of Corporations.

[@doktorjansson]

I am a big fan of yours, you are a fantastic science communicator and I admire your intelligence. I have also found it refreshing that you have been candid in your criticism of the current funding of science and specifically funding of string theorists. However, after listening to prof Dave and your response I have revisited several of your videos on this topic and especially this video where you respond to him. I really think you need to take a step back and look at the image of science you are projecting. I am a medical doctor and my father is a theoretical physicist. The stagnation of theoretical physics is in no way representative of the ongoing explosion of knowledge in my field. Are there problems with the structure of funding in medicine? Yes. Can we do better? Yes. Does that cancel out the enormous steps forward we keep taking? No. Not at all. Can we trust in science and scientists? Yes, to a greater extent than most other fields. This is important, Sabine. Do not use your status and platform to ungroundedly weaponize science diniers. I hope you strive to attract people like me, but if you continue in the spirit of this video you will be left with the nutcase tribe because the rest of us will leave. You are better than this.

[@bobweiram6321]

Why don't you think for yourself instead of being a little hero worshipper? Did you even watch the video? Professor Dave is no dummy and doesn't need you as his ventriloquist. Sabine already responded to his attacks. If science denial is indeed a serious problem, shouldn't Dave save the drama for real offenders such as the MAGA folks? Easy answer. He gets to increase his channel's traffic by sniping Sabine's viewership through an inquisition based on petty semantics. He's merely a self-appointed defender of scientific integrity trying to make a name for himself on KZbin. If you look at Dave's sorry channel, his lecture content has barely any views. It wasn't until he went on his drama spree did his channel start to grow. He preys on individuals he perceives as effete and unlikely to retaliate against him. He wouldn't dare risk his life nor limb attacking MAGA leaders, or the leading purveyor of scientific misinformation, Joe Rogan.

[@Mallchad]

Don't take this the wrong way but medicine is by far one of the worst in terms of messed up paper incentive and incorrect information. I mean like people have actual medical doctors tell them Type-1 diabetes is incurable and saturated fat is terrible for you. It's ridiculous.

[@mk-yt8og]

​@@allenhan8081 the problem with clickbait is that many people won't even click on the video but will instead just leave with the very surface level conclusion (the title, the thumbnail) in their heads. Also in the things she says there is a severe lack of nuance and you can't expect the general viewer to fill said nuance in, especially non-scientists

[@NyteWalker00]

@@allenhan8081 You should watch Prof Dave's video instead of assuming what their very point is. It is not about criticizing Science, Science community, or the current problems with it. Her rhetoric leads to less informed debate, not more. That is his point. She is attempting to bring attention to a very real problem by inviting anti-intellectuals into the conversation who do not have Science's best interest at heart. People who can then derail the conversation from the helpful, "how do we fix this," to the Anti-establishment, anti-intellectual, "this is just broken and needs to go." Science deniers are emboldened by her rhetoric and as she is the one with platform it *is* her responsibility. She doesn't get to pretend like her content isn't causing part of the problem while laughing all the way to the bank.

[@NyteWalker00]

@@allenhan8081 The US just elected an anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-establishment clown for a second term as President. I live in Florida where the governor is an anti-science, anti-intellectual, climate denier who rejects any Science that doesn't conform to his policy agenda or worldview. Do these individuals watch Sabine? Probably not. Does Sabine's rhetoric influence and affirm the confirmation bias of the types of people who vote for those individuals? Almost certainly.

[@vkozyrev]

Personal attacks are always related to the lack of arguments on the attacker's side. It's pretty common nowadays.

[@friendlyone2706]

Always has been. Sadly, because they are easy and they work.😔☹😡

[@jagatiello6900]

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." ― George R.R. Martin

[@samgragas8467]

You dont want to waste your time with people that won't respond to arguments so the choices are personal attacks, laughing at him or ignoring him.

[@kostuek]

Which personal attacks are you talking about?

[@volfan911]

What personal attacks were made? Prof Dave took on Dr. Hossenfelder’s views; he didn’t make personal attacks against her.

[@seylaw]

I see the same thing with my law work. The contrast between university and the actual practice is stark. I came to the conclusion recently that the whole justice system is a self-serving puppet show.

[@KevinSolway]

Everyone is lining their own pockets before the whole system collapses.

[@nil981]

It's always been that way. Justice is an illusion.

[@uurk5lo4]

Which country?

[@seylaw]

@@uurk5lo4 Germany.

[@theforsakeen177]

@nil981 but revenge is justice and for most ppl revenge is the only justice they are ever going to get

[@petersvk100]

As a former physicist I can tell you exactly the reason for physics crisis. Staying in or doing science is actually pretty dumb. The current society doesn't value at all new scientific ideas, scientific work or scientific achievements. The current society values business achievements/financial achievements or political achievements (hint: that's where the money and power is). Science doesn't attract public attention (and thus money) and that's why people are leaving science. It's a downward spiral: No money -> no people -> no new ideas -> no money -> no people -> no new ideas etc... You know what happened with physics? There is probably some guy working at Risk modelling somewhere in Goldman Sachs who makes 6 figures a year who could have come up with some brilliant new physics theory that would turn the world of physics upside-down, but he concluded that he would be better off making 6 figures in Goldman Sachs than trying to look up for grants for his experiment (with unpredictable results). And you know what? For himself he made the best life-choice ever. That's the bottom line of the so-called physics crisis.

[@darylryanchong9099]

I agree that the financial pressures and the way grants are structured which give more weight for short term projects that emphasise practical results is what causes bad science. It also causes smart people to leave the field and enter more lucrative fields which align with their skills like quantitative finance.

[@lzestrara1518]

This sounds to me more like a crisis of morality. If everyone is only making choices based on how much money they can earn, and no one is making a choice of how they can spend their life to create knowledge and improve humanity, then it feels like our whole society has lost its way. I'm no hypocrite, mind you. I'm sitting here doing my boring day job instead of pursuing something more worthwhile for the simple fact that it pays all my bills and gives me a life of comfort.

