YouTube skeptics/debunkers that you would recommend

[Scaramanga]

Sabine really does seem to be going down the right wing grift path. Including calling academia "communism" and going off on DEI, while simping for Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.

The problem with taking sides in these matters is that some of what Sabine says is undoubtedly actually true. I fully share her criticism of the waste of time that string theory research has become and how it has dominated much research funding to the exclusion of all else yet after more than 40 years all string theory has to show for itself is hype.

 

[Ann K]

the problem is, what do you call research that doesn't even produce falsifiable hypotheses?

Unfinished research? And "falsifiable" may not be apparent at first.

 

[yoshy]

I've only watched half of this so far, but the question has been asked several times as to what practical applications have been produced. Does Sabine ask that, or is that simply Dave's question? I think the purpose of scientific research is knowledge, and it's nice but not necessary that there be a product resulting from that knowledge. People expecting a money-making result from science are probably the ones most likely to invest money in the work, but we also hunger for knowledge without it being tied to a product. That knowledge provides a background for some future as-yet undreamed of applications.

That comes from Sabine. One of her claims is that science is dying, and part of that claim is that science isn't making anything useful anymore.

 

[yoshy]

The problem with taking sides in these matters is that some of what Sabine says is undoubtedly actually true. I fully share her criticism of the waste of time that string theory research has become and how it has dominated much research funding to the exclusion of all else yet after more than 40 years all string theory has to show for itself is hype.

I agree, and so does Professor Dave, that science as an institution isn't perfect. "Publish or die", fraud, and stuff like that are real problems with the culture of the scientific community at the moment. But Sabine goes far past that into often bizarre diatribes and tangents and culture war bs. She now feeds into and perpetuates science denial as part of the online pipeline to far right beliefs. Professor Dave is pretty thorough with his examples in this video.

 

[AmberRobot]

The problem with taking sides in these matters is that some of what Sabine says is undoubtedly actually true. I fully share her criticism of the waste of time that string theory research has become and how it has dominated much research funding to the exclusion of all else yet after more than 40 years all string theory has to show for itself is hype.

I don't know the current funding levels of various scientific fields, but how can string theory research possibly be using up so much money? It's not like they have laboratories or observatories, right? Do you know what it costs in both personnel funding and hardware development to put just a single scientific spacecraft into orbit? How many string theorists are there??

I guess I'd like to see the numbers that back up the statement that "string theory has dominated much research funding to the exclusion of all else".

My field is not string theory so I just don't know.

 

[Mendel]

Unfinished research? And "falsifiable" may not be apparent at first.

You argue, "the purpose of scientific research is knowledge". But when 40 years of research produce no knowledge in a field, to the extent that you can't derive predictions (which even ether theory could!), then what is its distinction from other 'scientifical' endeavours, such as the hunt for bigfoot?

 

[JMartJr]

You argue, "the purpose of scientific research is knowledge". But when 40 years of research produce no knowledge in a field, to the extent that you can't derive predictions (which even ether theory could!), then what is its distinction from other 'scientifical' endeavours, such as the hunt for bigfoot?

I am not knowledgeable in this area -- has some other approach found better answers or shown greater promise? Has String Theory moved their ball forward at all?

But in any case...

The problem with taking sides in these matters is that some of what Sabine says is undoubtedly actually true.

Almost surely, she talks about many things. My problem remains not with the quality of content, but with the "science is dead" marketing, in terms of click-baity video titles and to some extent how she prefaces her content. That seems, to me, to be feeding into a dangerous anti-science and anti-rational worldview that is dangerously prevalent at this time. So, in my view, the problem with her content is not the meat of the content so much as it is the gravy she's spicing it up with.
Edit to fix a sentence that lost its way...

 

[yoshy]

I am not knowledgeable in this area -- has some other approach found better answers or shown greater promise? Has String Theory moved their ball forward at all?

