A few days ago, Professor Dave Explains (referred to here as “Dave”) posted a valuable critique of Dr. Hossenfelder’s (Sabine) recent narrative. His commentary highlights key issues around effective science communication and, specifically, how not to approach it. My own blog post on Hossenfelder’s recent rhetoric addresses similar points, though, in today’s world, written blogs often don’t reach as broad an audience or have the same impact as multimedia presentations like Dave’s. I’m pleased to see Dave’s video addressing the same concerns I noted about Hossenfelder’s approach. Naturally, his video sparked two types of responses: one group understood the main points Dave emphasized, while the other—composed largely of highly educated individuals—missed the point and began a wave of comments defending Hossenfelder on tangential issues. This is, I’d say, a classic case of fanbase reaction. I contributed my own comments to this discussion, which I’ll summarize as follows:
It seems that many people defending Sabine are focusing on the wrong aspect of her work, which was never the core issue. The video points this out, specifically highlighting potential problems with her choice of topics and approach. The critique centers on her rhetoric and narrative style, which may come across as anti-science to those who are either not well-versed in science but eager to understand current scientific efforts or predisposed to an anti-science stance. In the comments, I’ve noticed that those defending Sabine are often individuals with advanced degrees in fields she critiques (perhaps with some merit), whether positively or negatively. This observation supports Dave’s argument that Sabine has two distinct audiences: one group that understands her criticisms and therefore doesn’t find her video titles problematic, and another group that is more influenced by the titles, especially if they are already susceptible to anti-science narratives. For this latter audience, the titles—however humorously intended—may inadvertently reinforce anti-scientific ideas, even if the video content itself doesn’t. Even if Sabine is entirely correct in her criticism of certain issues, the underlying narrative—intended or not—remains problematic in some of her videos. She is, after all, a public science communicator, for goodness’ sake! I’m frankly amazed that highly educated people defending Sabine are missing the point of Dave’s critique, instead defending aspects not covered in the video.
If Sabine wants to be an effective science communicator, she needs to refine her messaging for those less familiar with complex scientific issues. This includes distinguishing between science as a tool and academia as an institution in her narrative. Just because academia has flaws doesn’t mean science itself is flawed. This distinction is often where she fails to communicate effectively. It’s akin to concluding that because one car repair shop has unethical employees, the entire field of engineering lacks merit. Dave’s analogy about the origins of life debate, while criticized by some, is apt; it illustrates how individuals can mistakenly use subjective standards as an objective benchmark for success in a particular activity.
In her response to the video, she ACKNOWLEDGED the issue with her titles, showing that she’s AWARE of the problems they may cause—yet she CONTINUES using them. This awareness makes her subsequent explanations seem redundant.
I hope she considers Dave’s critique seriously and expands on it. As a European, I’d love to see her engage in thorough debunking of pseudoscientific trends in Europe (particularly the European anti-vaccine movement) with support from specialists. It would also be great if she posted some content in her native language. Titles like “Why Academia Sucks” could be reframed as “Addressing Issues in Academia to Make Science Even Cooler.” While longer, it would more clearly convey a pro-science message. Furthermore, Dave’s use of the term “problem” here is entirely appropriate; it is a problem when a science communicator essentially sends the underlying message that “science sucks” or “scientist are untrustworthy”. There’s no room for debate on that. Dave didn’t title his video “Sabine Talks Nonsense” or “Sabine’s Pseudoscience” or anything similar, which would indeed be dishonest clickbait. He was genuinely honest in pointing out the positive aspects of her communication while distinguishing her from typical grifters like the Weinsteins.
UPDATE:
Dr. Hossenfelder responded to Professor Dave’s criticism by pathetically doubling down on her questionable narrative and misinterpretation of his original points. Professor Dave then replied, clarifying the flawed arguments put forth by Sabine and her fanbase.
Scientifically Literate Junction 