[@Seagaltalk]

Really??? is string theory really leading to money? Supersymetry? I don't see how the current people driving this crisis have any relation to monetary rewards. I think you hypothesis is flawed or at least only a part of the problem.

[@yrobtsvt]

@@Seagaltalk String theory is a TOE. As weird as it sounds, claiming you're building towards a TOE does win you grants from science organizations in developed countries. The excitement behind supersymmetry is what funded the LHC.

[@bannedeverywhere]

What a load of bullshit. There's lots of people in academia or trying to get there, the problem is they don't get much results since 70. Real economy (I mean real economy and standards of living for middle class not money printing) also doesn't grow since 70 in the west, so clearly something bad happened back then I guess?

[@TheEmpressPalpatine]

I was a teenager in the 1970's. My favorite scientist was Carl Sagan. I watched every Cosmos episode when it came out on TV in 1979. He made science understandable. It was my first exposure to relativity. There was lots of great visuals along with real experiments. One that stands out is the time he showed how the early earth atmosphere gave rise to the stuff of life. There was a big glass vat full of what early earth air would have been. They turned on the electricity and zapped that air inside the vat. It slowly turned into brown goo which he said was the ingredients of early life. This was a real experiment filmed. There was a "show me" quality to that TV series. We need more of that. We ordinary people do not relate to math. We need to see it, or at least get a good description. That makes it real. Could you be the next Carl Sagan?

[@macjeffff]

Yes, we want all the details. You’ve touched on funding before, and I would love to hear more.

[@Andy-o2f]

Give some time to the scrutinization of the socio-political takeover of academia via the humanities. These people control the purse strings and you had better placate their interests if you want to gain research funding.

[@DivinumX]

Well, you see, the problem with science and academia is that they don't say what I want them to say and don't confirm my current world view.

[@Stupidityindex]

I can't find anyone to debunk crop circles. What do you make of the UFO stuff going on to this day? Note: See video: Proof the Roman Government invented Jesus' story - in 12 minutes. Jesus Never Existed: A Beginners Guide | Kenneth Humphreys The root of the problem is our history was fabricated after a dark age with bible chronology, before the development of archeology & stratigraphy. The Christian archeologist is confounded by two miracles: of being the only cult in history failing to build temples or churches for 300 years, and then building in the same style as the pagan basilica of 300 years before. In the XII century significant events take place, as described in the Gospels: the coming of Jesus Christ, his life and crucifixion, although the existing text of the Gospels was edited and most likely dates to the XIV-XV cc. In the mid XII century, in the year 1152, Jesus Christ is born. In secular Byzantine history he is known as Emperor Andronicus and St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called in Russian history he was portrayed as the Great Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky. To be more specific, Andrey Bogolyubsky is a chronicler counterpart of Andronicus-Christ during his stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’ of the XII century, where he spent most of his life. In fact, the Star of Bethlehem blazed in the middle of the XII century. This gives us an absolute astronomical dating of Christ’s Life. [ЦРС], ch.1. ‘Star of Bethlehem’ - is an explosion of a supernova, which at present is incorrectly dated to the middle of the XI century. The present-day Crab Nebula in the Taurus Constellation is the remnant of this explosion. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqrLp2lvequopa8 Proof the Roman Government invented Jesus' story - in 12 minutes. Defending Judaism & Christianity is easy when you can find prophets & cherubin in your Yellow Pages. How can anyone in their right mind ask others to believe in the existence of a Deity who makes Mormons so Christians will know how Jews feel, having had their literature hijacked.

[@DiracEden]

Not surprised tbh. International PhD student here in the UK, to me it feels that nowadays science, or at least physics (my field) is just (very toxic) politics and networking, elititsm/nepotism and winning the game of publishing. Cannot wait to get out of this mess.

[@bornach]

Yup. I left academia after 8 years of bullying by a professor gaming the system in a London university. I made up my mind to leave once I had realised I would be expected to pull the same tricks to get anywhere.

[@laserlight568]

@@bornach What ever happened to mentors that actually encouraged students to excel on their merits?

[@pasdutout4690]

Human nature at work . Ex : Einstein used to have bolchevik leanings , later looking elsewhere when (rarely) confronted . A chum of his , Bohr , was a known fan of AH ; another one (Heisenberg I think ?) was also so disposed . None of this apparently disturbed good old Albert (as far as I know , and I'm not an expert). I just wouldn't trust a priori ANY scientist for r'ectitude' (wait ! ...there's no such thing as 'morality' in a strictly materialist (scientist) view of the world , don't you know... And then it ends up with massive , useless accelerators, finding , euh , 'nothing' paritcles' (while falling apart ). Also , no Newton ahead. Nowadays I'd rather have a garden, fock the Fauci doctors.

[@putonghua73]

​@@laserlight568 Publish or perish is the mantra

[@Mr.Buckets69]

I worked in the lab that the “Higgs boson “ was discovered, and the chipotle guacamole was still extra. Unbelievable

[@InternetDarkLord]

So what about the salsa?

[@alexlorda394]

Was the guacamole extra with the Higgs boson? Was discovering the Higgs boson supposed to make the guacamole free? I don't get the connection...

[@scooter325]

Then why not just title this "physics is failing"?

[@rubikscubeearf6218]

@@scooter325 because this is how she gets the most clicks from anti-science liars and loons. Shes doing it on purpose.

[@stevenempolyed9937]

Because that way she gets more money from brilliant!

[@OmniversalInsect]

Ironically for the same reason that corrupts academic research, money.

[@TitoLounge11]

@@OmniversalInsect BIngo

[@Barnaclebeard]

@@OmniversalInsect Unironically, surely.

[@elijahpetty7638]

Even Lawrence Krauss has pointed out that physics hasn't made as much progress as we might think. Our impression of constant breakthroughs often comes from science magazines, which tend to over-hype discoveries to sell issues.