To the first question, no, not really. String Theory isn't the only active Theory of Everything (ToE) field. Loop quantum gravity is another active field, and there are other more niche ToEs. To your second question, it will depend who you ask. String theorists do think they are making progress. One of Sabine's claims is that these scientists know they're doing bad and pointless science. That accusation is gross and completely false.

You argue, "the purpose of scientific research is knowledge". But when 40 years of research produce no knowledge in a field, to the extent that you can't derive predictions (which even ether theory could!), then what is its distinction from other 'scientifical' endeavours, such as the hunt for bigfoot?

This is also incorrect. String theory absolutely has produced useful knowledge, both within string theory and outside string theory. For example, lots of new mathematical techniques has been required to solve string theory equations, and these new techniques have been used to solve problems in high level mathematics. This reddit thread on r/math talks about this.

Tazerenix: On the other hand, its hard to understate how incredible the effect of string theory on mathematics has been.

dependentonexistence: String theory and supersymmetry sparked arguably the most significant topological renaissance in the last century.

physics.stackexchange: What are some significant contributions of string theory to other fields of physics? The top answer is too long to paste but they cite contributions in "Mathematics", "Quantum field theory: formal and conceptual part", "Quantum gravity", "Quantum field theory: model building", "AdS/CMT and AdS/anything".

See also: The Strange Second Life of String Theory

String theory has so far failed to live up to its promise as a way to unite gravity and quantum mechanics. At the same time, it has blossomed into one of the most useful sets of tools in science.

String theory also does make testable predictions. Unfortunately, none of them are currently feasibly.

But in any case...


Almost surely, she talks about many things. My problem remains not with the quality of content, but with the "science is dead" marketing, in terms of click-baity video titles and to some extent how she prefaces her content she's draping over her content. That seems, to me, to be feeding into a dangerous anti-science and anti-rational worldview that is dangerously prevalent at this time. So, in my view, the problem with her content is not the met of the content so much as it is the gravy she's spicing it up with.

This is a PERFECT summarization of the issue and exactly the point Professor Dave is trying to make in his videos on Sabine.

 

[Scaramanga]

My problem remains not with the quality of content, but with the "science is dead" marketing, in terms of click-baity video titles and to some extent how she prefaces her content. That seems, to me, to be feeding into a dangerous anti-science and anti-rational worldview that is dangerously prevalent at this time.

Perhaps people would question science less if it did what it is supposed to do and questioned itself. I think a good deal of 'anti-science' is a result of the profusion of 'experts' all expressing certainty about this or that. Remember when Neil deGrasse Tyson said this..?


Source: https://youtu.be/SYAG9dAfy8U?t=1


...and then did a complete 180 degree turn when Sean Carroll pointed out the major flaw in the simulation hypothesis....


Source: https://youtu.be/TTOeR5qOHDM


OK...so that persuading of a different view is how science should work. But the point is....Neil de-Grasse Tyson should never have expressed such a 'convinced' view in the first place.

 

[Edward Current]

Perhaps people would question science less if it did what it is supposed to do and questioned itself....
Neil de-Grasse Tyson should never have expressed such a 'convinced' view in the first place.

One mustn't confuse science with an individual scientist. And, one really mustn't confuse science with a science entertainer.

 

[yoshy]

Perhaps people would question science less if it did what it is supposed to do and questioned itself.

I don't buy this assertion. First off, science does already question itself. That's how it progresses. Pick any field of science, and you'll find major paradigm shifts when new evidence comes in. Like ether theory being discarded because of experimental results.

And take covid as another example. The anti-vax movement is not a result of science not questioning itself. There was a deliberate propaganda campaign to sew distrust in the scientific establishment. The same thing happened with climate change. Internal communications from oil companies back in the 80s showed they knew climate change was real and being caused by fossil fuels, but they funded anti-science efforts to deny that.

People also just feel smart when they say the establishment is wrong and "I have it all figured out!".

Do people like NDT exacerbate the problem when they speak as if they are experts on every single subject and then later end up wrong? Yes, definitely, but I think that is only a minute cause of the problem compared to the coordinated efforts of anti-science groups.

