Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Sabine Hossenfelder has lost faith in science?

Spread the love

Particle physics division anyhow.

Maybe not altogether but Sabine Hossenfelder sure sounds unhappy. She asks in her vid intro: “Why do particle physicists constantly make wrong predictions? In this video, I explain the history and status of the problem.” She also notes her list of problems in the foundations of physics (2019) which doubtless sheds some light.

22 Replies to “Sabine Hossenfelder has lost faith in science?

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    It’s not just science that’s fair game.

    We all know what Sam Harris is about. What is he trying to protect?

    This is why I genuinely regard Sam Harris’ admission as one of the most important statements in years.

    When he said anything and everything is justified to help Dems win – lying, censorship, disinformation – he was conveying what most in media and left-liberal politics believe.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    She is entertaining.

    Could the following from her talk be said about Evolution? I believe it can but I bet Sabine would be horrified.

    The pattern is this: Particle physicists invent particles, make predictions for those invented particles, and when these predictions are falsified, they change the model and make new predictions.

    They say it’s good science because these hypotheses are falsifiable. I’m afraid most of them believe this. But just because a hypothesis is falsifiable doesn’t mean it’s good science. And no, Popper didn’t say that a hypothesis which is falsifiable is also scientific. He said that a hypothesis which is scientific is also falsifiable.

    In case you’re a particle physicist, here’s a diagram that should help. Example: Tomorrow you will receive 1000 dollars from my friend the prince of Nigeria. Falsifiable but not scientific.

    The best way to see that what particle physicists are doing isn’t good science is by noting that it’s not working. Good scientists should learn from their failures, but particle physicists have been making the same mistakes for 50 years.

    But why is it not working?

    I’ll try to illustrate this with a simple sketch. If you understand the following two minutes, you can outsmart most particle physicists, and you don’t want to miss that opportunity, do you

    Suppose you have a bunch of data and you fit a model to it. The model is this curve. You can think of the model as an algorithm with input parameters if you like, or just set of equations that you work out by hand. Either way, it’s a bunch of mathematical assumptions. If you make a model more complicated by adding more assumptions, you can fit the data better, but the more complicated the model becomes, the less useful it will be. Eventually the model is more complicated than the data.

    At this point you can fit anything, and the model is entirely useless. This is called “overfitting”.

    it gets better and better so watch it all and think Evolution. Not quite the same because there is a standard model and the Evolution model is gobbledygook. But similar thinking.

    Aside: She gets political by making fun of Donald Trump.

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    Why do particle physicists constantly make wrong predictions

    Sounds like Darwinism…

    “…current concepts are reviewed…”
    “…uprooting current thinking….”
    “…latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
    “… it challenges a long-held theory…”
    “… it upends a common view…”
    “… in contrast to the decades-long dogma …”
    “… it needs a rethink … ”
    “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
    “… it shakes up the dogma … ”
    “… earlier than thought…”
    “… younger than thought….”
    “… smarter than thought ….”
    “… more complex than thought ….”
    “… a fossil defies textbook explanation …”
    “… a fossil overturns more than a century of knowledge”
    “… fossils upends conventional wisdom….”
    “… it challenges central principle in biology…”
    “…it casts doubt in Established Evolution Beliefs….”
    “… new discovery puts into question existing models…”

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    Why do particle physicists constantly make wrong predictions

    as to making constantly wrong predictions

    Published few days ago by PBS Eon.

    “These Fossils Were Supposed To Be Impossible”

    … It was almost a geological law that rocks this old could never contain fossils …
    … In 2022, scientists reported a new out-of-place fossil from Charnwood Forest that once again broke all the rules …

    10 mins video

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    What I don’t understand is why didn’t all these engineers and journalists and business consultants and lawyers and theologians and particle physicists, who clearly understand evolution better than biologists, predict where these novel creatures could be found?

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    Seversky, don’t blame engineers or lawyers for “out-of-place” fossil or “impossible fossil” or “fossil that once again broke all the rules” …

    We engineers don’t make these Darwinian rules :)))))))))

  7. 7
    Querius says:

    Martin_r @4,

    Terrific video! Wow! And the original Precambrian fossil was originally discovered (and ignored) in 1956?

    How sad that it and other out-of-place fossils are sacrificed on the altar of ideology.

    This is yet another great example of the ever-popular Semmelweiss Effect! In this case, I would term it preconceptual blindness.

    Sabine Hossenfelder’s videos, which I otherwise enjoy for her clear, no-nonsense approach, are sometimes marred by her ideological biases. One can easily recognize these places.

    I wish that she would drop her biases and just look at the evidence. She complains that advancement in theoretical quantum physics seems to have stalled and reached an impasse, but she’s still contributing to that impasse by using her amazing intellect to filter her interpretations of scientific observations through her ideological bias of materialistic determinism.

    So what if we do live in a highly probabilistic reality that’s based on information? Maybe that will turn out to be wrong after all, but let’s follow where science is currently leading us.

    These characteristics are very similar to where Darwinism finds itself currently. The presence of continual surprises and conundrums indicate that something is fundamentally incorrect in the theory that needs to be overturned.

    A similar situation occurred in astrophysics when an unexplained 7% precession in the orbit of Mercury was first noticed by Urbain Le Verrier in 1855, demonstrating that Issac Newton’s orbital mechanics was a good approximation, but basically flawed.

    Another example is when the problems of underground or underwater electrical transmission of data was found to be unexpectedly poor. This also overturned the scientific theories of the time, although electrical flow of energy is still erroneously taught in terms of electrons traveling along wires. And the same goes with the physics of flight . . .

    There’s an all-too-human pattern here!


