/int/ - International

What the fuck happened to her accent, the last time I bothered paying any attention to her she had a normal German-speaking-english accent but now it sounds like some half-Australian monstrosity. Advanced mental illness.

I don’t need scientific evidence to realize that matter is not the heart of the universe. But this would be hard to explain to people who believe in materialism, it’s like a revelation. Of course, there are ways to come to that conclusion in a rational way, like philosophy or what you posted. It’s just important what we make of it, to live in accordance with the soul.

>because I don't know what happened it means causality doesn't exist What is this retardation?

I refuse to listen to any physicist who believes in Eternalism

I see that German attention whore, I säge.

In the 1700s David Hume already showed that you can't rationally or logically prove causality. You can only say "in all the instances we've seen so far, B has always followed A" but there's no rule in the universe that says this must be so, it's only what we've observed so far. Nothing you point to in a causal chain is absolute proof that B must follow A. Perhaps it'll be different tomorrow.

>>9451 Almost nothing can be proven absolutely We still have reason to have very high confidence that causality is real

>>9442 >>9449 Why so hostile?

>>9458 I'm a physicist and all she does is ragebait. She superficially delves into a topic and then makes a ragebait video. Bernd only truly realised after she made a video about a paper he worked on. It's just YouTube content, designed to be fast, cheap and keep engagement high.

>>9463 Ahh. She's not rage baiting she just has strong personal views about the way the physicist community works.

>>9467 But her understanding of physics outside of her field is mid at best, so why should anyone watch a video with strong opinions and weak points? Maybe engagement baiting fits better than rage baiting.

>>9467 Same goes for Dr. Axel Stoll. He has amazing knowledge about free energy, scalar waves and other hidden nazi technologies. He is a well known german expert on physics.

>>9468 I don't actually watch her Physics stuff that much, I mostly watch her videos on other topics which I think are quite good. >>9470 Not strong views in that way, in fact she is more the opposite. She's quite skeptical.

>>9471 If she makes videos about 20 topics, I'm an expert in one and that video is bad, I can only assume that all 20 are bad, but I'm not enough of an expert to see it in the other 19 cases.

>>9474 I disagree that her videos on Physics are bad persay, she is just skeptical and dismissive of much of the research being done and of course as you are in that feild you are going to react negatively to that. Having said that. Yes, she is commenting on many fields she is not an expert in, but that's Youtube in general. Most Youtubers don't have any relevant expertise at all, at least she is a scientist. So I think overall she does a good job as a science communicator.

>>9458 I half-recalled seeing something from her that made me think she had fallen to overprideful contrarian clickbait retardation, but looking at her shit for a second now I dunno. Accent is weird though.

Watched this breddy intresting video that touches upon how materialism is fundamentally a lie that we keep believing for convenience's sake so here it is. :^)

>>9445 good goyim

>>9474 do you believe in the eternalist model of time

Most of her videos are okay, she usually states very clearly where the borders of her knowledge and understanding are and handles everything in a much more transparent way than others. Her videos on "AI" are completely horrible, though. I've actually been working in that area for two decades and spent about five years running a data centre full of GPUs. I've heard her present things that happened ten years ago as having happened just now because some "AI" guy said so. She recently had to decrease the number of videos per week while a sponsor dropped out. I guess the operation she's running is much tighter than one would think, and the clickbait videos have to subsidize the hardcore niche science research.

>>9737 So, most videos are okay, yet the ones you're an expert on are horrible? I see a pattern here. I noticed the same but not on AI.

Did you read the paper, or are you just trusting blindly whatever she tells you she found there and whatever she tells you it means? Who is this woman anyway? Because as someone who did study physics I've been hearing about quacks, grifters and nutjobs left and right arguing that relativity proves causality doesn't exist for over a decade now and I've wasted far too much time of my life already actually hearing their arguments out; They're pure nonsense and they themselves don't understand what they're saying. There is a case in which a mathematical formula in a specific condition tells you that an event happens before the action that causes it. But just because an equation tells you that doesn't mean it is real. Physics equations are just long sentences given a compact form, they're descriptions humans have made to explain things in the observable universe. And the name we give collections of these propositions or the complete argument they form is too something made up by people. Gravity doesn't exist, but when an object exists in the universe it has mass, and mass -somehow- communicates with all the other mass in the universe that it exists, and every mass in the universe tries to get closer to the rest of the mass, and we call the effects of that gravity... what is mass? umm.... that's a story for another day.

