She pretty much always picks a non-mainstream opinion on any given topic, even when confronted with evidence counter her position.

Contrarianism isn't "what a good scientist does", it's stupidity.

If you are genuinely asking and not just defending, this blog post is a starting point to explain: https://timothynguyen.org/2025/08/21/physics-grifters-eric-weinstein-sabine-hossenfelder-and-a-crisis-of-credibility/

Others can say it better than me, but her videos went from well-researched science education to takedowns of the scientific process itself, hybothesis, experiment, analysis, forming new hypotheses. And takedowns of scientist in general. Conspiracies like "they're all trying to waste taxpayer money," which did GREAT numbers on YouTube.

I enjoyed her early videos saying "String theory is too difficult to verify experimentally, offers too little in predictive power, and gets way too much funding compared to other areas like X Y Z." That's a fair opinion and a discussion where rational minds can support their argument, and even agree to disagree.

"Science is sick, academia is dying, the whole field is corrupt, you can't trust scientists" is her vibe now. You can't have good faith arguments in that framing.

Here is one quote:

Scientific disagreements are intricate matters that require the attention of highly trained experts. However, for laypersons to be able to make up their own minds on such issues, they have to rely on proxies for credibility such as persuasiveness and conviction. This is the vulnerability that contrarians exploit, as they are often skilled in crafting the optics and rhetoric to support their case. Indeed, Weinstein and Hossenfelder’s strong personalities and their sowing of distrust in institutions enable them to persuade others of the correctness of their views when they deviate from those of experts.

mainstream consensus science which has very little evidence going for it?

Can you please name an example one or two of things that have reached "scientific consensus" yet have very little evidence?

How about just one. One thing.

I'm really curious to see what it is that you think words mean.

No a good scientist tests hypotheses so they know if they're right or wrong. "Mainstream consensus science" is science that has been tested over and over and found, by scientific consensus, to be as correct as we currently understand. It, by definition, has tons of evidence.