alt Hacker NewsHaving studied physics does not allow you to evaluate studies in completely unrelated field in any meaningful way.
Especially not in such politically-charged fields that require deeper knowledge about the historical context, the different interest groups and their biases and so on.
Her video on trans-issues labels people that advocate for the rights of trans-people as "extremists" and presents transphobic talking points as valid part of the scientific discussion.
Her trying to appear "neutral" and "just presenting the science" is exactly the issue. Using her authority as a scientist when talking about topics she has no expertise in.
Here is a debunking of her video on trans-issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Kau7bO3Fw
Here is a longer criticism of her video on autism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaZZiX0veFY
Replies
> Having studied physics does not allow you to evaluate studies in completely unrelated field in any meaningful way.
I agree! Before one may touch the pink sceptre, they must be permitted through the gate, and kissed by the doddling sheep, Harry, who will endow them with permission to pass and comment on many a great manor of thing which are simply out of reach of the natural human mind without these great blessings which we bestow. And, amen.
Looking at this HN commentator's behavior, we can see the early stages of a troubling pattern:
They start by attacking a physicist for being "neutral" and "just presenting the science" - exactly the kind of delegitimization of objectivity we see in early stages of information control Notice how they frame staying neutral as actively harmful - it's not just "wrong," but presented as dangerous because it doesn't take a strong enough stance against what they view as "extremist" positions Most tellingly, they're not arguing that her analysis is incorrect. Their complaint is that she's even allowing certain viewpoints to be examined objectively at all.
This maps directly to historical patterns where:
1. First you attack individuals for being neutral
2. Then you establish that certain topics are "beyond" neutral analysis
3. Finally you create an environment where examining data objectively becomes seen as suspicious or harmful
This HN comment is a perfect micro-example of this - it's not even sophisticated gatekeeping, it's raw "how dare you look at this objectively when you should be taking my side." This kind of thinking, multiplied across society and amplified by modern media, is exactly how larger patterns of information control take hold.
So where does your "scientific authority" come from, which is needed before criticizing someone according to your own logic?
You're not even using your real name here. Nobody knows if you have any scientific qualifications, or a university degree at all.