 

[Ann K]

OK...so that persuading of a different view is how science should work. But the point is....Neil de-Grasse Tyson should never have expressed such a 'convinced' view in the first place.

He did not "express such a convinced view". He said, rather tentatively in fact, "I find it difficult to argue against that". That is not at all the same thing. He was correct, as far as I can see, in that there seems to be no way to PROVE that the simulation scenario is not true. I don't believe it, but I couldn't prove it to be untrue either. In that respect it's like a belief in something like a god. Proving a negative is extraordinarily difficult.

 

[Ann K]

@Edward Current

And, one really mustn't confuse science with a science entertainer.

Nor, might I point out, should one confuse a scientist with a "science entertainer".

 

[AmberRobot]

@Edward Current

And, one really mustn't confuse science with a science entertainer.

Nor, might I point out, should one confuse a scientist with a "science entertainer".

To be fair to Edward, NdGT does speak more like a "science entertainer" than a scientist when in these environments. It's his job to provide answers and I have seen him do so even in scenarios when he clearly hasn't thought through sufficiently the subject he's discussing. I do like him overall but I have seen this weakness in other scientists too and it has frustrated me often.

 

[Scaramanga]

Nor, might I point out, should one confuse a scientist with a "science entertainer".

Au contraire.......Neil DeGrasse Tyson ( who is actually an astrophysicist and thus a scientist ) specifically runs courses and 'masterclasses' on scientific thinking. That's hardly what I'd call 'science entertainer'.

 

[Scaramanga]

He did not "express such a convinced view". He said, rather tentatively in fact, "I find it difficult to argue against that". That is not at all the same thing.

Well...he should be a politician....as ' I wish I had a good argument against that' certainly does mean the same as 'I believe'. I mean, the entire reason most of us believe what we do is precisely because we don't have good arguments against it.


Source: https://youtu.be/-gIcpOeis0k


I mean...here he is elsewhere...in the International Business Times...

"Neil deGrasse Tyson has said we should not dismiss ideas that the universe is a simulation created by a far more advanced alien civilisation. He said he would find such a situation easy to imagine, adding the chances of the universe actually being a simulation "may be very high". "

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/neil-degr...e-being-computer-simulation-very-high-1556594

 

[Scaramanga]

Do people like NDT exacerbate the problem when they speak as if they are experts on every single subject and then later end up wrong? Yes, definitely, but I think that is only a minute cause of the problem compared to the coordinated efforts of anti-science groups.

But its not just him. One has only to remember back a few years and Brian Greene was extolling the virtues of string theory at every opportunity...yet it has failed to deliver. Richard Dawkins has remained stuck in his brand of 'selfish gene' neo-darwinism....very much proliferated by the media...as the science has actually moved on and personally I now follow Denis Noble a lot more closely. For some years we've been told that the Moon was created by the collision of Earth with 'Theia'....yet new evidence indicates Theia likely never existed. And so on, the list is endless.

Of course this is precisely how science is supposed to work. But I also think that a good deal of what passes as 'anti-science' ( as opposed to just no science, like flat earthism ) is the fall from grace of the very concept of 'experts'. There is a ( not really surprising ) sense that what 'science says' today will be amended tomorrow....so complete trust in science is held off until tomorrow.

 

[Edward Current]

Nor, might I point out, should one confuse a scientist with a "science entertainer".

Neil DeGrasse Tyson ( who is actually an astrophysicist and thus a scientist ) specifically runs courses and 'masterclasses' on scientific thinking. That's hardly what I'd call 'science entertainer'.

I suppose "science entertainer" was too harsh. But he's not doing science when he makes YouTube videos and records Masterclasses. It's science communication, and he does a lot of entertaining with it. And as far as I know, he hasn't actively done research in some time. (Google Scholar is hard to check because more recently, authors mention him in his role as a science entertainer communicator.)

