@Five She's a clown who, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, believes that because she has expertise in some areas, that she has expertise in all, and therefore her thoughts and opinions on any subject are sound and valid.
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
4 points (58.3% liked)
Science
235 readers
2 users here now
Community for discussion about experiments or discoveries made with scientific methods.
Links to articles: please preserve headlines when possible, shortening / replacing as needed. When multiple articles are involved, please consider a text post.
If there is a narrower community available, discussion is encouraged there.
If a topic relates more closely to application of knowledge than obtaining it, discussion is encouraged in c/technology.
Attribution for the banner image: Image by FreePik
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She's very confident in her positions as is NDT, but to call them clowns is harsh and unnecessary. I think it's important to be able to admit when wrong, which is what she's doing here. However you feel about her personally, the fact is that a lot of people listen to her, and this video is going to have a material impact changing some minds.
That said, I understand why her repeated climate denial was so frustrating; she was very sure she was right about climate change when she wasn't, which makes the admission quite satisfying in some ways.
But look, it's hard enough to admit fault; why make it any more difficult by being a dick about it when someone does? Taking this instance as an example, would you prefer she keep denying the problem? I know people that will never, ever admit they're wrong so I know my answer to that question.
@voracitude It's not just climate that she's been so very wrong about, and you being a dick about me calling out her clownery is quite precious.
She's done harm in more than one area, so it's going to take more than one admission for her to make amends.
Starting by clearly stating she's sharing her personal opinions on topics outside her expertise rather than presenting nearly everything she posts as our best current science would be a good start.
Please explain how I was a dick, because it was written to be a measured counterpoint and I fail to see what you're even talking about.
If you're going to explicitly call out bad takes that's all well and good, but you should be big enough to appreciate good faith retractions when they're given like this as well.
Starting by clearly stating she's sharing her personal opinions on topics outside her expertise rather than presenting nearly everything she posts as our best current science would be a good start.
Agreed.
I think you’re being a bit too generous. Despite the fact that this particular video was pretty good overall (though the potshot at environmental activists at the end was wholly unnecessary and the opposite of helpful) I didn’t hear any real admission that her past views were mistaken here. If what you say is true, then she needed to own up to that far more clearly than she did.
Although I have only watched a few of her videos in the past before stopping. I found them quite opinionated and misinformed. So I don’t have the full context of what exactly she got wrong previously.