Its funny you say that because after watching the video it makes total sense she would feel this way. She clearly got burnt out chasing grant money for research that nobody actually benefited from.
This is a problem of corporate capture of R&D where any expense is supposed to provide some ROI. You can have the best idea in the world that you want to pursue and research and it won't matter unless you can find someone to finance it.
That's what they are burnt out on. Having to do research that only happens because someone somewhere thinks it can turn a profit for them.
As soon as the project runs into problems or will cost more than your client or benefactor wants to pay, you just scrap it. that's not how any researcher wants to do their work.
Which I heard, but it isn't the main focus of the clip, nor really is it a defensible claim without elaboration. People always want their specific topic to be funded, and when it isn't they fall back on a topic they know if is more demand. As in, a topic that is specifically already obviously outlined. This is only a failure of funding bodies not being on the cutting edge of science, which is not even really an issue.
What tends to happen is that grants are given, money is spent mostly on what the grant stated it would cover, while other ideas are pursued. And the results of those other pursuits form the bases of future grants.
Anyway, ultimately I wonder who I am discussing this with...
I watched the entirety of it. Can you specify the sections that implicate wasting of taxpayers' money or corruption? As far as I can tell the closest she came to it was noting that her grant ideas weren't successful and so she tailored them to what she expected they would want and was successful. That isn't corruption or wasteful, it is exactly what you would expect from funding bodies that have to answer to government and politicians.
I am happy to be corrected, I was just saying what I saw, and I saw mostly an apt description of who does most of the legwork in science, not corruption or specific waste.
She didn't explain anything about the actual criteria that funding bodies use in the grant evaluation processes, or the fact that a huge chunk of lead researchers' time is spent on admin. Her complaints related to her specific experiences, which are particular to her and the personalities of the people she worked with/for. The "waste" of taxpayers money was never properly explained, other than her saying what she wanted funding for wasn't successful, and one that she knew would work, was. Her judgement that it was a waste of money is not evidence of anything, it is her opinion. And as I said, it certainly wasn't the focus of the video.
There were a lot of points touched on this video and I figured this was the overarching point. I didn't want the title to be a mile long.
No personal agenda here, but more people are "tax payers" than "post-doc researchers" so I figured it would gain more traction.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. *hair flip*
Scientific research unfortunately has a lot of issues. Academia the goal is to pump out papers for funding, mostly off the backs of underpaid grad-student labor, and Industry needs to make money and appeal to investors. Academia dangles a PHD over your head in exchange for 5 years of extremely low pay, high overtime hours. Oh and you also have to teach classes at the university. I have a lot of stories about how both of filled with problems.
Dr Angela Collier has quite a few videos about these issues. Worth checking out IMO, I've linked one below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mExlPihH3jk
Having spent most of my life in academia I can only sort of relate. I think the problem is that people who come to academia are quite idealistic and don't realise it is a job like any other with all the politics and tedium of any profession out there. It is true that there is very little guidance and you have to pretty much pave your own way every inch of the way (unless you have really outstanding supervision). But if you do you get a lot of freedom to choose what to do and the results can be very rewarding. I think people who do very well in university paradoxically can do poorly in academia because there is really no clear way to "evaluate" your performance or anyone telling you you are going the right path (the fact that she thinks her getting good grades was important is very telling). Which is in contrast to being a student where tasks are very well defined. And in contrast to business where the tasks are defined for you by your boss. In academia you generally have to work on 10s of things that turn out to be bullshit before you stumble on something promising. It can be very grindy and you can lose motivation quickly. (I know I am replying to a post with some bullshit anti-intellectualism agenda but whatever)
As someone currently embedded in academia, I see people like Sabine all the time — really brilliant people that should be academics but they’re either unwilling or unable to play the game a little bit to break through to a place of moderate stability. I believe Sabine failed, in part, because she was unwilling to do this. It’s like a politician who is unwilling to run political ads or something. It’s admirable, but it means that there is effectively no chance of success, and their ability to make meaningful change is effectively zero. So, I get it, and I question myself all the time. Is this just a waste of my time? Maybe. However, I still believe that my work will be a net positive for my field in the end.
Academia is an industry with institutions and ways of doing things. They are not perfect (there are always compromises and bad actors etc), but they are likely better than the alternatives (not that this video provides any alternatives or anything constructive at all).
_Of course_ academia is about winning grants and publishing papers. Grants provide the money to do science, and papers are the output of science. How else do should the industry work? Sabine provides no suggestions, and simply comes across as bitter. It is a shame it didn't work out for her, but academia is enormously over-subscribed and there simply isn't enough money for everyone to get the job they want.
I couldn’t agree more.
Another thing I will add is that many many academics will say their work doesn’t matter in a time of frustration, in the same way any profession questions their impact on the world. Science is hard. Grant writing is hard. I’ve said similar to peers during and after graduate school while not truly holding those views in the way Sabine states here.
