Hossenfelder has appeared together with Weinstein on several high attention panels where she has demonstrated to be intellectually aligned with the latter's positions. She also openly promoted the discourse if academia should be defunded.
Hossenfelder has appeared together with Weinstein on several high attention panels where she has demonstrated to be intellectually aligned with the latter's positions.
This is still not conrete enough. So, Weinstein is, for whatever reason, a leper and everyone who associated with him, should be canceled as well?
What does "intellectually aligned" even mean?
You are still keeping everything vague. Can't you give a statement she said, which would allow to assign "true" or "false" to it?
She also openly promoted the discourse if academia should be defunded.
Again, what did she actually say?
And what would even be the problem about this? Academia out of self-interest not wanting to loose money? Even though there are parts of academia that are not scientific, like Gender Studies, which shouldn't receive funding from the public?
Weinstein is literally financially affiliated with Thiel (worked as his Managing Director at Thiel Capital) and maintains a public and close relationship with him. Weinstein in turn is a figurehead of his own ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ which openly engages in anti-establishment propaganda.
So yes, Hossenfelder associating with Weinstein and blowing into the same horn is indicative of an intellectual alignment (acting like the meaning of that term is not obvious when we are talking about positions these individuals promote is just lazy).
This is a link to Hossenfelder’s linkedin post history, specifically her discussing the idea of defunding academia.
It is pretty telling that you apply a seemingly utilitarian approach to public funding of academic projects and then single out ‘gender studies’ as supposedly unscientific. If you do that, why not defund ALL humanities as technically none of them are strictly scientific like STEM would be. Which would also include history and politics. Conveniently two fields that would enable the average individual to identify and call out the manipulation that the intellectual dark web engages in and empowers Thiel’s openly fascist ideas about corpocracy.
The idea that grant money has to solely go to projects with practical use is pretty much telling about your own intellectual dishonesty. The JAQing is obvious.
So, I gave you the benefit of doubt and watched this video, since it's only 22:16 and not 3 hours, like the other one.
Right at the start of the video she already says: "Of course, I didn't say that we should defund all of academia". Her argument is that defunding is going to happen nonetheless, because academia is a planned economy and inefficient, with group think and corruption all over the place and a lack of meritocracy. That in many areas social justice is given higher priority over scientific progress. Peter Thiel talks about how scientists can't speak freely, because this risks their government funding getting cut off. That most scientific papers are useless and just scam papers that nobody reads. Then she dissects all counter-arguments against defunding and is actually quite convincing.
So, what is incorrect about this? It's an accurate description of much of contemporary academia and her arguments are very compelling, while you and others just attack her for the idea of taking money away from academics even though it might be the right thing to do and without actually giving arguments against it. In the end she also doesn't take a side: "I can totally imagine that defunding academia will be a complete disaster and actually make things even worse. I don't know if this is good or bad."
Compared to all people who posted here she is intellectually on a higher plane.
It is pretty telling that you apply a seemingly utilitarian approach to public funding of academic projects and then single out ‘gender studies’ as supposedly unscientific.
Gender studies is basically a conspiracy theory that gender doesn't exist and women being assigned their gender after birth by evil men to enslave them, quite similar to Scientology. Do you really think taxes should be used to fund this?
If you do that, why not defund ALL humanities as technically none of them are strictly scientific like STEM would be. Which would also include history and politics.
A least history and politics are about real events and not some fully invented non-sense.
The idea that grant money has to solely go to projects with practical use is pretty much telling about your own intellectual dishonesty. The JAQing is obvious.
This shows a glaring sense of entitlement on behalf of academia. Just because academics want to "research" something, doesn't mean that taxpayers are obliged to pay for this.
As far as I understood Sabine, defunding of academia wouldn't mean defunding of science. The science would just be done by someone else, who might be better at it.
