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.

I am writing here as a random hacker-news user. I don't claim to have any authority.

Sabine Hossenfelder presents her opinions as "what the science says" and that is the problem.

She does not. She specifically speaks against that kind of thinking. Recently, she stated it as, “Believe arguments, not people.” I couldn’t have said it better.

She makes arguments, forcefully. That’s good. That’s what science is supposed to be. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I find her arguments engaging, and sometimes convincing, sometimes not. But her process is not dogmatic, as you’re trying to make it out to be.

She can’t state her opinion? lol.

random Internet user, yes, Sabine... no, it's all hyped, you know sometimes you just have to come to your own conclusions

HN mod dang, if you are reading this, I have a question. I was previously given a warning for a post that levied factual criticisms about the quality of source code contributions performed by a woman who had intentionally put work forward into a highly public open source project in her own name.

I had specifically mentioned her by name in my criticisms, and I was given a written warning that doing so went against HN's policy on "targeted attacks" or "targeted harassment" or something similar.

Why is it okay for this user to suggest that the act of this woman presenting her work publicly "is the problem", while it is a HN AUP offense for me to criticize the quality of the source code contributions written by another woman presenting her work publicly?

I'm not requesting enforcement against this user or a retroactive removal of my warning, I'm just trying to understand the difference better to improve the conformance of my own discourse to the intent of HN's AUP.

It is extremely unlikely Dan is reading that, or the posts above yours. HN mods are only human and can’t see everything, that is why members have tools like flagging.

If you want to contact Dan, email HN and make your case. The concat information is at the bottom of the page.

In my understanding, one reason Sabine gets readily attacked (as user `cardanome` does here) is because of her criticism of orthodox physics theories. She has famously exclaimed that all cosmological theories supposing a “beginning” of the universe are essentially “a creation myth written in the language of mathematics”.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32618719

Read the linked blog post by Sabine again. That’s not what she says at all.

She’s saying something much more specific about the earliest moments (milliseconds!!) of the history of the universe, and before that time, of which we have practically zero observational data, and can’t ever visit even in principle.

She’s arguing against woo, against science fiction, against unsupported what-if musings that are fun to talk about — but are not science.

Interesting question. I'm not sure what "woman" has to do with it since they're both women, but we'll go with it. It would be helpful if you could link your comment, but I guess it's been nuked. Anyway...

Just because you can tie a person to work they have performed using public records does not seem like it should put them on the same level as someone who communicates with and creates work directly to the public, or a public figure. Not even if some of the actual work itself is performed in some open and observable space -- For example I don't think one has any more or less moral right to commentate on and publicly critique the work of a carpenter working on a building scaffold that's easily observable from the public street, than one does about a programmer working on their own idea from their own home in private. That seems like the immediate obvious difference between the two situations you describe. They don't sound equivalent at all, so I don't think you can win your case on that angle.

But work by "non-public-figures" is frequently posted about and commented on at Hackernews. Obviously open source work is a significant source of such discussion simply because it is accessible. Therefore, clearly it's not entirely verboten to talk about that. Is it permitted to criticize? I don't have a particular example at hand but I'm quite certain that I've seen negative opinions about people's work on this site from time to time. I think this is the angle you could argue your case. Was it fair and consistent that yours was called an attack or harassment? Are similar criticisms of work by non-public-figures permitted on here? Without the full context we can't answer that.

> 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.