He's an ex-scientist. Like Sabine Hossenfelder and Michio Kaku, he's moved on to more lucrative things. Regardless, he isn't the "President of Science" as I think Dave Farina once pointed out.

 

[JWrightBrain]

I have bookmarked this thread for future reference, thanks to @JMartJr for starting it!




Dr. Hossenfelder does not get my vote though, because she's not always accurate and can veer to the bunk side at times, as discussed in this thread.

She's fine when she stays in her area of expertise. When she starts commenting on biology or climate change, she's not as accurate and sometimes biased.

 

[yoshy]

The YouTube algorithm just recommended me Grayson Hawk. I haven't watched enough of his videos yet to have a fully developed opinion, but he seems good so far. I am trying to confirm, but if I remember correctly, he is a PhD in a subfield of biology. The particular video recommended by the algorithm was on..drum roll... Sabine Hossenfelder!



Hawk's video provides some good evidence of the point originally made by Professor Dave: that Sabine is making content increasingly catered to the (often far) right wing anti-science crowd, to the point that Sabine retweeted an open Neo-Nazi complimenting one of her videos (@ 11:40). Let me be clear that I am not saying she is a Nazi or even knew that she retweeted one, but rather that this makes the point that her content is attracting that crowd.

I firmly agree with Hawk and Professor Dave. Sabine did a video in mid-February titled Trump and Musk Take On Academia, in which she says:

Americans have used this term [DEI] to broadly describe all actions that aim to increase the share of currently underrepresented groups in certain professions, which can lead to less qualified people getting hired or funded.

(Bolding mine)
Note that she mentions only the possibility that DEI can lead to less qualified people getting hired, but foregoes mentioning the opposite, i.e., that DEI can lead to qualified people who have been overlooked due to, for example, race or gender getting hired. Hawk points out in his video (@ 14:30) that Sabine herself has claimed that she was not hired for a position due to her gender! She is a literal victim of anti-DEI! Race and gender discrimination in the US throughout its history and continuing into the modern day is well documented. (To her credit, she does criticize the Trump administration's lack of plan or reasoning for what they are cutting.)

As others have said, such as @JWrightBrain, she's not always bad, but I don't think she should be recommended because of her bias and the fact that the viewer can never really be sure if she's being disingenuous or not.

 

[Scaramanga]

The YouTube algorithm just recommended me Grayson Hawk. I haven't watched enough of his videos yet to have a fully developed opinion, but he seems good so far. I am trying to confirm, but if I remember correctly, he is a PhD in a subfield of biology. The particular video recommended by the algorithm was on..drum roll... Sabine Hossenfelder!



Hawk's video provides some good evidence of the point originally made by Professor Dave: that Sabine is making content increasingly catered to the (often far) right wing anti-science crowd, to the point that Sabine retweeted an open Neo-Nazi complimenting one of her videos (@ 11:40). Let me be clear that I am not saying she is a Nazi or even knew that she retweeted one, but rather that this makes the point that her content is attracting that crowd.

I firmly agree with Hawk and Professor Dave. Sabine did a video in mid-February titled Trump and Musk Take On Academia, in which she says:

Americans have used this term [DEI] to broadly describe all actions that aim to increase the share of currently underrepresented groups in certain professions, which can lead to less qualified people getting hired or funded.

(Bolding mine)
Note that she mentions only the possibility that DEI can lead to less qualified people getting hired, but foregoes mentioning the opposite, i.e., that DEI can lead to qualified people who have been overlooked due to, for example, race or gender getting hired. Hawk points out in his video (@ 14:30) that Sabine herself has claimed that she was not hired for a position due to her gender! She is a literal victim of anti-DEI! Race and gender discrimination in the US throughout its history and continuing into the modern day is well documented. (To her credit, she does criticize the Trump administration's lack of plan or reasoning for what they are cutting.)

As others have said, such as @JWrightBrain, she's not always bad, but I don't think she should be recommended because of her bias and the fact that the viewer can never really be sure if she's being disingenuous or not.