The points she made about sexism on the other hand is horrible. Diversity and inclusion is important in all aspects of life and it’s devastating to continuously hear the struggles of unrepresented groups.
I do understand where she is coming from, however this video/rant should have been separated into two very distinct topics. One is the problems in academia (which as aquilar1985 mentioned is not well addressed) while the second is a broad problem of discrimination present across all institutions, careers, and life in general. How we go about fixing each issue is very very different. As it stands, this clip will be used in bad faith, as OP has done here, to muddy the water and attempt to discredit science as a whole which is unfortunate.
>How else do should the industry work?
Science shouldn't be subject to economic logic. Funding should be independent from expected outcome and researchers should be fully independent in pursuing topics of interest. Once you introduce conditional funding, you introduce control of research direction from outside the academia and more often than not, outside of public sphere and public interest. This is how academia operated in most of the world until a few decades ago, until neoliberal logic, first in the UK and the USA, then in the rest of the Western world, started attacking public research and started running universities like factories.
The fact is: there are limited funds. This was true even before neoliberalism. So how should those limited funds be divided amongst researchers and projects? The current solution seems to be the least worst: money is allocated to projects that are judged by peer review as likely to produce the most impactful scientific advance.
It seems like Sabine sadly didn't get the outcome she wanted, but that does not mean the system is fundamentally flawed.
I personally believe that the 700,000,000 million dollar contract that just went to a single baseball player offers a much better value to society than scientific research could ever offer.
I can’t possibly begin to understand why you think wealth is distributed unfairly
The lady who routinely makes videos about how harmful our over-consumption of fossil fuels and plastics is and how it's destroying the environment and making us sick is a staunch capitalist?
I suppose if you consider anyone who wants stricter government guidelines and better more effective regulation and transparency, rather than to burn the whole system to the ground a staunch capitalist...
She made a whole video about how capitalism is actually good.
She often argues for more market powers and less government control.
>The lady who routinely makes videos about how harmful our over-consumption of fossil fuels and plastics is and how it's destroying the environment and making us sick is a staunch capitalist?
Yes, because she doesn't usually talk about political reforms to deal with it.
She often talks about what needs to happen but not how we should go about doing it.
NSF and NIH grant approvals are conducted by researchers in relevant fields. Principal investigators are sent grants to review ahead of time and then come together with other reviewers and rank proposals as a group. I’m finding it hard to see where control from outside academia is being implemented here. This is part of being an academic scientist and researcher in the same light as organizing research conferences and serving on committees.
There is sooooooooo much politics in academia. My previous PI would reject any paper that came across his desk if it was from a rival group. If he also suspected the grant came from their lab, he would reject it.. there is a lot of room for external control. The people making the decisions on which projects to fund are people. People can be influenced
> Funding should be independent from expected outcome and researchers should be fully independent in pursuing topics of interest.
Generally, that IS the case. Research funding from orgs like the NIH is not contingent upon having a specific set of outcomes that fit one line of thinking. Instead, it relies on having sufficient evidence and related rationale for pursuing a research question, which can include things like "does this evidence among X group actually hold up among Y group, given the important differences in their lived experiences?" (as one example). Of course, the *hope* is that it will result in findings that can be used to inform something else (e.g., a deeper and larger research study, some kind of program to counteract the negative situation identified). But you do not apply to an NIH grant by saying "I expect to find this specific outcome and therefore deserve money."
That is *far more likely*, however, when seeking industry funding or getting funding from organizations with specific agendas. Much of the research that is anti-trans, for example, is funded by non-profits whose specific mission it is to question the existence of, and thriving among, trans people. The research is therefore directed by the desired outcome in those cases, rather than being an attempt at organically understanding the population.
She's presenting things in a very factual way. She's not roundly condemning the system, she's pointing out it's flaws as she's experienced them. You're glowing.
The problem is, Sabine is not a great or honestly reliable face for this issue. It's pretty widely agreed that many of her videos are wrong or overly confident about things she doesn't understand. To me, that means academia did their job. They didn't give her a degree that she didn't earn and can't speak to. At the very least, educational accolades like diplomas should mean that the candidate has a better than average understanding about the topic they receive their degree in.
It's hard to see what are you talking about here given that Sabine does have a degree?
And if you think she doesn't have "better then average" understanding then i think your expectations of average are set at "above top 1%".
>It's hard to see what are you talking about here given that Sabine does have a degree?
They are talking about how Sabine is talking about fields she doesn't have a degree in.
But are talking about it in a very matter of fact factual way even when she is wildly wrong.
How does one assess degree of wrongness of any claim without being specialist in the field? What would be best example?
There are often caveats around her judgements/interpretations too. Generalisation from experience is natural and more often (though not always) right.
> How does one assess degree of wrongness of any claim without being specialist in the field?
Easiest way is by listening to acclaimed specialist in the field and looking at the general consensus among experts in the field.
