Sabine Karin Doris Hossenfelder (born 18 September 1976)
In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon, James Black reported to the company's executives that there was a general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change.
Exxon's research confirming the existence of manmade climate change is almost as old as you are.
fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change.
it says it right there: man influenced climate change!Ive seen articles from the early 20th c detailing a rudimentary understanding of greenhouse effects from carbon dioxide lol
Fortunately there's a new funny science youtube who also seems to have at least decent if not verging on pretty good politics.
Isn't her main science take that MOND is the only sensible theory of dark matter?
No idea, I didn't see this one
However I remember her making a whole video about being skeptical of nuclear fusion, which made sense for me at the time except now we're seeing so much progress in that field I'm wondering if she could be also wrong about this lol
From when I still watched her, Superdeterminism seemed to be her thing. Its a non-theory, totally unprovable. I don't think she's a MOND believer, could be wrong though but either way she's not a cosmologist.
thanks this is the silliest thing I've seen passed for science in recent memory
This specific theory would be irrelevant materially too, correct? Because you wouldn't be able to detect what the universe "knows" without woo woo magic. In fact wouldn't the end result just be some sort of other explanation but with "works due to natural laws" replaced with "a physics wizard did it"?
Oh yeah it wouldn't change a god damn thing, arguing about it would be literally pointless. Same thing as arguing against free-will, either it exists or it doesn't. Debating it is pointless, finding out one way or the other is pointless since in both cases nothing changes.
the only way free will is relevant to debate or things like this are relevant to debate is if it's the kind that has a puppet master making us do stuff AND it's possible for us to kill them
She is truly awful, her take in her own field is extremely dumb but it’s her takes in other fields that are even worse. Like a lot of science YouTubers she doesn’t stay in her lane, she thinks the fact someone gave her a phd for her ridiculous idea of superdeterminism gives her license to opine about other field she knows fuck all about.
If you can find any video of hers from a field you have first hand knowledge about her takes are wrong, and not just wrong, but that special kind of wrong where you completely misunderstand the basics of something and then extrapolate out from there the stupidest fucking conclusions imaginable.
Next video probably going to be about how CRT is "scientificly" ruining Christmas.
Watch the video. The headline claim is that oil companies would never have stopped selling oil and the public would never have stopped buying it no matter how much information was out there - it does not actually deny that oil companies knew about climate change very early on. Less than a minute into the video Sabine starts blaming oil companies for climate change denial misinformation. It's just a clickbait title.
The headline claim is that oil companies would never have stopped selling oil and the public would never have stopped buying it no matter
the public would never have stopped buying
no matter how much information was out there
clickbait title.
thirty episodes of
in the 
for youbut isn't blaming oil companies for misinformation a far less strong accusation if you preface it by saying that publicly available information just doesn't matter in this case?
I disliked her for promoting super determinism. It's a real theory, but a frankly ridiculous one.
Now I can dislike her for promoting capitalism too.
She also had some awful takes on trans people and autistic people too
What(?? I don't even know this lady, wtf is super determinism too. Does she think that there's a god deciding our decisions? Because I don't think you can get more deterministic than our thoughts being defined by our experiences, unless you just start making stuff up or genuinely believe in the supernatural
wtf is super determinism too
It just means that every minute decision you make was predetermined by various material factors. I.E. the reason you make the decision you do is because your brain was in a state which was determined by various material factors. Those material factors were predetermined by other material factors so on and so forth. It's mostly used as a way to get around seemingly faster-than-light information sharing in quantum physics.
If you run a physics simulation with the exact same parameters then it should have the exact same results right? Super Determinism postulates that the universe operates in a similar way. That if you could simulate the entire universe and it started out exactly the same, then the simulated universe and the current universe would be identical.
No no this is plain WRONG :( These “super determinists” need to read Gramsci and understand that the subject IS NOT a slave!!
