Comment by cardanome

So where does your "scientific authority" come from, which is needed before criticizing someone according to your own logic?

You're not even using your real name here. Nobody knows if you have any scientific qualifications, or a university degree at all.

Looking at this HN commentator's behavior, we can see the early stages of a troubling pattern:

They start by attacking a physicist for being "neutral" and "just presenting the science" - exactly the kind of delegitimization of objectivity we see in early stages of information control Notice how they frame staying neutral as actively harmful - it's not just "wrong," but presented as dangerous because it doesn't take a strong enough stance against what they view as "extremist" positions Most tellingly, they're not arguing that her analysis is incorrect. Their complaint is that she's even allowing certain viewpoints to be examined objectively at all.

This maps directly to historical patterns where:

1. First you attack individuals for being neutral

2. Then you establish that certain topics are "beyond" neutral analysis

3. Finally you create an environment where examining data objectively becomes seen as suspicious or harmful

This HN comment is a perfect micro-example of this - it's not even sophisticated gatekeeping, it's raw "how dare you look at this objectively when you should be taking my side." This kind of thinking, multiplied across society and amplified by modern media, is exactly how larger patterns of information control take hold.

> Having studied physics does not allow you to evaluate studies in completely unrelated field in any meaningful way.

I agree! Before one may touch the pink sceptre, they must be permitted through the gate, and kissed by the doddling sheep, Harry, who will endow them with permission to pass and comment on many a great manor of thing which are simply out of reach of the natural human mind without these great blessings which we bestow. And, amen.

There's no such thing as "settled science". You can not prove that any scientific consensus has no flaws in the same way you can't prove the absence of bugs in any software. It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.

[dead]

It’s not settled.

You said "Her video on autism is considered super harmful and misleading by actual autistic people".

While you didn't say ALL, you didn't clarify, so your wording says that autistic people categorically think her video is super harmful and misleading. That's simply not true.

I'm in a bit of a minority in that I see autism through the neurodiversity lens, but I also think this tribal us-vs-them mentality is doing us more harm than good. Tarring and feathering people for not getting everything exactly "right" by my standards isn't helping anyone. It just causes people to throw up their hands and vote Trump.

So, while I disagree with Autism Speaks on pretty much every point and I think they're extremely harmful, labeling them as a hate group is self-defeating. Parents with high-needs autistic children look to Autism Speaks. These parents love their children, but are being mislead. When you push people, they push back. If we shout "You're a hate group!" then all dialogue stops, and we can't help their children. And helping those children the important thing.

Ironically, I think the problem for Sabine is simply miscommunication, which is due to her probably being autistic and not communicating according to neurotypical standards. She ended the video by showing how she scored high on an online test (which isn't definitive, of course), but then she dismisses it out of hand.

I dismissed those tests too when I first took them, but that's because I still didn't really know what autism is, even after I did tons of research. I couldn't really know that by reading studies or talking to a psychologist. I didn't really know until I met other autistic people and realized that they actually "got" me in a way that no one else ever has.

Her behavior is VERY typical of autistic people. Monotone voice, hyperlogical, hypermoral. She quit a successful career in physics for moral reasons. No neurotypical person would do that. An autistic person would. She wears the same velour shirt in every video. Sensory issues(?), repetitive behavior.

It's up to her to make the call as to whether she's actually autistic or not, but I see her as one of us.

And... I'm going to need a TLDR on that Ember Green video. It's a 2 hour commentary on a 25 minute video. Instead of asking me to unpack the arguments, make them.

[dead]