[flagged]
Cheers, and thank you for your service.
Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
31–40 of 106 posts
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#32[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#33[flagged]
She certainly fell into the rage bait trap, and I don't really like her these days, but this video seems fine - no ranting, just a nice piece of science communication.
Rings true for my impression too. In the end, she’s a YouTuber now, for better or worse, but still puts out what look like thoughtful and informative enough videos, whatever personal vendettas she holds grudges over.
I suspect for many who’ve touched the academic system, a popular voice that isn’t anti-intellectual or anti-expertise (or out to trumpet their personal theory), but critical of the status quo, would be viewed as a net positive.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you cannot prove it. So what value did your comment bring? The readership of this site should always question if a comment is in good faith, legitimate, and accurate. Your commentary may only be one of those.
> But you cannot... Prove it. Prove I cannot.
That’s your responsibility. I did not state that it was 100% created by AI. You did, so back it up since you obviously know things the rest of us don’t.
Without proof I can only assume you 100% made up your argument.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#35[flagged]
> Professor Dave's videos on how Sabine Hossenfelder is actively contributing to an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism I feel like the core of intellectualism is accepting criticism, including criticism you disagree with. I find some of Sabine's videos to be a bit click-baity, but they are usually logically coherent, even the ones that aren't convincing. She's not just a crazy person yelling at the sky. Science is no…
It's ok to have opinions. It's ok to have criticisms. Claiming that the whole of academia is failing is not a measured criticism. Claiming that the whole of physics academia is failing is not a measured criticism. Claiming that "all of science is bullshit" (which she does, in those exact words) is not a measured criticism.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#36[flagged]
Prof. Sabine Hossenfelder is a pretty clear-headed communicator. I've been following her for nearly 20 years, almost since she started writing the Backreaction blog. Her criticisms boil down to: 1. Modern science spends perhaps too much time on frivolous research that doesn't lead to anything. This very much applies to the theoretical physics and the endless series of attempts at ToE. But it's not limited to theoreti…
You are making her arguments for her. We should not "boil down" the arguments she makes. This is some of the arguments she makes. She does not ground it in particular, measured criticisms, aimed at particular researchers or departments. She does not provide solutions. She uses this broadly sweeping argument as a way to cast judgment on fields of research she is not an expert in. We should evaluate the arguments that she makes, not the arguments we would like her to have made. This includes not just a dispassionate listing of the truth claims she makes, but the specific rhetoric she employs. Is modern science flawed? Absolutely. Should we be saying "scientists are not to be trusted" as a general, categorical statement? No, that's laughable, and dangerously anti-intellectual.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#37[flagged]
I've never heard about that nobody before, but I've watched about 10 mins. of the first video you posted and it is a terrible critique to Sabine; it actually makes Sabine's points look reasonable. He just doesn't get the arguments she's making, and "defeats" them with laughable strawmans. But anyway, it's YouTube science so one shouldn't expect much. Btw, Sabine's video on the topic of this thread is a good one, the…
You think she looks reasonable when she says "most research in the foundations of physics isn't based on sound scientific principles" with absolutely 0 meta-analyses presented as evidence? This is an extraordinary claim to make. It requires extraordinary evidence.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prof. Sabine Hossenfelder is a pretty clear-headed communicator. I've been following her for nearly 20 years, almost since she started writing the Backreaction blog. Her criticisms boil down to: 1. Modern science spends perhaps too much time on frivolous research that doesn't lead to anything. This very much applies to the theoretical physics and the endless series of attempts at ToE. But it's not limited to theoreti…
You are making her arguments for her. We should not "boil down" the arguments she makes. This is some of the arguments she makes. She does not ground it in particular, measured criticisms, aimed at particular researchers or departments. She does not provide solutions. She uses this broadly sweeping argument as a way to cast judgment on fields of research she is not an expert in. We should evaluate the arguments that…
> She does not provide solutions. She uses this broadly sweeping argument as a way to cast judgment on fields of research she is not an expert in.
Can you provide examples? I guess the most glaring one is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htb_n7ok9AU
And I actually can't disagree with it entirely.
> Should we be saying "scientists are not to be trusted" as a general, categorical statement?
Here's the thing. She's saying: "Scientists are not going to be trusted at this rate if the situation doesn't change".
Heck, this is literally happening right now with the NIH and the NSF.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard about that nobody before, but I've watched about 10 mins. of the first video you posted and it is a terrible critique to Sabine; it actually makes Sabine's points look reasonable. He just doesn't get the arguments she's making, and "defeats" them with laughable strawmans. But anyway, it's YouTube science so one shouldn't expect much. Btw, Sabine's video on the topic of this thread is a good one, the…
You think she looks reasonable when she says "most research in the foundations of physics isn't based on sound scientific principles" with absolutely 0 meta-analyses presented as evidence? This is an extraordinary claim to make. It requires extraordinary evidence.
Missed that one. Timestamp?
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But you cannot... Prove it. Prove I cannot.
That’s your responsibility. I did not state that it was 100% created by AI. You did, so back it up since you obviously know things the rest of us don’t. Without proof I can only assume you 100% made up your argument.
100% refers to my level of certainty, as a probability. You can think of it purely as a Quantum Mechanical Wave if that helps any.