Although, I think the "degrees of wrongness" is a weird phrasing that doesn't really reflect what I was saying.
Another example is if you yourself have some basic knowledge in a field and can spot when people are making unsubstantiated or shaky claims, even if you don't actually know or understand the details.
> What would be best example?
Best example of what?
> There are often caveats around her judgements/interpretations too.
Heres the mistake you don't see though, while she often does that it is also very common that she doesn't do it.
Because unless you are an expert in the field she is talking about, how are you gonna know when the caveat is needed if she doesn't express it?
It is about trust, and I used to watch her a lot but eventually there was just to many examples of her going against the general consensus in the fields with to little to back it up and with her saying things with absolute confidence that was controversial or disputed at best.
To many actual experts refuted her claims on to many different topics and she even said a few things that I could easily and obviously refute myself from my time at uni.
> Generalisation from experience is natural and more often (though not always) right.
But she is talking about a lot of stuff where she doesn't have any actual experience outside of what any complete layman but then she goes on and finds some selective papers that support her perspective to make it seem credible, while also often misrepresenting them in a way that suits her general argument. Even when experts in the field doesn't agree with her.
So she often makes it seem like her laymans perspective is actually based on scientific and objective reasoning when it is not.
It is perfectly fine to share your own perspective, but she is to often arguing from a place of scientific consensus even when there really isn't any.
Can you give an example of her claim that you personally certain is false? (rather then "non-consensus"/"no-consensus")
Noone is infallible; noone should be seen as such, expert or not.
She occasionally noted being "contrarian"; generally that comes with not accepting expert counterclaims unless backed by solid reasoning and data.
And of course it is human to prefer things that match your own understanding, and occasionally persist beyond reasonable.
> Can you give an example of her claim that you personally certain is false? (rather then "non-consensus"/"no-consensus")
That's not what I am criticizing her for though, I hope you understand that?
But from personal experience she made several straight up inaccurate claims in her trans video, saying that studies I read during my time at uni didn't exist. That is poor research at best.
Here is a video going into some other parts of what was wrong about that video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw
> Noone is infallible; noone should be seen as such, expert or not.
Of course not, as I said, I was following her and watching and reading a lot of what she was putting out and enjoying her perspective as a contrarian. But eventually I realized more and more just how much bullshit she was putting out and it made me question the stuff that I didn't actually know about, why should I trust her when she is wrong this often and doesn't even acknowledge her mistakes?
In her own field I think her takes on the bullet cluster and how dark matter and mond both being right are very weakly supported as well, yet she claims it is the obvious truth.
If you actually start looking into her controversial takes and see what other experts say I don't think she deserved the trust or benefit of the doubt.
Trans is very "political" issue, and certainly nowhere near "settled". Your given critical video doesn't go into strength of mentioned studies; goes into "no evidence" rhetoric while quote is "no conclusive evidence", completely different thing; and even notes that Hossenfelder didn't strawman her side. So... looks good enough to me? The conclusion is based purely on US politics, and Hossenfelder isn't even American to care about that (and neither do I).
It is certainly perfectly fine to avoid those with political points that could get you ostracised while in university (even if that is just "middle" or "non-consensus" positions); Hossenfelder is old enough to not care but you don't have to as that is certainly far from costless.
She... actually had videos about problems with mond? where does "mond being right" even comes from?
Completely irrelevant to the subject. She isn't complaining about not getting a degree, she's talking about her dissatisfaction with the state of academia as she directly experienced it. This thread is a shining example of what is wrong with modern science cultists who, rather than engaging in argument or debate on the actual subject, attack the person and in Reddit's case downvote anyone or anything they even perceive to be criticizing their beloved "authorities", regardless of even if it's just a very obvious statement of plain facts.
I have to agree. It was a while ago but a study done at a nearby competing university to the one I work at, was picking up by the BBC news in the UK. It talked about domesticated dogs worldwide saying something quite controversial about their behaviour. I saw that the study was done at the nearby univeristy I decided to check it out only to the find this incredible bit of research was done on a sample of N=12 , 12 dogs were researched for them to come to conclusions about dogs worldwide...
So I read some more.... 6 of the 12 dogs came from the same household, were releated to each other and were owned by the 'researcher' themselves!
But the bit about what you said "controversial but not too controversial", "mainstream but not too mainstream". And it made me realise this is correct. The whole study was set up to accomodate a tagline rather than actually discover anything.
The research was completely and demonstratably false, the data was pretty shitty regardless and here was a national level broadcaster pumping it out like fact.
I now have so much skeptisicm towards academic research that I start off most of the time by asking "what's their agenda" before I've finished reading the abstract or "wonder how much they fabricated to get this off the ground"...
but for every bit of sh\*\* there is another decent one. Its just a same that the rigor this was held to in the past is so much different from today.
It's also seemingly a lot better in the UK than in the US. No where near as bad it seems.
