[hn_throwaway_99]

> "it's so easy, it's just [controversial pet theory] and the rest of science disagrees because they are wrong".

That's probably the best description of her style of argument I've read, and it's honestly why I can't stand reading/watching her anymore. Much too much of it comes off to me as "What the physics establishment doesn't want you to know!!" type of stuff, so it then attracts the "yeah, she's speaking truth to power, I knew it was a conspiracy!" crowd.

I mean, there are plenty of folks that have expressed a ton of skepticism about string theory without the semi-conspiratorial angle.

[Beldin]

Hear, hear!

I appreciate someone challenging commonly held beliefs - science needs that. But I've grown accustomed to expecting her popular science output to present her point of view as the only valid one, and her the one sane person in physics. It has gone far beyond adding much-needed nuance, and has basically become contrarian-for-contrarian's-sake.

Which is a pity, because challenge to existing beliefs is valuable. But when someone mentions that she has a take on an exciting new physics result, I find myself able to predict the general direction (negative) and the tone (derisive) with high enough accuracy not to have to read it anymore.

[elorant]

You should read her book where she goes into greater detail about the shortcomings of modern science. While I also don't generally enjoy her style, there's a lot of valid points in her arguments.