Meh. I think the real issue is that there is actually a grain of truth in some of Sabine's 'anti science'. In some videos she quite accurately describes the 'don't rock the boat' attitude of many science departments that get funding for stuff like string theory that has spent 40 years failing to deliver.

As for re-tweeting a Neo-Nazi, I'm really not into all this 'guilt by association' stuff. It sort of reminds me of the old meme ' Do you drink water ? So did Hitler '

 

[JMartJr]

I think the real issue is that there is actually a grain of truth in some of Sabine's 'anti science'.

I guess worth stressing again -- I think the issue with her YT vids these days is less the content than the titles and the way she is framing stuff. It ain't the story that;s bad so much as it is the headlines, a problem when lots of people just glance at the headlines and move on. She seems, to me, to be click-baiting anti-science viewers, who may come away thinking she supports their views.

 

[Scaramanga]

I guess worth stressing again -- I think the issue with her YT vids these days is less the content than the titles and the way she is framing stuff. It ain't the story that;s bad so much as it is the headlines, a problem when lots of people just glance at the headlines and move on. She seems, to me, to be click-baiting anti-science viewers, who may come away thinking she supports their views.

Well...anyone who gets their 'news' from a single source is liable to bias. Sabine is pretty harmless compared to the hundreds of Youtube sites with clickbait headlines such as ' Brian Cox Reveals TERRIFYING New CERN Discovery'...that never actually contain a single word from Brian Cox. I can't block those sites fast enough.

 

[Ann K]

Sabine is pretty harmless compared to the hundreds of Youtube sites with clickbait headlines such as ' Brian Cox Reveals TERRIFYING New CERN Discovery'...that never actually contain a single word from Brian Cox. I can't block those sites fast enough.

Cite the sites, please. Apart from knowing what to watch, it would be useful to know what NOT to watch.

 

[Scaramanga]

Cite the sites, please. Apart from knowing what to watch, it would be useful to know what NOT to watch.

I can't cite what I have blocked. But just do a search for 'Brian Cox' and 'Terrifying' and you'll find hundreds of them. Indeed...almost any video with 'Terrifying' or 'Shocking' and any name like Brian Cox, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, etc. There's hundreds of them that anyone can find in seconds.

 

[JMartJr]

I can't cite what I have blocked. But just do a search for 'Brian Cox' and 'Terrifying' and you'll find hundreds of them. Indeed...almost any video with 'Terrifying' or 'Shocking' and any name like Brian Cox, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, etc. There's hundreds of them that anyone can find in seconds.

And they are created and abandonned in rapid fire -- always some new ones to try and clickbait some atention. They are a problem in FaceBook reels as well:

Remote viewer makes vague but scary statementsa about CERN and playing God.https://www.facebook.com/reel/1162332258606576

CERN opened a portal during the eclipse, and demons were using it. The evidence is the clip of a helicopter of plane shadow on the clouds in Texas.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1486805995591700


Some get a lot of traction, others don't -- but there is a constant flood of them.

 

[Ann K]

Some get a lot of traction, others don't -- but there is a constant flood of them.

I've seen AI clips of lava bursting out of the Bryce Canyon formations and Devil's Tower that I think must be of that same genre.

 

[Scaramanga]

I've seen AI clips of lava bursting out of the Bryce Canyon formations and Devil's Tower that I think must be of that same genre.

If you really want outrageous, I recall a bunch arguing that Devil's Tower is the petrified remains of a huge ancient tree from before 'the flood'. Basically almost any loony 'science' idea anyone can have is on Youtube...and there's no a priori way of filtering the BS.

 

[Scaramanga]

And they are created and abandonned in rapid fire -- always some new ones to try and clickbait some atention. They are a problem in FaceBook reels as well:

Well...I know of not a single genuine science video that has the word 'Terrifying' in the title in caps. It seems to be the stock word they use. If I could filter out that one word I'd have 90% less 'science' BS appearing.