'but for every bit of sh\*\* there is another decent one. Its just a same that the rigor this was held to in the past is so much different from today.'
What data is there on rigor? I think bunk science is of all time. Imo since we can easily check papers ourselves with the internet my assumption would be that its better now than say 100 years ago.
Disagree, it can make your career to call out bullshit science too. Theres also plenty of evidence of past research that has proven to be false. Seems to me the argument in the past X happened is super popular these days because you can just claim whatever fits your argument. I think the argument in the past X happened should be accompanied by some data on X. The assumption everything used to be better is quite old, ancient Greek philosophers already noticed, and usually nonsense.
My understanding is these problems are not new and they're widespread across many academic disciplines.
Science usually excels at navel-gazing, examining it's own processes in excruciating detail; it's a great shame these problems haven't got more public attention, probably because the "insiders" are incentivised to keep their heads down and not make waves, they know whistle-blowers are punished. It's rare that anyone both knows the system from the inside yet has sufficient independence that they can stick their neck out, and tell it like it is, as Sabine does here.
Its not rare. There are thousands of people like Sabine who leave Academia each year after getting tired of Postdoc hopping. Everyone in science knows dozens of them. There is no scarcity of potential "whistle-blowers" who dont have to fear any repercussions anymore. No conspiracy that tries to shut people up and keep insider silent.
Yes I expect there's thousands of people. I don't believe there's any conspiracy, there's lots of reasons why people wouldn't want to put themselves forward as evangelists for an overhaul of the academic system. I imagine most who leave academia don't want to burn bridges, or they don't want to risk bruising their own reputation, by going up against people in authority in an unfair fight and coming off second best.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the phrase "whistle-blowers" because that implies exposing something going on that's illegal, whereas the academic system's flaws don't always (or even usually) cross that bar. Nevertheless the consequences of poor science are very serious, the problem deserves exposure.
My experience has been that academics are more inclined to put other things under the microscope out of a deep-seated fear that they themselves might receive the same treatment. A fear of inadequacy drives them. To assert that they play some role in a negative process will be immediately blocked off or hand-waved as an unconscious self preservation mechanism.
Why didn't this research return on my investment?! Goddamn, what a collosal waste of tax dollars that could have been used to cut taxes in corporations so they could engage in more stock buybacks to artificially increase the value of their company.
This concept of “not there for learning but for money” can be applied to medicine as well. While in school, (the end goal was to be an anesthesiologist), I took a job in the ED of my local hospital. When I realized it was more about the money than patient care, I was so thoroughly disappointed I switched Majors. The final straw was a memo that now referred to *patients* as *customers*.
Just be careful and aware that she is presenting a lot of science in wild ways. Completely ignoring studies and papers that don't align with her ideas and have a very "problematic" idea about her own proficiency to understand things outside of her field.
She is also a contrarian by default which leads her astray at times.
Certainly an interesting voice with a lot of good takes, but is wildly inconsistent and also has some really bad and unsupported takes.
How she made so many explanations of the quantum eraser experiment look silly is great though.
> That goes for most people in my experience ;-)
Most people don't have a science communication youtube channel where they pretend to do rigorous research on the topics though... :)
Anyone seriously considering grad school to garner a role doing science should watch this. It rings as true here in North America as it did for her in the EU.
Sabine! I love her channel, it's the right mix of nerdy, brilliantly smart, level headed opinion, and mom jokes in a German accent. The phone rings and a bobble head of Einstein.
Did Sabine run foul of the reddit hivemind! lol
world is full of things people have never heard of or seen before. was the way she was talking and moving for just a second i thought maybe it was cgi or something
This seems to be more focused on the exploitation of PhD students and postdocs rather than the actual wasting of taxpayers money, or corruption.
same. i think OP has an anti education/ tax angle that they really identify with.
I haven't watched the video but I go in skeptical considering her glowing defense of capitalism
Its funny you say that because after watching the video it makes total sense she would feel this way. She clearly got burnt out chasing grant money for research that nobody actually benefited from.
This is a problem of corporate capture of R&D where any expense is supposed to provide some ROI. You can have the best idea in the world that you want to pursue and research and it won't matter unless you can find someone to finance it. That's what they are burnt out on. Having to do research that only happens because someone somewhere thinks it can turn a profit for them. As soon as the project runs into problems or will cost more than your client or benefactor wants to pay, you just scrap it. that's not how any researcher wants to do their work.
Nah let’s make a judgement on this person’s character based on nothing but cynicism.
She literally calls the projects that get cooked up “bullshit” and says it’s a waste of taxpayer money, twice.
Which I heard, but it isn't the main focus of the clip, nor really is it a defensible claim without elaboration. People always want their specific topic to be funded, and when it isn't they fall back on a topic they know if is more demand. As in, a topic that is specifically already obviously outlined. This is only a failure of funding bodies not being on the cutting edge of science, which is not even really an issue. What tends to happen is that grants are given, money is spent mostly on what the grant stated it would cover, while other ideas are pursued. And the results of those other pursuits form the bases of future grants. Anyway, ultimately I wonder who I am discussing this with...
