| Hm, kann mir dazu noch keine Meinung bilden |  |
Muss da mal tiefer einsteigen, aber habt ihr auch ihren Kommentar drunter gelesen? Wie is der einzuschätzen?
"Hi Dave, first of all, thanks for being polite and respectful. I am not offended. As you have probably noticed in the video about how I don't trust scientists, I am very aware of the audience split that you mention.
That said, a few comments.
1) I have always tried to stress in interviews I have given, articles I have written and videos I have made that the stagnation that I am referring to is in the foundations of physics, not in physics overall. In fact I say this in the part of my video that you refer to at 8:06. You then go on to make it sound like that was a statement about all of physics. It is ironic in that I have a standard phrase that I repeat in all interviews that I give which is to stress that this problem does not exist in other areas of physics, and then I list them pretty much the same that you do.
2) As I think that the foundations of physics are of extraordinary relevance for societal progress, I am afraid that the problem will spread to other areas of physics eventually, and from there to other areas of science, hence the title of my video that physics is dying.
3) For what the development of my channel is concerned, you have it backwards. The fact that my book which you show was written in 2015 (and published with delay in 2018) should have demonstrated that this is certainly not a recent development. Indeed, if my agent would have let me, I'd have written much more about the problems with academia in general already back then.
It isn't hard to check that I have been going on about the problems with academia for almost 20 years starting with my blog. I have known Eric almost as long. Indeed the reason we know each other is that I organized a conference about the problems in academia (a long time ago). I did not talk on YouTube about this because I felt that no one would be interested (a stance that my agent just a month ago repeated, nevermind the video views).
The part that you get right is that only now do I feel free to talk about it since there are no future prospects to ruin.
4) You are right that there will be more content about the problems with academia on my channel because I think it is a huge problem and someone needs to talk about it, exactly BECAUSE there are so many science deniers. You will disagree I expect, but I think that people like you -- who deny that academia has a problem -- are the ones causing the problem. We can't solve it unless we face it.
5) In general you make it sound like I am not sincere about what I say. I want to kindly ask you to respect that I indeed mean what I say. The current situation in academia worries me tremendously.
If you want to have a private exchange, pls contact my agency, I'll tell them to pass through any message coming from you.
Punkt 4 hab ich mal unterstrichen, weil mir das bekannt vorkommt. Ich glaube, es geht da gerade eigentlich um einen Diskurs, den aus Angst keiner vernünftig führen will und der deswegen abgeblockt wird. Dass Hossenfelder wohl teilweise rhetorisch zu deftig agiert, kann ich gut nachvollziehen als valide Kritik. Und dieser Dave hat ja durchaus auch ein paar gute Argumente für seine Gegenmeinung geliefert. Bevor ich da jetzt Hossenfelder labeln wollen würde, müsste ich mir mehr zu dem Thema reinziehen. Ich geh dem noch ma nach, find ich interessant.