 

[yoshy]

Some get a lot of traction, others don't -- but there is a constant flood of them.

A lot of them use AI now as well to make the slop even faster.

 

[yoshy]

If you really want outrageous, I recall a bunch arguing that Devil's Tower is the petrified remains of a huge ancient tree from before 'the flood'. Basically almost any loony 'science' idea anyone can have is on Youtube...and there's no a priori way of filtering the BS.

The "mudflood" conspiracy! Which connects to the Tartaria conspiracy...for some reason.

 

[JMartJr]

If you really want outrageous, I recall a bunch arguing that Devil's Tower is the petrified remains of a huge ancient tree from before 'the flood'. Basically almost any loony 'science' idea anyone can have is on Youtube...and there's no a priori way of filtering the BS.

I loved that one -- they used images showing what were supposed to be the root system discovered under the tower:

The root system is fact shows typical development in the roots of a corn plant:

https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/01aglibrary/010137veg.roots/010137ch2.html

Down there where it says "4 ft" is either cropped or edited to say "4 miles." Or sometimes it is missed and still says 4 feet...

 

[jdog]

Well...I know of not a single genuine science video that has the word 'Terrifying' in the title in caps. It seems to be the stock word they use. If I could filter out that one word I'd have 90% less 'science' BS appearing.

Forgive me, for ChatGPT cannot.

 

[JMartJr]

View attachment 79307
Forgive me, for ChatGPT cannot.

For maximum scuzzy click bait it should also include "They don't want you to know..." and "... you won't believe number three!"

 

[Ann K]

@Scaramanga
"Huge and startling discovery" and "completely change history/science" are other red flags. Also things that start with a question, for which the reader is primed to say "yes" but the body of the text generally says "no, don't be silly".

 

[MonkeeSage]

A lot of them use AI now as well to make the slop even faster.

And people clipping AI slop like this (where at least they admit it's AI) and then reposting it on tiktok and facebook and reddit as if it were real "video of the recently discovered city under the pyramids."


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6zAXQHiD4U

 

[Scaramanga]

Forgive me, for ChatGPT cannot.

That's just 'Terrifying'....so is obviously true.

 

[FatPhil]

@Scaramanga
"Huge and startling discovery" and "completely change history/science" are other red flags. Also things that start with a question, for which the reader is primed to say "yes" but the body of the text generally says "no, don't be silly".

Often addressed as "Betteridge's law of headlines", after this criticism he made of the practice, the law itself I've made bold:

The TechCrunch/Last.fm controversy has been all over the net over the weekend, and there's not much that I can add to it factually. The one thing I will say, though, is that TechCrunch has behaved irresponsible: not so much for the original story - everyone gets it wrong sometimes. But when you get it wildly wrong like this, what you don't do is use weasal words to try and cover up the fact that you've got it horribly wrong. For example:

"From the very beginning, I've presented this story for what it is: a rumor. Despite my attempts to corroborate it and the subsequent detail I've been able to gather, I still don't have enough information to determine whether it is absolutely true. But I still don't have enough information to determine that it is absolutely false either. What I do have are a lot of unanswered questions about how exactly Last.fm shares user data with the record industry."

In a word, this is bullshit. It's Daily Mail-style journalism, posing a statement as just "asking questions". And even when Schonfeld got a detailed statement from Last.fm on exactly what data it gives to record companies (answer: no more than they could get just by looking it up on the public Last.fm site), he doesn't retract the story.

TechCrunch got it wrong, and instead of retracting the story and apologising, it's trying to wriggle out and say "it's only a rumour". Sorry, but that's bullshit. And please, please, I hope no one brings up that old chestnut of "it's only a blog, we don't have to adopt proper standards for reporting". The moment you can have a serious effect on a company or individual, you owe it to the world to be sure of what you say.

One thing though: This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no". The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don't actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it. Which, of course, is why it's so common in the Daily Mail.

-- https://web.archive.org/web/2009022...9/02/techcrunch-irresponsible-journalism.html