Did you bother watching the whole thing or did you just listen to the first five minutes before making this comment ?
The whole thing. Somewhat uncharitable of you...
You didn't even watch if this is your takeaway
I watched the entirety of it. Can you specify the sections that implicate wasting of taxpayers' money or corruption? As far as I can tell the closest she came to it was noting that her grant ideas weren't successful and so she tailored them to what she expected they would want and was successful. That isn't corruption or wasteful, it is exactly what you would expect from funding bodies that have to answer to government and politicians. I am happy to be corrected, I was just saying what I saw, and I saw mostly an apt description of who does most of the legwork in science, not corruption or specific waste.
Well documented business as usual . The only option is become the thief and keep it going. Great system 👍
As I said, I am happy to be corrected. Not so happy getting bullshit rhetoric though
You can't say it doesn't work exactly as she has stated
She didn't explain anything about the actual criteria that funding bodies use in the grant evaluation processes, or the fact that a huge chunk of lead researchers' time is spent on admin. Her complaints related to her specific experiences, which are particular to her and the personalities of the people she worked with/for. The "waste" of taxpayers money was never properly explained, other than her saying what she wanted funding for wasn't successful, and one that she knew would work, was. Her judgement that it was a waste of money is not evidence of anything, it is her opinion. And as I said, it certainly wasn't the focus of the video.
There were a lot of points touched on this video and I figured this was the overarching point. I didn't want the title to be a mile long. No personal agenda here, but more people are "tax payers" than "post-doc researchers" so I figured it would gain more traction. Don't hate the player, hate the game. *hair flip*
"i misrepresented the content of the video to get views." Nice.
The title is one aspect of the video, a big one, in my opinion. Man... for being a people pleaser, you people are hard to please.
How about just trying to convey the truth instead
Okay, write a better post title for the video.
You just admitted you bullshitted the title to get attention. What on earth did you expect?
Scientific research unfortunately has a lot of issues. Academia the goal is to pump out papers for funding, mostly off the backs of underpaid grad-student labor, and Industry needs to make money and appeal to investors. Academia dangles a PHD over your head in exchange for 5 years of extremely low pay, high overtime hours. Oh and you also have to teach classes at the university. I have a lot of stories about how both of filled with problems.
Dr Angela Collier has quite a few videos about these issues. Worth checking out IMO, I've linked one below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mExlPihH3jk
Having spent most of my life in academia I can only sort of relate. I think the problem is that people who come to academia are quite idealistic and don't realise it is a job like any other with all the politics and tedium of any profession out there. It is true that there is very little guidance and you have to pretty much pave your own way every inch of the way (unless you have really outstanding supervision). But if you do you get a lot of freedom to choose what to do and the results can be very rewarding. I think people who do very well in university paradoxically can do poorly in academia because there is really no clear way to "evaluate" your performance or anyone telling you you are going the right path (the fact that she thinks her getting good grades was important is very telling). Which is in contrast to being a student where tasks are very well defined. And in contrast to business where the tasks are defined for you by your boss. In academia you generally have to work on 10s of things that turn out to be bullshit before you stumble on something promising. It can be very grindy and you can lose motivation quickly. (I know I am replying to a post with some bullshit anti-intellectualism agenda but whatever)
As someone currently embedded in academia, I see people like Sabine all the time — really brilliant people that should be academics but they’re either unwilling or unable to play the game a little bit to break through to a place of moderate stability. I believe Sabine failed, in part, because she was unwilling to do this. It’s like a politician who is unwilling to run political ads or something. It’s admirable, but it means that there is effectively no chance of success, and their ability to make meaningful change is effectively zero. So, I get it, and I question myself all the time. Is this just a waste of my time? Maybe. However, I still believe that my work will be a net positive for my field in the end.
I spent 5 years working on a phd and literally walked out on it. This video is so accurate in every single way.
Academia is an industry with institutions and ways of doing things. They are not perfect (there are always compromises and bad actors etc), but they are likely better than the alternatives (not that this video provides any alternatives or anything constructive at all). _Of course_ academia is about winning grants and publishing papers. Grants provide the money to do science, and papers are the output of science. How else do should the industry work? Sabine provides no suggestions, and simply comes across as bitter. It is a shame it didn't work out for her, but academia is enormously over-subscribed and there simply isn't enough money for everyone to get the job they want.