[@nightmareTomek]

Just like on youtube with clickbait.

[@neond8902]

Hijacking your comment for the brains: I don't know why, but nuclear fusion reactors like this structured reminds me of black holes or better said: black holes are structurally and behaving like those nuclear fusion reactors. They also have plasma that is spinning in circles, but instead the EM field holding the plasma in its place, the mass rotates around the the plasma like a donut (as in this reactor holding the mass with magnets from the outside) just from the inside of a black hole. Exactly like this, thing. In the middle there exists exotic material plasma that is a soup and repells all matter (so it can work like this reactor), which would be NEGATIVE energy mass, thous is the singularity. In the middle exists "Nothing(ness)", which is in reality just negative mass. Black holes are soooo efficient, that they die in 100^100^100 years due to Hawking Radiation. So, it would make sense, that those reactors are practically black holes and have infinite energy source as long as you give them some matter (just like black holes lol)

[@bzuidgeest]

But does that mean science is failing? Seems to me humans or failing to discover new things.

[@douglasmckenzie9266]

Depends on the discipline. Biology is making huge strides and across a wide range of sub-disciplines. Paradigms are shifting on an almost daily basis. The problem in Physics may be just down to bang for buck - it costs increasingly vast amounts of money to tackle the remaining problems whereas Biology is relatively cheap.

[@Greippi10]

I mean also our impression of constant breakthroughs comes from the fact that we've seen the most rapid technological advancements in the last 200 years. Before that it was a very mild progression over centuries and millennia. I feel like it's more that we're returning to average rather than it being that physics is falling apart.

[@ivaylovasilev2688]

Sabine, this is actually a very good point. Despite all the advancements in computation over the last 50 years, Physics hasn't made any major foundational discoveries. There is definitely enough funding, and we have better tools, so the issue must be with the direction. Thank you for your family remark, it is very kind of you :-)

[@onielrodriguez9194]

But not every discovery has to be "foundational". And just because we make a "foundational" discovery it doesn't mean it will be practical or useful (of course many exceptions exist). However knowing that Quarks and Leptons exists has no impact in the real world outside of Universities and research labs. Fact!

[@mucaaco1]

Wrong. We've proven the existence of Higgs bosson, gravitational waves and have first image of a black hole taken. These are just examples to name a few examples.

[@osmosisjones4912]

She makes no mention of 50 years of climate models. . and paleontologist have had expeditions to find predicted specie's. And chemist have predicted Elements and done test to find them

[@martincotterill823]

The last great advance in theoretical physics was achieved with a note pad and pencil in a living room in Scotland in 1963 (or there abouts). Sure, the confirmation needed a billion Euro experiment

[@gappergob6169]

You assume that there's linear development, while it's not. Looks the at the maximum height of building that can be construct from 1950 to today. The improvement isn't that obvious. Because there's hard limit of what we could do with bunch of atoms. The limit of material science. The development of computing power really clouded a lot of people judgement about science progress.

[@3DisFuntastic]

If there is one way to have people having trust in the scientific community, it is by being brutally honest and not by contorting yourself in making everything look shiny and happy. This practice is for the field of politics and religion… Thanks for your amazing work Sabine!

[@ferd1775]

This, right here. Politics has influenced science. It's mostly bullshit now. And I don't and won't trust any of it, at face value, moving forward. Now it all must be critiqued ten fold what it used to require. The government needs to keep their hands out of science, because government corrupts. We have people in power claiming "I am the science". No rat face(fauxi), you are not. You are a criminal and liar.

[@Stirdix]

Would that this were true. I know people _say_ "I take people who doubt themselves more seriously" but I don't think that actually holds true - at least, when one communicates to the layman (particularly those inclined towards science skepticism). [Although if there's a paper that studies that psychological aspect quantitatively, I'd love to abandon my cynicism if I am in fact wrong on this.]

[@rayjay848]

And stop linking everything to climate change.

[@doublepinger]

She says everyone is wrong and adds nothing. Just one development she's done, one improvement to theories. That shouldn't be hard to do if she knows better, but no, that is not reality.

[@paintspot1509]

there is a massive difference between having a mature conversation about science funding and making a youtube video called "science is dying"

[@anonimo6603]

I don't believe your videos fuel the flames of science deniers. The fuel for deniers isn't criticism of science, but the feeling among people that there's no self-criticism. You are that self-criticism. In fact, you are the beach where skeptics land, remaining within the realm of science, which saves them from being cast into the flames of the deniers.

[@kuronotako]

Nice bit of bullcrap there. There is no better honeypot for obscurantists than a failed scientist turned rogue claiming "science deniers are right". The equivalent of a disenchanted AOC giving a lecture about the perils of immigration at a KKK jamboree.

[@dollarstorememes]

​@kuronotako Sabine's content doesn't appeal to people who have no interest in learning physics, so I don't see how this claim makes sense.

[@kuronotako]

@@dollarstorememes Sabine's content does appeal to people who have interest in pissing on science, so I do see how this claim makes sense.

[@dollarstorememes]

@kuronotako Okay, I see your point. I just wish people could talk about science openly without needing to feel intellectually superior as a result.

[@kuronotako]

​@@dollarstorememes Hating and berating smart people, branding them as phoneys and smartasses, is part of the alt-right rabble rousing strategy. In the end, this is just another variant of xenophobia, and Sabine has regrettably been indulging in that kind of demagogy quite a lot lately.

[@D1ndo]

In the past I used to be sad, because it felt like I made a mistake choosing to not pursue my PHD, starting an engineering career instead. Nowadays, I am glad I made that decision.

[@laserlight568]

There's always a need for good engineers. Ph'd physicists, constantly have to justify their existence and purpose.

[@dkoeger]

Honestly, I made the same choice to be a pragmatic engineer, stopped at MSEE in the academic world. I have worked with a number of PhDs in Physics, and very intelligent group of professionals. I will have to honestly admit many left the academic research world.