  8. 8
    relatd says:

    Querius at 7,

    As someone with a background in electronics, electrons do travel along wires. Early electronic components in computers gave off heat. What caused it? Electron travel.

    I don’t understand your “physics of flight” reference at all. I study aerodynamics and all aircraft follow fundamental principles.

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    Relatd @8,

    Okay, check out these two videos:

    Yeah, I was taught incorrect theory as well.


  10. 10
    asauber says:

    The headline hits the issue very well. People do lose faith in Science because Science is not something to have faith in to begin with. But people are lied to, and they know not what they should do.


  11. 11
    AndyClue says:


    What I don’t understand is why didn’t all these engineers and journalists and business consultants and lawyers and theologians and particle physicists, who clearly understand evolution better than biologists, predict where these novel creatures could be found?

    They are busy. The engineers are busy delving into irrelevant consciousness talking points. The business consultatns are busy counting money from their book sales. The lawyers are busy trolling on UD. The thologians have been busy making up fantasies for over 2000 years. And the particle physicists never claimed to understand evolution better than the biologists.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    AC: “particle physicists never claimed to understand evolution better than the biologists.”

    Darwinian explanations, i.e. ‘just-so stories’, are useless in experimental biology.

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    – Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
    – Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000)

    Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
    Excerpt: “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    – Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    Darwinian Evolution does not influence biology but genetics which uses Darwinian processes does.

    Certainly not for everything but definitely in many areas. Failure to make the distinction is crucial to understanding the issues.

    ID should get rid of its anti Darwinism fetish. It clouds the perception of just what ID is. For example, ID has no problem with natural selection. Admit it exists but is limited and move on.

    It may be essential to winning the debate.

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    Querius, BA77 …

    Look here … this is something …. another Darwinian dogma broken … but this one is beyond absurd …

    Published January 23 2023

    They put it on Nature’s cover page.

    PS: I would expect, that this organism dies off when it can’t read its genetic code – no proteins can be made. But no, this organism “evolves” the way, how to replace the stop codons so “it returns meaning to the genetic information” … there are two extremely absurd moments – first, how an unguided natural process knows what is a meaningful information. Second, how something like that can even evolve? You should die before you can evolve the reassignment of stop codons …

    On top of that, according to this study, there are several organisms who “evolved” this stop codon reassignment independently :))))))))))

    … and I though this theory can’t get more absurd …

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    Jerry @13,

    Darwinian Evolution does not influence biology but genetics which uses Darwinian processes does.

    Baloney! Of course Darwin Evolution influences biology!

    When trying to understand unknown structures in biology, Darwinism forces biologists to assume such structures are randomly generated and likely have no function. A great example is how the discovery of ductless glands such as the thyroid were for a long time ASSUMED to be useless “vestiges of evolution.” They were termed “vestigial organs” as a result. There were over one hundred (100) of these submitted as evidence of evolution at the Scopes trial.

    Please make sure you support your assertions.


  16. 16
    Querius says:

    Martin_r @14,

    Thank for posting the link.

    Yes, I’m completely baffled that magical thinking like this ever gets published. It’s yet another example of Darwinists’ pathetic use of their triune god’s-of-the-gaps: MIGHTA, MUSTA, and EMERGED that cover massive chasms of ignorance in evolutionary biology.


  17. 17
    jerry says:

    Please make sure you support your assertions

    I stand by everything I said.

  18. 18
    Querius says:

    Jerry @17,

    I stand by everything I said.

    I have no doubt about that. You say what you mean and mean what you say.

    Notice that in my comment, I presented evidence that falsifies what you asserted. Was my evidence wrong or somehow out of context?

    What evidence convinced you of your assertion?


  19. 19
    jerry says:

    I presented evidence that falsifies what you asserted

    No you didn’t.

    You referred to something 100 years ago. That is hardly evidence for the last 50 years. That’s similar to Seversky citing Tulsa more than once as an example of racism when it was over 100 years ago.

    There has been lots of research on just about every aspect of the human body over the last century. It has gotten more ubiquitous in the last 50 years. So to claim that Evolution inhibits biology research is nonsense.

  20. 20
    PaV says:

    I’ve written two posts about this problem of present-day physics not being able to correct itself.

    Here’s one, and here’s another. As you can see, nothing has changed. Sabine says that in ten years physicists will be doing the same thing. Well, they were doing it ten years ago and people were noticing it then.

    I think where Sabine goes wrong is she thinks that this problem will finally be detected by governments and that science will dry up. If only this would happen. Governments aren’t that smart. And bureaucrats don’t care what happens with tax-payers money because it isn’t theirs. Just think, if they eliminated all the money that went to physicists, then the government would have to fire those in charge of dispensing the money to the physicists. Now why would a bureaucrat want to do that?

  21. 21
    Querius says:

    Jerry @19,

    You referred to something 100 years ago. That is hardly evidence for the last 50 years.

    Oh, so the absurdity of Darwinists promoting vestigial organs doesn’t count because it was 100 years ago. Okay, how about junk DNA, or what might also be correctly termed “vestigial DNA”?

    That fallacious and collapsing argument is still being clung to by desperate Darwinists despite more and more of what’s now termed “non-coding DNA” (a term also being shown to be fallacious) being shown to have important functions. As a result, the failed, racist, and colonialist idea of Darwinism CONTINUES TO INHIBIT SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS!


  22. 22
    Querius says:

    PaV @20,

    Agreed. What amazes me is how physics is still being taught, such as:

    • Electrons travel down wires.
    • Wings generate lift through Bernoulli’s principle.
    • There are four fundamental forces in nature.

    And so on.

    Thanks for the links.


Leave a Reply