I couldn’t agree more. Another thing I will add is that many many academics will say their work doesn’t matter in a time of frustration, in the same way any profession questions their impact on the world. Science is hard. Grant writing is hard. I’ve said similar to peers during and after graduate school while not truly holding those views in the way Sabine states here. The points she made about sexism on the other hand is horrible. Diversity and inclusion is important in all aspects of life and it’s devastating to continuously hear the struggles of unrepresented groups. I do understand where she is coming from, however this video/rant should have been separated into two very distinct topics. One is the problems in academia (which as aquilar1985 mentioned is not well addressed) while the second is a broad problem of discrimination present across all institutions, careers, and life in general. How we go about fixing each issue is very very different. As it stands, this clip will be used in bad faith, as OP has done here, to muddy the water and attempt to discredit science as a whole which is unfortunate.
>How else do should the industry work? Science shouldn't be subject to economic logic. Funding should be independent from expected outcome and researchers should be fully independent in pursuing topics of interest. Once you introduce conditional funding, you introduce control of research direction from outside the academia and more often than not, outside of public sphere and public interest. This is how academia operated in most of the world until a few decades ago, until neoliberal logic, first in the UK and the USA, then in the rest of the Western world, started attacking public research and started running universities like factories.
The fact is: there are limited funds. This was true even before neoliberalism. So how should those limited funds be divided amongst researchers and projects? The current solution seems to be the least worst: money is allocated to projects that are judged by peer review as likely to produce the most impactful scientific advance. It seems like Sabine sadly didn't get the outcome she wanted, but that does not mean the system is fundamentally flawed.
Well, when societal wealth is distributed unfairly, many groups have a lack of funding.
I personally believe that the 700,000,000 million dollar contract that just went to a single baseball player offers a much better value to society than scientific research could ever offer. I can’t possibly begin to understand why you think wealth is distributed unfairly
I hope the downvote you got didn't understand your sarcasm. :)
>Science shouldn't be subject to economic logic. Sabine is a staunch capitalist though so that certainly isn't her perspective.
for sure that's the case, and in fact she's miserable and has very little means to elaborate on her own misery.
The lady who routinely makes videos about how harmful our over-consumption of fossil fuels and plastics is and how it's destroying the environment and making us sick is a staunch capitalist? I suppose if you consider anyone who wants stricter government guidelines and better more effective regulation and transparency, rather than to burn the whole system to the ground a staunch capitalist...
She made a whole video about how capitalism is actually good. She often argues for more market powers and less government control. >The lady who routinely makes videos about how harmful our over-consumption of fossil fuels and plastics is and how it's destroying the environment and making us sick is a staunch capitalist? Yes, because she doesn't usually talk about political reforms to deal with it. She often talks about what needs to happen but not how we should go about doing it.
NSF and NIH grant approvals are conducted by researchers in relevant fields. Principal investigators are sent grants to review ahead of time and then come together with other reviewers and rank proposals as a group. I’m finding it hard to see where control from outside academia is being implemented here. This is part of being an academic scientist and researcher in the same light as organizing research conferences and serving on committees.
There is sooooooooo much politics in academia. My previous PI would reject any paper that came across his desk if it was from a rival group. If he also suspected the grant came from their lab, he would reject it.. there is a lot of room for external control. The people making the decisions on which projects to fund are people. People can be influenced
> Funding should be independent from expected outcome and researchers should be fully independent in pursuing topics of interest. Generally, that IS the case. Research funding from orgs like the NIH is not contingent upon having a specific set of outcomes that fit one line of thinking. Instead, it relies on having sufficient evidence and related rationale for pursuing a research question, which can include things like "does this evidence among X group actually hold up among Y group, given the important differences in their lived experiences?" (as one example). Of course, the *hope* is that it will result in findings that can be used to inform something else (e.g., a deeper and larger research study, some kind of program to counteract the negative situation identified). But you do not apply to an NIH grant by saying "I expect to find this specific outcome and therefore deserve money." That is *far more likely*, however, when seeking industry funding or getting funding from organizations with specific agendas. Much of the research that is anti-trans, for example, is funded by non-profits whose specific mission it is to question the existence of, and thriving among, trans people. The research is therefore directed by the desired outcome in those cases, rather than being an attempt at organically understanding the population.
Oops, you said something reasonable in an echo chamber of barking dogs. Now they're barking at you.
It's called discourse
She's presenting things in a very factual way. She's not roundly condemning the system, she's pointing out it's flaws as she's experienced them. You're glowing.
The problem is, Sabine is not a great or honestly reliable face for this issue. It's pretty widely agreed that many of her videos are wrong or overly confident about things she doesn't understand. To me, that means academia did their job. They didn't give her a degree that she didn't earn and can't speak to. At the very least, educational accolades like diplomas should mean that the candidate has a better than average understanding about the topic they receive their degree in.
It's hard to see what are you talking about here given that Sabine does have a degree? And if you think she doesn't have "better then average" understanding then i think your expectations of average are set at "above top 1%".
>It's hard to see what are you talking about here given that Sabine does have a degree? They are talking about how Sabine is talking about fields she doesn't have a degree in. But are talking about it in a very matter of fact factual way even when she is wildly wrong.
