I have repeatedly heard from people who work in physics research that she's optimized her content for maximum rage/anger/emotional response rather than accuracy, particularly as of late. The tidbits of truth and warranted skepticism lend the rest of it undue credibility. Sadly, good science reporting doesn't get the advertising revenue that manufactured-scandal tabloid-style reporting does. I think her critical perspective can be useful, but it's important to keep in mind while considering it that you're being presented a warped telling of reality.
But one of her points is that many of the jobs of current physicists depend on the status quo. That seems almost tautological. She then alleges that that clouds their judgement on the best use of research funding.
I'm sure that if you asked a range of physicists if _their_ area of research should receive more funding instead of the FCC, you would see less support for the FCC.
So we, as outsiders, are stuck not knowing what to believe - and ultimately an outsider, a politician, must make the decision for funding.
I don't know what Sabine would spend $40B on instead, but intuitively that seems like it could buy a lot of research in a lot of areas, rather than picking particle physics.
And it doesn't have to be physics, it could be cancer research, or not even research: each country involved could upgrade their sewage system instead.
But Sabine doesn't have to have all the answers to be right to point out that there's an enormous conflict of interest if you ask particle physicists whether they'd like $40B. Of course they'll say yes.
I think they are confusing "conflict of interest" and just "in their interest".
If you asked me if my friend Bob should get a free $100 or if I should get a free $100; of course I'm going to choose myself, as that's in my best interest. There is no conflict though.
I believe the core point being "of course particle physicists want more funding of particle physics"
>But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?
Her argument is that very particular niches of science receive extreme funding leading to advanced results in particular areas, which other areas can not meaningfully engage with. This funding imbalance is not "decided by the scientists", in any meaningful way.
Nowhere does she imply that she should decide who gets funding, in fact she wants an end to publicly funded research. I really dislike it if people criticize other based on made up arguments about them, like you did.
These days she's independent of the field financially, and has been pretty forthright about condemning bad behavior within it. It's inevitable that insiders will turn on her, because she turned on them. They being angry about it doesn't mean anything by itself, you'd need to decide if her points are legitimate or not without reference to those she's criticising.
I wouldn't say they are angry about it, just disappointed that there's another mass media misinformation source to add to the pile. It's much harder to debunk poor quality material than it is to generate it, and I suspect many of them are busy enough as it is + would rather do something more productive with their time. Nobody gets into science to have low-grade spats with talking heads on the internet.
I have found that academics invite criticism--- indeed, peer review is founded on it--- but well-done scientific debate rarely generates the same click-through rate. It's hard, technical material rather than something to idly watch while you're eating, which is the caliber of the content here. Just compare it to, say, literature reviews from the field or comparisons with prior work in publications. It's not remotely as rigorous or well-founded.
That's a fundamentally biased attitude though. It's not very different from saying: "oh, that guy's got tattoos, I'm not going to engage because he's probably a gangster."
Unless someone has proven to you that they are not trustworthy, you choosing not to listen is a... personal choice at best. So don't try to chalk it up like if it's not presented in a certain way that's to your taste it's not real science and/or it's fake news.
I disagree with this analogy. Fearing all tattoos is mostly built on prejudice. If you knew the tattoos were gang tattoos, there might be reason for caution.
Choosing to engage with the attention economy and optimizing for engagement/rage as Sabine does undermines the validity of what she says because the incentive structures in the media environment she’s chosen to embrace.
I think it’s more like Sabine joined a gang, and while it’s possible that she has useful things to say, it’s also difficult to know where her allegiances lie, and which things she says are to keep the gang leaders happy.
Audience capture is real, and she’s been on that path for awhile now I think.