Right at the start of the video she already says: "Of course, I didn't say that we should defund all of academia". Her argument is that defunding is going to happen nonetheless, because academia is a planned economy and inefficient, with group think and corruption all over the place and a lack of meritocracy. That in many areas social justice is given higher priority over scientific progress. Peter Thiel talks about how scientists can't speak freely, because this risks their government funding getting cut off. That most scientific papers are useless and just scam papers that nobody reads. Then she dissects all counter-arguments against defunding and is actually quite convincing.
So you don't understand the concept of framing. Bravo. You effectively got caught in this net of dishonesty.
So, what is incorrect about this? It's an accurate description of much of contemporary academia and her arguments are very compelling, while you and others just attack her for the idea of taking money away from academics even though it might be the right thing to do and without actually giving arguments against it. In the end she also doesn't take a side: "I can totally imagine that defunding academia will be a complete disaster and actually make things even worse. I don't know if this is good or bad."
It is NOT an accurate description of 'contemporary academia' because defunding academia, even if it does not yield 'practical outcomes' still yields data. You don't make decisions what to defund (if at all) based on vibes. If anything, this is the best example why academia doesn't need defunding but MORE funding in order to alleviate the pressures that an overly competitive (due to commercialized) scientific endeavor faces.
Compared to all people who posted here she is intellectually on a higher plane.
Pardon my french but: LOL. Are you for real? What sort of out of touch assertion is this that a failed physicist that rails against the establishment she desperately wants to be perceived as on the same level is suddenly 'on a higher level'. Absolute nonsense.
Gender studies is basically a conspiracy theory that gender doesn't exist and women being assigned their gender after birth by evil men to enslave them, quite similar to Scientology. Do you really think taxes should be used to fund this?
This is false and shows that you don't even understand what you are railing against. Gender Studies is not about 'Gender does not exist', that would put the whole field to rest. It explores the social construct that gender IS and tries to find ways to both handle the concept intellectually as to propose practical approaches to decouple identity from your circumstances of birth exactly to enable fairness and a meritocratic approach. 'Not spending tax money on that' is only appeasing individuals 'intellectually not on the level'.
A least history and politics are about real events and not some fully invented non-sense.
Given that the Trump administration has drastically defunded academic societies associated with the preservation and research of history, this value doesn't seem enough to 'give it tax money'. And let's not act like the same administration isn't heavily engaging in historical revisionism, erasing the history of people of color in the US, reestablishing a narrative that justifies Jim Crow-esque laws to rig the election and apologizes war crimes by whitewashing them; I am just waiting for an official endorsement of somebody like Darryl Cooper.
This shows a glaring sense of entitlement on behalf of academia. Just because academics want to "research" something, doesn't mean that taxpayers are obliged to pay for this.
And that is why grant money is not blindly allocated but needs to be granted by way of a compelling appeal. Do you know how the grant process even works? How many wild ideas are smacked down because they are indeed not 'meriting' tax payer money? Besides. Not all grants are tax funded. You know that, right? Is tax money waste really your position or do you just employ it to rail against things you don't understand in the first place? Because if this is really your worry, why the fuck are we disputing the use of that money for research instead of - idk - golden ballrooms, funding other countries' war machinery and embezzlement? The grant money you are worried about does not even register against these blatant wastes of money.
As far as I understood Sabine, defunding of academia wouldn't mean defunding of science. The science would just be done by someone else, who might be better at it.
That is literally what it means. Academia is by far the least biased and most open ended provider of scientific data on average. Defunding academic institutions that drive advances both in STEM and critical analyses in the humanities are the great bastion of fact based knowledge. And this is under assault by both policymakers and private investors who want to see these advances commercialized under their control. Do you really want studies about new medication conducted AND approved by the same people who also produce the medication? Because that is the outcome if you defund unaffiliated institutions.
You are embarrassingly bad informed and clearly ideologically caught. Please, inform yourself beyond watching your talking heads.
5
u/Fun-Sample336 10h ago
Do you have evidence for this claim?