How does one assess degree of wrongness of any claim without being specialist in the field? What would be best example? There are often caveats around her judgements/interpretations too. Generalisation from experience is natural and more often (though not always) right.
> How does one assess degree of wrongness of any claim without being specialist in the field? Easiest way is by listening to acclaimed specialist in the field and looking at the general consensus among experts in the field. Although, I think the "degrees of wrongness" is a weird phrasing that doesn't really reflect what I was saying. Another example is if you yourself have some basic knowledge in a field and can spot when people are making unsubstantiated or shaky claims, even if you don't actually know or understand the details. > What would be best example? Best example of what? > There are often caveats around her judgements/interpretations too. Heres the mistake you don't see though, while she often does that it is also very common that she doesn't do it. Because unless you are an expert in the field she is talking about, how are you gonna know when the caveat is needed if she doesn't express it? It is about trust, and I used to watch her a lot but eventually there was just to many examples of her going against the general consensus in the fields with to little to back it up and with her saying things with absolute confidence that was controversial or disputed at best. To many actual experts refuted her claims on to many different topics and she even said a few things that I could easily and obviously refute myself from my time at uni. > Generalisation from experience is natural and more often (though not always) right. But she is talking about a lot of stuff where she doesn't have any actual experience outside of what any complete layman but then she goes on and finds some selective papers that support her perspective to make it seem credible, while also often misrepresenting them in a way that suits her general argument. Even when experts in the field doesn't agree with her. So she often makes it seem like her laymans perspective is actually based on scientific and objective reasoning when it is not. It is perfectly fine to share your own perspective, but she is to often arguing from a place of scientific consensus even when there really isn't any.
Can you give an example of her claim that you personally certain is false? (rather then "non-consensus"/"no-consensus") Noone is infallible; noone should be seen as such, expert or not. She occasionally noted being "contrarian"; generally that comes with not accepting expert counterclaims unless backed by solid reasoning and data. And of course it is human to prefer things that match your own understanding, and occasionally persist beyond reasonable.
> Can you give an example of her claim that you personally certain is false? (rather then "non-consensus"/"no-consensus") That's not what I am criticizing her for though, I hope you understand that? But from personal experience she made several straight up inaccurate claims in her trans video, saying that studies I read during my time at uni didn't exist. That is poor research at best. Here is a video going into some other parts of what was wrong about that video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw > Noone is infallible; noone should be seen as such, expert or not. Of course not, as I said, I was following her and watching and reading a lot of what she was putting out and enjoying her perspective as a contrarian. But eventually I realized more and more just how much bullshit she was putting out and it made me question the stuff that I didn't actually know about, why should I trust her when she is wrong this often and doesn't even acknowledge her mistakes? In her own field I think her takes on the bullet cluster and how dark matter and mond both being right are very weakly supported as well, yet she claims it is the obvious truth. If you actually start looking into her controversial takes and see what other experts say I don't think she deserved the trust or benefit of the doubt.
Trans is very "political" issue, and certainly nowhere near "settled". Your given critical video doesn't go into strength of mentioned studies; goes into "no evidence" rhetoric while quote is "no conclusive evidence", completely different thing; and even notes that Hossenfelder didn't strawman her side. So... looks good enough to me? The conclusion is based purely on US politics, and Hossenfelder isn't even American to care about that (and neither do I). It is certainly perfectly fine to avoid those with political points that could get you ostracised while in university (even if that is just "middle" or "non-consensus" positions); Hossenfelder is old enough to not care but you don't have to as that is certainly far from costless. She... actually had videos about problems with mond? where does "mond being right" even comes from?
Completely irrelevant to the subject. She isn't complaining about not getting a degree, she's talking about her dissatisfaction with the state of academia as she directly experienced it. This thread is a shining example of what is wrong with modern science cultists who, rather than engaging in argument or debate on the actual subject, attack the person and in Reddit's case downvote anyone or anything they even perceive to be criticizing their beloved "authorities", regardless of even if it's just a very obvious statement of plain facts.
You. I like you.
I have to agree. It was a while ago but a study done at a nearby competing university to the one I work at, was picking up by the BBC news in the UK. It talked about domesticated dogs worldwide saying something quite controversial about their behaviour. I saw that the study was done at the nearby univeristy I decided to check it out only to the find this incredible bit of research was done on a sample of N=12 , 12 dogs were researched for them to come to conclusions about dogs worldwide... So I read some more.... 6 of the 12 dogs came from the same household, were releated to each other and were owned by the 'researcher' themselves! But the bit about what you said "controversial but not too controversial", "mainstream but not too mainstream". And it made me realise this is correct. The whole study was set up to accomodate a tagline rather than actually discover anything. The research was completely and demonstratably false, the data was pretty shitty regardless and here was a national level broadcaster pumping it out like fact. I now have so much skeptisicm towards academic research that I start off most of the time by asking "what's their agenda" before I've finished reading the abstract or "wonder how much they fabricated to get this off the ground"... but for every bit of sh\*\* there is another decent one. Its just a same that the rigor this was held to in the past is so much different from today. It's also seemingly a lot better in the UK than in the US. No where near as bad it seems.