[@TurtleLover69527]

Good call, I'm an engineering PhD and I went to industry immediately after graduation. The masters students I trained are further along in their careers than I am.

[@oddnothings]

I will just say that I saw dozens of critical but respectful comments, including my own, disappear from "Professor Daves" comment section. There was heavy moderation going on, which didn't quite fit the aggressive tone of his own video. I've never had one deleted from yours, whether I agreed with you or not.

[@FlyMyTurtle]

It could be KZbin algorithms themselves. I sometimes write extremely innocent statements not attacking anybody in particular with inoffensive language and it sometimes just disappears.

[@nzuckman]

​@@FlyMyTurtle KZbin's algorithm is SO censorious, it drives me insane!!

[@esra_erimez]

My comment also seems to ahve disappeared in Professor Daves

[@amihartz]

@@FlyMyTurtle KZbin's AI deletes my comments all the time, I would be surprised if even this one went through, but it seems like if the comments are long or mention anything poe-litick-al they get autodeleted.

[@ani-ana-ano]

Same.

[@andyroberts310]

I'm a 40 year old man with no collage at all but a general interest in science. I love your videos, cos it's just facts about science. You don't talk to me like I'm a child and sometimes I don't understand what your saying... but then I go off, learn a little about it and come back to watch the video again and usually it makes more sense. I feel like I've learned quite a bit from your videos and I don't want you to change how you do it. Your, factual no-nonsence approach appeals to me. If I wanted a cheerleader for science I'd go watch Dr Tyson, I come here for the facts.

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

Very well said!

[@Mekchanoid]

But Sir, surely you are aware you have left this comment under an anti-science video? So maybe, like a growing part of Madam's audience, you might be here for the anti-science after all? Thank you so much for considering this proposition!

[@starling-]

@@Mekchanoid I don't see anything an anti-science in this video, nor pseudo-science. Don't put words in anyone's mouth. It's about lack of progress, wrong direction. Nothing is wrong with science itself.

[@Mekchanoid]

@@starling- Did you not notice the thumbnail at the top this page that proclaims Science is Failing? Look at her content. Go on. Go to the video list on her page and look for patterns. Every few weeks she repeats this essay claiming that all of science is broken because physics is broken. Very popular among all those who wish science would go away (not you, of course, kind Sir), and with better viewing figures than her normal content.

[@deathrider_cze7934]

​@@MekchanoidI believe it is fair to assume that you, dear Mister, are at least somewhat aware of the algorithms used by KZbin to rank videos and that the platform supports videos that make bold claims. It seems fair to assume that creators on KZbin are looking to boost their viewership and monetization by making their thumbnail images more eye-catching. I believe Sabine is guilty of that as well. However, I do not believe that clickbait video titles undermine the points she is making. I think it is important to avoid hasty generalizations. I believe there is a clear line between denying science and having problems with the ways new discoveries are made. I feel these are two distinct things, yet you make it seem like there is little to no difference. I think it is important to acknowledge that there are some hasty, uneducated people who It's important to recognize that not everyone makes judgments based on headlines alone. I don't believe it's the responsibility of the creator nor the community. I feel that people, of course not you, dear Mister, should, if possible, base their opinions around more than one source before repeating words they have heard from one person with questionable experience regarding the consulted matter, like science-denying people like to do. Every part of society, including academia, has its own very real problems there was no time in history when everything worked flawlessly, and there never will be. And there is not any point in denying that.

[@JewettMusic]

Repetition legitimizes

[@Mr-atom55]

The fact that people hold you responsible for science deniers beliefs is shocking.

[@CristianmrWuno]

Fr, it such a lazy fallacy, it's totally normal tho, ideologues usually blame people who point out the decay in the state of things they support

[@hi12235]

It’s not her fault obviously, but she has a part to play in it undeniably with the amount of content she makes like this on KZbin and not an academic medium. While she’s not really done anything wrong it might be best to pack it in a bit or clear up the content more so it can’t be taken in the wrong way

[@DanielCauble]

Well the click bait titles like "Science in dying" doesn't do your question any favors.

[@paintspot1509]

​@CristianmrWuno for sure, I mean how could "Physics is dying" not be responsible for anti-science......

[@GetOutsideYourself]

Some nuance: science deniers latch onto Sabine's videos, probably without really understanding them or really paying much attention to the content. But this vastly increased viewership on her science-critical content as compared to her other stuff has led to audience capture, where Sabine keeps making this stuff. So while she can't really control who watches here videos or how they chose to interpret them (well, maybe she can, by not making these click-baity titles and thumbnails), she can focus more on the science and less on the "science is dead" stuff.

[@snoogiebug]

I feel your pain. As a retired physician I see similar things happening in medicine. It’s almost always due to outside influences and money. Pure science does not occur in a vacuum, unfortunately. And the worst part? People are involved.

[@HappyMathDad]

And what was that pristine status quo. Where scientists were free to do all the science without worrying about money? I'm pretty sure that aside from brief periods where technological advancement gives many opportunities for scientific discoveries. Most of the time it's hard work without much remuneration.

[@lastspring]

As an RF engineer, I always admired Oliver Heaviside when in school. Pushing the boundaries even though the work was considered trivial by serious scientists. He explored the practical side and solutions to electromagnetic theory problems. When you push the theory into the practical side far enough someone tends to notice strange things when they extend the practical performance. Think of Claude Shannon. Later, when RF and signal theory was considered mature, it was noticed that there was something going on with signals and error when performance was pushed to its limit. I'm sure a serious scientists would sigh, and say "Of course, Claude. This is trivial and boring." But the Shannon information Limit ended up making profound contributions to communication and information theory which pushed technology and science forward again.

[@EbenBransome]

Slightly OT but I once went to an HP event promoting their latest oscilloscope where it became very apparent that the sales people understood neither the Nyquist limit or the statistical limits of extracting informtion from noisy signals. I asked a couple of questions and was never asked back again.

