Comment by Mekoloto

Comment by Mekoloto 2 days ago

29 replies

View on Hacker News

Your statement is missleading.

She doesn't say she is an expert on trans-issues at all! She analyzed the studies and looked at data and stated that there is no real transpendemic but highlighed an statistical increased numbers in young woman without stating a clear opinion on this finding.

The climate change videos do the same thing. She evaluates these studies discusses them to clarify that for her, certain numbers are unspecific and she also is not coming to a clear conclusion in sense of climate change yes, no, bad, good.

She is for sure not an expert in all fields, but her way of discussing these topics are based on studies, numbers and is a good viewpoint.

The funding scam you mention is a reference of "these people get billions for particle research but the outcome for us as society is way to small"

cardanome 2 days ago

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

Especially not in such politically-charged fields that require deeper knowledge about the historical context, the different interest groups and their biases and so on.

Her video on trans-issues labels people that advocate for the rights of trans-people as "extremists" and presents transphobic talking points as valid part of the scientific discussion.

Her trying to appear "neutral" and "just presenting the science" is exactly the issue. Using her authority as a scientist when talking about topics she has no expertise in.

Here is a debunking of her video on trans-issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw

Here is a longer criticism of her video on autism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaZZiX0veFY

Reply View 14 replies
  • bflesch 2 days ago

    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.

    Reply View 10 replies
    • cardanome 2 days ago

      I am writing here as a random hacker-news user. I don't claim to have any authority.

      Sabine Hossenfelder presents her opinions as "what the science says" and that is the problem.

      Reply View 9 replies
      • dimal 2 days ago

        She does not. She specifically speaks against that kind of thinking. Recently, she stated it as, “Believe arguments, not people.” I couldn’t have said it better.

        She makes arguments, forcefully. That’s good. That’s what science is supposed to be. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I find her arguments engaging, and sometimes convincing, sometimes not. But her process is not dogmatic, as you’re trying to make it out to be.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • anonym29 2 days ago

        HN mod dang, if you are reading this, I have a question. I was previously given a warning for a post that levied factual criticisms about the quality of source code contributions performed by a woman who had intentionally put work forward into a highly public open source project in her own name.

        I had specifically mentioned her by name in my criticisms, and I was given a written warning that doing so went against HN's policy on "targeted attacks" or "targeted harassment" or something similar.

        Why is it okay for this user to suggest that the act of this woman presenting her work publicly "is the problem", while it is a HN AUP offense for me to criticize the quality of the source code contributions written by another woman presenting her work publicly?

        I'm not requesting enforcement against this user or a retroactive removal of my warning, I'm just trying to understand the difference better to improve the conformance of my own discourse to the intent of HN's AUP.

        Reply View 4 replies
  • [removed] 2 days ago
    [deleted]
    Reply View 0 replies
  • kordlessagain a day ago

    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.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • mistercheph 2 days ago

    > 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.

    Reply View 0 replies
jiggawatts a day ago

> The funding scam you mention is a reference of "these people get billions for particle research but the outcome for us as society is way to small"

More specifically, even particle physicists admit that a 2x or even a 10x bigger accelerator is not expected to find anything fundamentally new.

The core criticism is that it has become a self-licking ice cream cone that serves no real purpose other than keeping physicists employed.

Reply View 0 replies
bccdee 2 days ago

> for her, certain numbers are unspecific and she also is not coming to a clear conclusion in sense of climate change yes, no, bad, good.

Climate chance is settled science. To claim that "certain numbers are unspecific, so I can't say whether climate change is real or not, or whether it's good or bad" (which, based on your paraphrasing, is what it sounds like she said) is an unacceptable position. It's muddying the waters.

I'm not going to go watch her content about trans people, but it sounds like the same thing: Muddying the waters by Just Asking Questions about anti-trans "social contagion" talking points.

---

EDIT: Okay I went back and watched some clips of her anti-trans video. She takes a pseudoscientific theory based on an opinion poll of parents active on an anti-trans web forum and suggests we take it seriously because "there is no conclusive evidence for or against it," as if the burden of proof weren't on the party making the positive claim, and as if the preponderance of evidence and academic consensus didn't overwhelmingly weigh against it. It's textbook laundering of pseudoscience. You've significantly misrepresented her position.

Reply View 12 replies
  • toolz 2 days ago

    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.

    Reply View 8 replies
    • bccdee 2 days ago

      Yes there is. Germ theory is settled science. Is it theoretically possible that we'll overturn it? Sure. Is it likely? No. In the absence of any groundbreaking experimental results, it worth wasting time entertaining germ theory skepticism? Also no.

      > It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.

      It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real" in the absence of any experimental results that seriously challenge those theories. Instead, we should put our effort into advancing medicine and fixing climate change, predicated on the settled science which makes both those fields possible.

      Reply View 7 replies
      • toolz 2 days ago

        > Germ theory is settled science. Is it theoretically possible that we'll overturn it? Sure.

        You need to understand that every single theory will be improved upon in the future. That means they will change and it's impossible to predict if these improvements will have consequences in different contexts where people incorrectly claim the science is settled.

        > It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real"

        Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example. I can think of many.

        Reply View 2 replies
      • Matthyze 2 days ago

        Spot on. Reminds me of that old approach by evangelicals to frame scientific consensus as 'just a theory.'

        Reply View 2 replies
      • srid 2 days ago

        We understand very little about human microbiota (therapies like fecal microbiota transplant, however, are promising) yet germ theory is "settled science"? Interesting.

        Reply View 0 replies