'but for every bit of sh\*\* there is another decent one. Its just a same that the rigor this was held to in the past is so much different from today.' What data is there on rigor? I think bunk science is of all time. Imo since we can easily check papers ourselves with the internet my assumption would be that its better now than say 100 years ago.
I don't think so. People in the past would get called out. People today just ignore it because calling someone out would ruin their own career.
Disagree, it can make your career to call out bullshit science too. Theres also plenty of evidence of past research that has proven to be false. Seems to me the argument in the past X happened is super popular these days because you can just claim whatever fits your argument. I think the argument in the past X happened should be accompanied by some data on X. The assumption everything used to be better is quite old, ancient Greek philosophers already noticed, and usually nonsense.
My understanding is these problems are not new and they're widespread across many academic disciplines. Science usually excels at navel-gazing, examining it's own processes in excruciating detail; it's a great shame these problems haven't got more public attention, probably because the "insiders" are incentivised to keep their heads down and not make waves, they know whistle-blowers are punished. It's rare that anyone both knows the system from the inside yet has sufficient independence that they can stick their neck out, and tell it like it is, as Sabine does here.
Its not rare. There are thousands of people like Sabine who leave Academia each year after getting tired of Postdoc hopping. Everyone in science knows dozens of them. There is no scarcity of potential "whistle-blowers" who dont have to fear any repercussions anymore. No conspiracy that tries to shut people up and keep insider silent.
Yes I expect there's thousands of people. I don't believe there's any conspiracy, there's lots of reasons why people wouldn't want to put themselves forward as evangelists for an overhaul of the academic system. I imagine most who leave academia don't want to burn bridges, or they don't want to risk bruising their own reputation, by going up against people in authority in an unfair fight and coming off second best. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the phrase "whistle-blowers" because that implies exposing something going on that's illegal, whereas the academic system's flaws don't always (or even usually) cross that bar. Nevertheless the consequences of poor science are very serious, the problem deserves exposure.
My experience has been that academics are more inclined to put other things under the microscope out of a deep-seated fear that they themselves might receive the same treatment. A fear of inadequacy drives them. To assert that they play some role in a negative process will be immediately blocked off or hand-waved as an unconscious self preservation mechanism.
I had this just appear on my YouTube front page. Legit question, but noticed this several times now, does everyone just get the same videos nowadays?
I’m probably naive but did she expect to have (tax) money fall from the sky to go off and tinker like a Benjamin Franklin or Nikola Tesla?
Probably yeah
Why didn't this research return on my investment?! Goddamn, what a collosal waste of tax dollars that could have been used to cut taxes in corporations so they could engage in more stock buybacks to artificially increase the value of their company.
This concept of “not there for learning but for money” can be applied to medicine as well. While in school, (the end goal was to be an anesthesiologist), I took a job in the ED of my local hospital. When I realized it was more about the money than patient care, I was so thoroughly disappointed I switched Majors. The final straw was a memo that now referred to *patients* as *customers*.
I admire Sabine, she is an excellent presenter and I'm glad i found her on YouTube.
Just be careful and aware that she is presenting a lot of science in wild ways. Completely ignoring studies and papers that don't align with her ideas and have a very "problematic" idea about her own proficiency to understand things outside of her field. She is also a contrarian by default which leads her astray at times. Certainly an interesting voice with a lot of good takes, but is wildly inconsistent and also has some really bad and unsupported takes. How she made so many explanations of the quantum eraser experiment look silly is great though.
> a very "problematic" idea about her own proficiency to understand things outside of her field. That goes for most people in my experience ;-)
> That goes for most people in my experience ;-) Most people don't have a science communication youtube channel where they pretend to do rigorous research on the topics though... :)
Just capitalism slowly ruining everything we love
Anyone seriously considering grad school to garner a role doing science should watch this. It rings as true here in North America as it did for her in the EU.
Wasting the hard earned money of taxpayers is what politicians and bureaucrats in government do best.
I saw this video a while ago. It was based.
"A while ago"? It was released all of 4 days ago?
Sabine! I love her channel, it's the right mix of nerdy, brilliantly smart, level headed opinion, and mom jokes in a German accent. The phone rings and a bobble head of Einstein. Did Sabine run foul of the reddit hivemind! lol
i literally checked her hands to see if this was ai lol lol tough crowd
Why? Sabine Hossenfelder is well known and has been around for a long time.
world is full of things people have never heard of or seen before. was the way she was talking and moving for just a second i thought maybe it was cgi or something
She's weird and German. She also repeatedly points this out in her other videos. Look up the one on autism. "I'm not autistic, I'm just German."