[@kevinfleischer2049]

@@EbenBransome If you want competent sales people, give money to the techies to buy there own equipement. If you give it to sourcing departments, you get sellers, specialized in sourcing department flirtation.

[@peterclarke3020]

I am sure there is lots of good science to be found in pushing engineering limits.

[@BJ-sq1si]

A lot of people misunderstand some of Claude’s theorems or his work in general. Those people who sigh probably haven’t even thoroughly read them. They just know the conclusions about them they were taught.

[@michaelharrison1093]

I would also rank Charles Fortescue and Charles Steinmetz up there with Heaviside

[@Matthias-b7q]

Dear Ms. Hossenfelder, I think the current problems of today's physics are relatively easy to solve. To do this, today's physics, which describes the information change of the "now", should be expanded to a "new" physics that describes the information change of the "now" and the past. This type of "new" physics could assign an entropy to the photon traveling at the speed of light through a vacuum. Time could be defined as a change in information within an object with mass. Gravity could be defined as a phenomenon resulting from an increase in entropy, and no longer a force in the traditional sense. Dark matter and quantum gravity would no longer be necessary. Today's physics requires the reversibility of entropy change at the quantum level. According to the "new" physics, entropy would also always increase at the quantum level. The "new" physics could also provide an explanation for the "consciousness" of a photon. The photon experiences information change and records this. The human brain behaves similarly, as it receives and stores information. However, the storage does not take place in the photon, but rather on the holographic storage level of the universe. This storage can be imagined as similar to the storage of information on the event horizon of a black hole.

[@karlj.glogauer2835]

"Come for the science, stay for the complaints." - I need this on a mug :-D

[@LucasJung41]

The topic of crisis in fundamental physics brings to mind Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific progress. Kuhn suggested that science alternates between 'normal science,' where work proceeds within a stable paradigm, and 'crisis science,' which occurs when enough anomalies build up to challenge the current framework. However, it seems we’re still in a phase of normal science, as there may not yet be enough unexplained anomalies to drive a true paradigm shift.

[@richardjones7984]

There is a huge mountain range of unexplained data that is just simply ignored - or you lose your job (American system).

[@K.A7287]

The main part of collective efforts had been about trying to make money first then care about scientific literature.It's so obvious than this behaviour needs to change and its far from the Kuhn's agenda.

[@ClarkGaither-qm1vo]

I am a family physician. I left clinical medicine in 2016 because of what medicine has become. I left when I realized my continued participation was part of the problem. Medicine is failing people for the same reasons you as describe.

[@jeffgrosse-f4v]

It all has something to do with what you eat, we don’t need drugs, we need to educate people about how bad the American diet is, the body heals itself from the inside out. Stop eating sugar and processed food.

[@Biosynchro]

You're exactly the sort of person who needs to stay in medicine.

[@jed1nat]

@@Biosynchro lol, seriously. Medicine isn't optional for people. If doctors who are concerned about the status quo leave, how is that helping... anyone?

[@jed1nat]

@@jeffgrosse-f4v Stop ascribing to quackery. Diet isn't a magic cure for everything and sugar isn't evil. "Processed food" is meaningless jargon. Everything is processed.

[@christianlibertarian5488]

@@jed1nat I am also a retired physician. Bureaucracy is choking medicine, and costing huge sums. Modern medicine sure looks impressive, and certainly has some successes. But advancement has definitely slowed since the turn of the century; not as bad as physics, but definitely slowed.

[@ryukieji8384]

Sabine, you rock!!!😍

[@antonystringfellow5152]

For me your channel has just the right balance of everything in the field of science; explanations, enthusiasm, skepticism, frankness, humour, etc. (particularly the sarcastic humour, which I always appreciate). I also really appreciate your no-nonsense approach. As for the lack of nuance, I'm originally from the Industrial North of England. Us Northerners are not famous for our use of nuance. Keep up the great work! There's a reason you have over 1.5 million followers (and we're not all anti-science nuts).

[@Thomas-gk42]

Indeed!

[@Verschlungen]

@3:48 "... (mostly)..." Pure gold.

[@baka2k6]

I feel like all parts of human society currently double down on concepts that have been proven to be wrong by experience, not just sience. Be it to a lack of good alternatives or a lack of willingness to accept the failure of the concepts. We truely live in strange times.

[@AndroidPoetry]

Experience itself, the first-person perspective, is suspect, it is not to be trusted.

[@zloyboy8]

Being honest, I think it's primarily due to money that everything stagnates and lies keep being prompted up even after proven over and over again... If capital is what governs the direction of society then lacking capital indicates you have no voice in society...

[@TheWolfgangGrimmer]

@@zloyboy8 Well, speaking of concepts that have been repeatedly proven wrong, all the suggested alternatives to the situation you describe so far would be included in that basket. More convincing ones may exist, but there's still no point considering the notion until we actually _find_ some.

[@4umata]

Dear Sabine - Professor Dave makes a lot of good points, which I feel you should listen to. Please think about the effect your language and over-generalizations have on the broader audience

[@theedspage]

Dave compared her to right-wing science deniers and the Alex Jones. I didn't last five minutes through his whine fest.

[@kiwenmanisuno]

​@@theedspageYes because she literally uses the _same exact language_ as far-right lunatics _down to the grammar_ And not listening to more than 5 minutes of a video really says a lot about your attention span

[@Supreme-Moose]

Then your opinion can correctly be considered garbage if you watched 5 minutes of a video and feel you have the knowledge to sound anything other than ignorant.

[@dumbdragon2129]

​@@theedspage bro is literally what Dave was saying you guys are like jeez

[@4umata]

​@@theedspage It's hard to listen to arguments that are against one's beliefs I agree. And professor Dave did also exhibit some degree of subjectivity in his tone of voice. However, if you listen to what is being said, and not just how it's being said, you will find his argumentation much more robust than Sabine's whine fest intermixed with some valid statements, and a few nieche terms tossed in for good measure.