>>9742 I'm an expert on more than one topic. The physics videos are broadly okay. Most of them are just snarky summaries of recent developments with yet unclear outcomes anyways. As said she is very transparent about what she knows, what she understands and what the discovery means in the broader sense of things. It's rather hard to be completely wrong when the core of the video is "we need more information on what exactly this means now".

> Endless amounts of men telling shit about "popular science" on the Interwebs > Bernd hates on that one woman who actually does a good job Classic Bernd.

>>9875 Defending Sabine because she's a woman is actually bad for women. Sabine doesn't suck because she's a woman, she sucks because she's bad. If you put her among two good science communicators (never seen anything but racist memes about the nigger, so idk about him), then you set the image that women inherently suck as much as she does.

>>9875 All she does is mostly critique of ideas. I respect people with actual ideas more like the nigga in my pic.

>>9881 > Sabine doesn't suck because she's a woman, she sucks because she's bad. That's your personal opinion based on pretty much nothing, but after conversing with you here on KayCee for months now I know that's simply how you behave. You always have very strong, negative opinions on stuff but then always fail to actually base your arguments on anything. >>9883 - That would also be true for all the males - She has her own ideas, which you would know if you actually watched her videos. This Bernd is one of her Patreon supporters and completely happy with what she delivers through the week.

>>9893 >That's your personal opinion based on pretty much nothing, By chance I'm an expert in this field. Well, one of them. No, I won't disclose which one, since it would lead to papers I published and I don't want to be doxxed. This topic was covered superficially and poorly. Maybe the other two are terrible as well, but I like them and I'm not an expert on astrophysics, so I don't know if they suck as bad as her. There's another Bernd who had the same experience. The videos he understands well are horrible in his opinion. The videos I understand are horrible in my opinion. Maybe we just have found two topics that she covers horribly and it's a big coincidence and the rest she does is golden. But I doubt it. Has she covered a topic you're knowledgeable in and can you tell us if she does a good job talking about it?

>>9897 What you are doing is called the appeal to authority fallacy.

>>9902 I don't like talking about me too much, but if the other Bernd is an expert in AI and he says that her videos on AI contain mistakes, then it's valid to appeal to his authority.

>>9903 That just mean he is doing the appeal to authority fallacy too.

>>9904 In most cases it's not even a fallacy. If someone is an expert in a field and tells you, you're wrong then you could cry appeal to authority, b it he doesn't owe you a lecture to educate you. Also, you could cry this after every sentence he teaches you. >Our body consists of cells <I don't believe you >Well, it does, trust me, I've seen them in a microscope. Okay, some cells-- <Appeal to authority!!!! If the authority is just power, then sure. The king says that the earth is flat and if you disagree, your head gets chopped off. Or if there's evidence suggesting the expert is wrong. But you don't have that.

>>9906 The issue with that is that not all scientists actually agree with each other about everything. So if one physicist says something and another physicist disagrees with it and doesn't actually explain what his disagreement is but just says 'trust me bro, I'm a physicist' well that's not helpful at all.

>>9875 I don't know the white boys but Tyson definitely sucks ass. He's even worse than Bill Nye, at least he is enthusiastic about the topic even if he doesn't understand much about it. Tyson will deride you for not enjoying science "the right way" because he thinks that makes him look smarter, even though he's pretty much a scienticist himself.>>9875

>>9903 No it isn't The only thing that ever constitutes a valid argument is actually demonstrating how your claim is true Science would lapse into scholastics if we followed your standards

>>9474 well, do you? t.>>9683

>>9907 >The issue with that is that not all scientists actually agree with each other about everything. I'm not disagreeing with her when she acts as a physicist and talks about her field of research. I don't understand enough to do that. I'm talking about when she acts as a journalist and talks about things she doesn't understand. This is not about a disagreement between two experts, this is about a disagreement between an expert and a journalist. And based on that disagreement, I doubt the rest she's reporting on. Also, I hate her style, but that's indeed a weak argument.

>>9912 If you don't state what your disagreement is it doesn't mean anything. Because often their is no objective right or wrong in these cases and the only way I could have an idea of if their was an objective right or wrong(sch as your cell example) would be if the actual issue was stated and argued against.

>>9915 I'm not here to impress you, but if you can vouch for a topic she's excellent in, judged by your own expertise, then I'm happy to accept your word for it. As I said, elaborating would kill my privacy. In fact, I'm a bit paranoid that someone might go through all her videos and look for papers from Swiss authors but I doubt we have that level of weaponised autism yet.

>>9918 based author