No offense, but there's a big difference between economic determinism and physical determinism. Gramsci was writing about humans in a sociological context, not sub atomic particles and quantum mechanics. They do not contradict the other. Unless you mean to imply that particles behave like human beings for some reason.
From the comment I responded to:
It just means that every minute decision you make was predetermined by various material factors. I.E. the reason you make the decision you do is because your brain was in a state which was determined by various material factors. Those material factors were predetermined by other material factors so on and so forth.
Not really sure why people think so poorly of physical determinism. Why do people think that if the universe were to be put into the same state twice then we would get two different 'histories' of its states from that point on?
This is just incorrect, read theory
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-fantasy-behind-sabine-hossenfelders-superdeterminism/reading/
that's not what I read at all. Physical "determinism" is something I actually believe in and it's entirely different from the idea that the universe itself "knows" what's going to happen. Regular physical determinism can't explain faster than light information sharing in quantum physics- Regular physical determinism would assume that the "normal" physical laws interacting is what would predetermine anything, which can't explain faster than light interaction without some extra part. Superdeterminism seeks to be the belief that either the universe intrinsically "decides" everything that will happen before it does, or has some sort of weird invisible law dictating it, separate and superceding from the laws of physics that we know, including quantum physics. Hence the "super". All you described was normal determinism (which is still fucked over by quantum physics even if superdeterminism is real because it just doesn't make sense for anyone to be able to physically understand how superdeterminism works. What would happen if we did? We would act on information about what we find out happens but we would be super-determined by the universe to do that but we would be able to see that because we figured it out so we would act on the fact that the universe decided we would act on it but that would be decided by the universe too so we would see that because... which is different from normal physical determinism because each realization is arguably explainable by physical processes and isn't pre-determined, just inevitable due to physics.)
Some Redditor:
Superdeterminism is dismissed because it is not a "useful" theory. It can't be falsified, but in a superdeterministic universe falsification itself would not be real. The fundamental process of science would not be "real" in any meaningful way. In a superdeterministic universe, the outcomes of experiments no longer reveal anything about any underlying laws - because those outcomes can be scripted. Statistics as a science ceases to work, since statistics is heavily reliant on concepts of probability and independent variables.
In other words super determinism seems to be the belief that the laws of physics themselves are an illusion, and rather than things being the result of other things, we simply perceive them as such because some sort of hidden, probably unknowable internal mechanism predetermined both in advance. So you don't test something and get a result because the laws of physics would determine it, you test something which was predetermined by the universe and get a result which was predetermined by the universe but neither are intrinsically related in any way other than the fact that they have illusion they are due to the spacing in time.
Some Redditor:
In superdeterminism the entire[ty of a] home run event is preencoded in the ball and again in the guy. There is a variable in the ball that says “at time x, you will change direction and fly over the fence”. There is a variable in the guy that says “at time x, you will swing the bat at this angle”. Momentum and velocity are not why the ball flies. This is a well crafted illusion by the universe in superdeterminism. The ball flies for unknowable reasons that strangely approximate the appearance of our laws of physics.
My heckin' exxon mobile is just a smol innocent bean pls no bully
Exxon literally knew since the fucking 70s and that didn’t stop them from paying for fake studies and propaganda campaigns against climate change activists
Imagine being so fucking shameless and immoral that you go absolutely against all the scientific data despite being a scientist during a world changing crisis. She is 100% getting paid for this directly or indirectly from the oil industry.
Add her to the list of people to send to live in the worst affected coastal region in 50 years
I followed her channel for quite a while before I noticed her veering to the right to "burn the poors for big oil."
Her takes on dark matter also seem...off to me. Idk how to place it w/o a background in the subject though.
Sabine has some good takes and highly dubious takes, watch with a pinch of salt. And bullshit, they knew then; hell, they know now and they're still fighting climate change action tooth and nail.
SMDH my dick head, they got Sabine with the CIA YouTube clickbait title gun. And the CIA shitty takes gun set to three-round burst mode, multiple times now. They're using her for target practice at this point.