[@The_Ubatron]

As a non-crank, non-scientist with a pedestrian understanding of physics, I truly appreciate listening to your videos, Sabine. Your intelligent scepticism of science and academia is essential to humanity; likewise, your dismissal of crank pamphlets is vital. Above all, your plain-speaking, self-deprecating humour and straightforward approach to communicating contentious scientific ideas makes me keep coming back for more! Thank you, Sabine! ❤️🙏🏽

[@everythingisalllies2141]

I don't understand you guys that think that this woman is anything special. She is exactly like all the others, foolishly believing in nonsense such as Einstein's theories. She will only lead you from science fact, not to it.

[@QuantumChance]

so as a "non-crank, non-scientist with a pedestrian understanding of physics" why do you think Sabine's skepticism of science is valid unless you've already decided that science / scientists can't be trusted? You speak as though you don't have the authority to speak about science and yet you have the authority to decide who tells you about science - how are these two things any different?

[@The_Ubatron]

​@@everythingisalllies2141🤣🤣🤣🙃🙃🙃💩💩💩

[@The_Ubatron]

​@QuantumChance Thank you for your comment. Science can be trusted; people interpreting and reporting on Science sometimes can't. Sabine's point here, from what I am understanding, is that when mistakes are made in the processes or academic approach, then they should be explained once they have been discovered. I have no authority in Science, but I have some in education.

[@QuantumChance]

@@The_Ubatron Thank you for your kind response! First I must point out that Science is a word, an abstract concept we use to describe a human process - one that cannot exist without humans. In and to that end, humans must tell other humans about scientific discoveries and ideas, and this means that an element of persuasion is REQUIRED. There is no 'truth' without the existence of a logical framework, which is dependent upon the mind of that processing it. So we can't speak to any 'truth' of science without basing it in human experience and using human language to communicate it. There is no transcendent scientific truths, there are simply statements made by humans with varying degrees of accuracy - and to say that science is in danger because some of it gets miscommunicated is itself a miscommunication wouldn't you agree?

[@alwaysradical1613]

I enrolled in a phd program. There was an extreme lack of creativity in problem solving when it came to object detection and pattern recognition. The algorithms were brute force and were anything but “smart” and when they failed, they failed miserable. There was only one path and it was riddled with difficult esoteric math, not saying that makes it wrong… but if you proposed alternative ideas, you were ridiculed. Do what you’re told, basically. Grad students are cheap labor for an industrial complex system, where people at the top lack vision. This is the real problem.

[@paintspot1509]

sounds like your ideas were the problem, not the PhD program.

[@josephb9340]

​@@paintspot1509Sounds like you can't read. He conceded that he could be wrong and you still wasted the time to leave a braindead comment.

[@CompanionCube]

science isn‘t failing, the scientific community is

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Yes, I guess I would agree with this. But I am not sure what science is independent of the scientific community. (Long debates about this in philosophy books.)

[@DiegoLopezVlog]

Science is failng, because pure scientific endevor isn't sole reason to pursue scientific endevor. It have to do more and more with scientific institute internal politics.

[@aguspuig6615]

@@SabineHossenfelder Well ig science is just an idea/method, so it cant fail. As much as the idea of honesty can fail. Moreso people can fail at being honest or properly doing science

[@maritaschweizer1117]

It is just the academic part of science. Companies still make progress and if not only private money is lost. The main reason to finance academic institutions is to get educated specialists.

[@puddintame7794]

@@SabineHossenfelder Science is a tool. If used wisely it benefits the user. If used foolishly, it harms the user. Like a chain saw.

[@Kortyyy-ms6vs]

A lot of people refuse to be skeptical of the must mundane stuff like money influence on science

[@andreweaston1779]

I saw, amd commented, on Daves hit piece on you Im not a physicist. Neither is my wife. But, we have both worked in academia, and I see more reality in what you say than what Dave said.

[@hi12235]

Yeah but academics don’t mainly interact on KZbin, anti science videos probably are mainly seen by right wing loonies, this type of content it’s important but is probably in the wrong medium

[@xyxwtz-p5k]

​@@hi12235 Like you?

[@paintspot1509]

It wasn't a hit piece. This video is a hit piece at the scientific community.

[@paintspot1509]

​@xyxwtz-p5k he is absolutely correct, these videos are food for conspiracy nutters.

[@notanemoprog]

@@paintspot1509 He's not going to fellate you.

[@fredericdewitt1208]

Sabine, you could make an hour-long video on how to fix a flat tire, and I would watch it. You are pure fun to watch.

[@bornach]

And some random KZbinr named Dave who happens to be a professor, will still complain: stop criticising the flatness of our tires! Such rhetoric helps the flat earthers.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@bornach Hehe...

[@aonodensetsu]

​​@@bornachafaik he isn't a professor, he just has that as his channel name, he has a master's degree though

[@sussysenpai1712]

@@bornach watch his latest vid

[@jeffreyanderson1537]

I think a big problem, that you have touched on previously is the entire way research is setup and motivated has gone wrong and therefore we now get more and more unuseful results. A video about the structural and funding reforms needed to correct course would be very interesting.

[@jimdevivo9241]

You are completely right about the current state of everything. I only came upon it twenty years ago. I realized that physics has been heading in the wrong direction. One cannot deny empirical evidence just because it makes them feel good. They need to start from scratch.

[@charlesdavid-p1y]

This captivating video triggers a flood of painful memories from the end of my 6 year relationship just 3 months ago. The woman I loved with all my heart chose to walk away, leaving me grappling with an insurmountable sense of loss. Despite my relentless efforts to salvage what we had, I'm left feeling disillusioned and unable to imagine a future without her. Despite my attempts to move on , I'm drawn to express my deep-seated longing for her here .

