Science needs specific, informed, productive criticism

Professor Dave demolishes Sabine Hossenfelder.

I feel that. The topic of my history class last week and this week is about bias in late 19th/early 20th century evolutionary biology, and how we have to be critical and responsible in our assessment of scientific claims. It’s tough, because I’m strongly pro-science (obviously, I hope?) but I keep talking about dead ends and errors in the growth of a scientific field, and I have to take some time to reassure the students that our only hope to correct these kinds of problems is…science. I also have to explain that the way the errors are discovered is…science, again.

I’m not specifically interested in Sabine Hossenfelder — I don’t watch her videos, not even the ones that might contain good information — but I am concerned with the general problem of how anti-science propaganda manages to advance the causes of dogma. If science gets something wrong, as it does sometimes, it does not mean that superstition or bigotry are right. Raging against the whole of the scientific establishment and the scientific method is how you get RFK Jr put in charge of the NIH. I don’t think that even Hossenfelder believes that will be an improvement.