Transgender Thread.

[Danoff]

It isn't.

ChatGPT take on this video:

"The video discusses how academia, particularly in physics, is influenced by the need for grant money. Sabine Hossenfelder shares an email from a researcher who acknowledges flaws in the system but suggests that such issues should be kept quiet because many scientists rely on grants for their careers. Sabine pushes back against this idea, arguing that ignoring the problem only allows it to persist. She criticizes how research funding often prioritizes trends and safe topics over true scientific progress, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of groundbreaking discoveries."

If you think this is an exception, then okay—I don't.

Did you watch the video? She's talking about supercolliders and how they get sold with the promise of unveiling the secrets of the big bang and all of reality. If you want to extrapolate that to social sciences, you've got a lot of work to do, because the specific mechanism that she's arguing about is that people don't understand quantum particles and the big bang. That simply doesn't apply to all grants.

Just... take a step back and look at what you're doing. You're generalizing a specific argument (and using a generalizing algorithm to help you do that), and then claiming you have support for it. This is a logical fallacy known as a motte and bailey.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]

Your motte is that supercollider experiments are sold on promises that are beyond what they can deliver based on a general lack of competency with quantum particles. The Bailey is that this is the same thing being done in "social studies" which we're all supposed to then further bailey into transgender issues. You have't tried to defend anything about social science grants, and your use of this video doesn't support it. Retreating to the motte of supercolliders is not helping your case.

Again, take a step back. You're using a logical fallacy to support something. Do some introspection as to why and work on yourself a bit.