[@DianaJovita]

The struggle to release someone dear to your heart is undeniably arduous. I empathize, having experienced a similar circumstance when my 6 year relationship concluded. Refusing to accept defeat, I pursued every conceivable avenue to reclaim his affection. Eventually, I sought the assistance of a spiritual counselor, whose wisdom and intervention played a pivotal role in reuniting us.

[@charlesdavid-p1y]

Where did you find a spiritual counselor, and how can I get in touch with her?

[@DianaJovita]

Suzanne Ann Walters is the name of an exceptional spiritual counselor renowned for her ability to reunite you with your former partner.

[@charlesdavid-p1y]

Thank you for this valuable information, i just looked her up now online.

[@zzzapi]

🤖

[@luke9033]

"Some of science is great, some of it isn't; I talk about both." What a line. Please have that put in the merch dept.

[@Supernoxus]

"Science is failing and no one is doing anything about it!" is a way better line. I want that printed on a Sabine shirt and show up with that on a flat earther meeting.

[@dreinhard52]

I'm so honoured to be part of your family Sabine :)

[@saerykarty2971]

Excellent video on the problems Science faces today

[@robertholub5964]

When scientists get funded based on number of papers (and citations), the number of journals, and papers grow exponentially. Then good reviewing becomes impossible, and reading them also. It was suggested some time ago the evaluations should be based on, say, 5, or 10, papers of their own choosing. The publishing industry, which has a monopoly on what and who gets published, has profit margin ~35%, is naturally against it. So are the bureaucratic granting agencies - it's easier to "evaluate". And Sabine is right, it's not only in physics...

[@johncook8402]

I was a scientist for many years(retired now). Inside of that world (data/proof is suppose to be the master). So then we look now and it is political forces(peer pressure,censorship, and money), that drives everything - if you are not part of the approved narritive you are anathema, a truth denyer, a charleton. This undermines everything that evidential, empirical science IS! Everytime I hear, "the Science is settled", I think - they don't have a clue what science is. Science is a process - I look at it like programmimg(a program is never 'done' lol). We have seen "settled science" proved incorrect innumerable times. Sorry for the rant.

[@toymaker3474]

where's your proof that light does not require a medium? null is not the same thing as negative. your basing all theory's on crap.

[@paintspot1509]

​@@toymaker3474 you can go do your own research to answer that simple question.

[@euanthomas3423]

@@toymaker3474 See 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper', Annalen der Physik 1905

[@toymaker3474]

@@euanthomas3423 rubbish, i prefer people who actually solved the problems, see Elementary lectures on electric discharges, waves and impulses, and other transients by Steinmetz, Charles Proteus, 1911. and wasnt it fraudstein that even admitted tesla was the smartest man alive at the time? if you think spacetime is a thing your in a cult bud.

[@toymaker3474]

@@paintspot1509 it doesn't take a genius to understand that waves are not things. so what is waving?

[@flymypg]

I was mentioning Sabine's content to a friend, when she interrupted me to ask what would be the "Elevator Pitch" for her channel. I mentioned Sabine's own tagline, "Science without the Gobbledygook", which left her still wondering what made Sabine different from other science communicators. Then I came up with my own line that I'm inordinately proud of: "Sabine applies the Scientific Method to others who claim to be applying the Scientific Method." This came from asking myself: How does Sabine get rid of the gobbledygook? Is it just by using clear and simple language instead of poorly understood and misused technical jargon? No, what Sabine offers is MUCH MORE than a mere translation service. She shares observations, evidence and lines of reasoning that, in turn, encourage her viewers and readers to think "Without the Gobblygook". How does she do this? Her process is the Scientific Method itself, as evidenced by her even applying it to herself! Anyone else like my phrase above?

[@Nathaniel-r8l]

Excellent. Apply the scientific method to the alleged appliers of the scientific method; I call that "metascience"; the science of science. Sabine Hoffenfelder is a metascientist.

[@theastuteangler]

I like it!

[@Doutsoldome]

@@Nathaniel-r8l Technically speaking, there is no "science of science;" the investigation of how science works is a branch of philosophy, "philosophy of science." Having said that, "metascience" is an interesting concept. I would say that Sabine is well grounded in a sound take on philosophy of science (something that many practicing scientist actually aren't).

[@tonyreno3168]

I agree with you. I read one of Feynman's books where he described The Scientific Method as bending over backward to try to prove yourself wrong. Most people seem to focus on regurgitating. I wasn't a fan of Sabine early on, but her continued integrity has won me over. Even when I disagree with her it's obvious that she's not merely toeing the party line. She really does think things through for herself. Very rare and very refreshing. Yet, as you said, it's the scientific method and it should be what all science communicators do.

[@jaqssmith1666]

@@marcosolo6491 before you can say that, you must actually investigate what she is saying. being correct will also look like that.

[@richardmcbroom102]

Per Wiki: "Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.'" This is more-than-coincidentally the estimated amount of time it would take for a competitive and hence intelligently evolved tribal mentality to devolve into an idiocracy.

[@JeffNeelzebub]

Who complains the most about Starbucks? Starbucks employees. Who complains most about the government? Government employees. Who complains most about science? Well we couldn’t have that, this would be providing ammunition to science deniers and the far right.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I like that!

[@JeffNeelzebub]

@ Thanks! I should have replaced “science” with “academia” but you get the picture

[@onielrodriguez9194]

It's ok to complain about science so long as the complaint isn't hyperbolic or way overblown. Making overblown critiques DOES give ammo and cover to anti science freaks and flat earthers lol.

[@markb3786]

@@onielrodriguez9194 underrated post

[@FrancoJ-c7p]

"Far right"..😂😂😂...Sure, Sure, science is a gift of "leftists" beautiful souls. 😂😂😂

[@JamieW-o7b]

I had a situation where there were doubts about an eminent professor's work....several decades later. I was told that we will have to wait till he dies until we can look at it again! That is politics, not science!

[@bornach]

So Planck was right. "Science advances one funeral at a time"

[@JamieW-o7b]

@@bornach Hahaha!

[@OCinneide]

I heard the exact same thing in the field on Archaeology. It takes a professor who specialises in something like; "Early Ottoman army composition and ideology" to die before any new research can be conducted in that field.

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

But then there's Perelman. Be Perelmans, ignore corruption.

[@camiloceen]

One thing i do not hear many people talk about is how some people that promote studying science never talk about the bad stuff in the career. If i knew that my primary choices for employment as a physicist were either high school/Collage teacher or a grant beggar in a University i would never have chosen this career. I was never prepared to search for grants or formulate a project. Not to mention the chances of getting grants which are scarce also usually depends on the amount of people with PhDs and their H index which further enhances the publish or perish culture. Publish or perish culture leads to a bunch or crap papers to be published to increase H index to get grants, is a vicious cycle.

[@laserlight568]

Get a job! LOL, having worked in the semiconductor and high tech optics industry it has been my pleasure to have rubbed elbows with many PH'ds who taught me a lot about theoretical physics as they improved the science of manufacturing, taking it from theory to manufacturing actual products. Good times!

[@amdenis]

Don't worry, AI will take over most of physics and many other areas of science in the next decade.

[@willywilliamson5808]

AI = Garbage in, Garbage out

[@madumsnit]

I think almost everyone will agree: Incentives matter. The incentives in academics have become very dysfunctional. The incentives on youtube aren't much better, but I would argue they are much clearer, and when it comes to their impact on "scientific discourse" much less problematic... because its MEDIA not ACADEMIC SCIENCE. - a fellow Academic Science ex-pat.

[@martinsutton6188]

The incentives on KZbin are much worse. Science denial pays vastly more than genuine science content. For example Sabrina's most viewed videos are the ones which have the least scientific content and that appeal primarily to that audience.

[@marcoantoniosotohernandez6789]

Your professional honesty earn you my subscription and I agree with you. One of my supervisors use to complain about academia like so: "One guy describes a fly and publish a paper about it's parts, then other removes a leg from that fly and publish a paper, then other removes a wing and so on and so forth". It was done like that cause in the University I was, they were required to publish yearly as part of their obligations or risk losing the job (imagine what would be for pure mathematics research). The consequence of this was that researchers published yearly regardless of the quality of the research or the impact it may have.

[@taopaille-paille4992]

This is BS. Science doesn't always create revolutionary results. Academia in Maths and computer science has yielded amazing breakthroughs in the last 50 years

[@Sarge714]

Sabine the problem goes all the way to the bottom. I've seen several STEM students with a passion for their field reach university and be devastated and failed by the lack of teaching involved. It was basically you need to know this, you'll be tested next week. If you need help form a student group. Now go away. One student with all the current aids just couldn't get the subject. I loaned them my 50+ year old text book and they understood. The difference is that 50+ was written during a time when teaching was important because we had to beat those dang commies. And students had to get up to speed as fast as possible. Today a textbook is all about making money for someone, teaching is secondary. And instructors at the University level don't teach anymore. And that circles us back to what you said. Universities have found a cash cow and writing papers and sports makes more money that teaching.

[@jackgude3969]

I'm an undergrad engineering student coming close to graduating and running into a few teachers this semester with an attitude like "you should know this already, it's not my job to teach you", and to some degree they're right. Someone else should have taught me this before. Like, I did take a class on diff eq. with 200 other people during COVID, taught in English by someone who didn't speak English well, and I did get an A+ but did I learn anything? A year later am I able to do a single problem from the first test? None of us are.

[@DeathPredator]

​@@jackgude3969No doubt. Engineering as well. I was always amazed at the female students in my dpt (with a notable exception) who received the highest academic accolades, but had serious trouble stringing together concepts for exams. They were learning to the test; anything beyond that was kinda foreign to them. Thus, the attitude fed itself from both sides. How can a professor be disappointed with excellent grades and time on task, even if the end result is not a particularly cohesive learner?

[@Ramkumar-uj9fo]

21 research papers with 1 citation. 1 paper in Springer LNCS which is top 3 in CS. PhD in AI and Cybernetics. Dr Ramkumar. ❤🎉Thanks for your support and work.

[@gabiausten8774]

Definitely lacking nuance, but that’s because nobody has the time for 3 hour long explainer-videos and a 10 h meta-discussion, after every video. Most would be bored, many wouldn’t understand and we wouldn’t get anywhere. Your channel is about science news and communicating scientific ideas, thats fantastic, it’s helpful and it works.

[@paintspot1509]

a focus on actually communicating science would be nice.

[@ryam4632]

I once heard a philosopher say: criticism is an act of love. You may not be a cheerleader of science, but you are a lover of it. Especially if you have the courage to stand up to unfair opposition.

[@adi63]

You're not boring! You're the voice I never had when I was in academia for almost two decades. And you're not repeating yourself, you're making your arguments sharper and your game better. After all, you don't hear tennis players that what they do (hitting the ball with a racket over and over and over again) is repetition. You're growing and your arguments grow with you. Do you think Thomas Kuhn just came up with the Structure? No! He gave countless seminars, wrote much more than he published, talked to thousands of people... If you have the courage to stay true to yourself without closing yourself to the world, to stay on course and balance (just as you do!) the novelty with repetition, something undeniable, something that cannot be ignored will emerge one day. Thank you!

[@uniperseusz]

QM has lots of holes. Primarily, there are severe issues at the junction between QED and QM. They could not solve QE equations, so they (Feinman) invented QED. This was a science fueled by the urge to explain experiments and predict what else to check in the laboratory. QED and QE were never developed to be a good physical theory. It was developed as mathematics, which predicts experiments, something like interpolation/extrapolation. One serious issue is that negative energy QM solutions, allegedly suggesting the existence of anti-matter, don't add up because it would mean that energy annihilates in annihilation, and we know it is not.