How is Michio Kaku regarded in the Physics world?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Michio Kaku's role as a popularizer of physics and the effectiveness of his communication style. Participants acknowledge Kaku's impressive academic credentials, including his summa cum laude graduation from Harvard and his contributions to theoretical physics, yet express skepticism about his ability to convey complex scientific concepts to the general public. Some view his approach as overly simplistic or sensationalized, potentially leading to misunderstandings about physics among lay audiences. The conversation highlights a broader concern regarding the quality of science communication, emphasizing that while popularization is necessary to engage the public, it risks fostering distrust if not done accurately. Comparisons are made to other science communicators like Richard Feynman, who are praised for their ability to explain difficult concepts clearly. Ultimately, the thread reflects a tension between the need for engaging science communication and the responsibility to maintain scientific integrity.
  • #51
D H said:
Deepak Chopra interviews Michio Kaku: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/michio-kaku-interview-by_b_614971.html

Art Bell (Coast to Coast) interviews Michio Kaku: https://archive.org/details/MichioKaku-QuantumPhysicsOnCoastToCoastAmWithArtBell

Why, Professor Kaku, why?

Speaking of which, http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/19/why-professor-kaku-why/



Apologies in advance to Evo for linking to a crackpot sources (Deepak Chopra and Coast to Coast). It's important in this case.

I was about to make a post referencing the Chopra-Kaku interview, but you saved me the trouble. Anyway, this website summarises my thoughts on the matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
I'm not one for Consequentialism (the end justifies the means), thus am not excited about popularizing science at the expense of science.
 
  • #53
As for Kaku himself, I regard him as a pretentious blatherboy, too often blathering on topics he does NOT know about.

Not very different from any other "media goblin", as we call them in Norwegian.

But, then again, I can hardly be called a member of the "Physics World".
 
  • #54
Seems to me that you have a very healthy attitude. :approve:
 
  • #56
arildno said:
As for Kaku himself, I regard him as a pretentious blatherboy, too often blathering on topics he does NOT know about.

+1 on that !
 
  • #57
  • #58
Ryan_m_b said:
I'm in agreement with some of the top comments that Kaku is disappointing in this AMA. He's avoiding the serious scientific questions and responding to the vague ones with science fiction speculation. If you told me that this was a Kurzweil AMA I'd believe it.

Agreed. He seems to be cherry picking questions that will allow him to plug his new book.
 
  • #59
Dembadon said:
Agreed. He seems to be cherry picking questions that will allow him to plug his new book.


Definitely. A book in which he claims to have created a new theory of consciousness allowing the classification of levels of consciousness:

I have devised an entirely new theory of consciousness, allowing one to numerically calculate the level of consciounsess of humans and even animals. Its all in my new book.
 
  • #60
Ryan_m_b said:
Definitely. A book in which he claims to have created a new theory of consciousness allowing the classification of levels of consciousness:
Wow, just wow. :eek:
 
  • #61
Ryan_m_b said:
Definitely. A book in which he claims to have created a new theory of consciousness allowing the classification of levels of consciousness:

Oh noes. I can see them now, threads started to discus "numerically calculating the level of consciousness of humans and even animals".

Sigh.
 
  • #62
lisab said:
Oh noes. I can see them now, threads started to discus "numerically calculating the level of consciousness of humans and even animals".

Sigh.

Help, I calculated my own level consciousness and I'm below the level of a tomato. Can I still be a theoretical physicist?
 
  • #63
micromass said:
Help, I calculated my own level consciousness and I'm below the level of a tomato. Can I still be a theoretical physicist?

A green tomato, or a red tomato?
 
  • #64
lisab said:
A green tomato, or a red tomato?

I am colorblind and I find this offensive.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #65
I have devised an entirely new theory of consciousness, allowing one to numerically calculate the level of
consciounsess of humans and even animals.

What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?
 
  • #66
Yup. I read a couple of his books when I was a teen, don't really remember them but always had it in my mind that he was a typical popsci communications guy. Probably simplifying things too much and sensationalising a bit but otherwise not a negative factor in public communication of science. At least he was doing things to get people interested, even if others are or were better.

But the things he said in that AMA set off so many alarm bells for me. Not just the bizarre claim to have developed whole cloth a theory of consciousness (and honestly when cognitive neuroscientists are struggling with even defining the problem I take any attempt from someone not even in a biology field with a massive dollop of skepticism) but he also said the best way for humanity to explore space is to upload our consciousness into machines and blast that data in every direction. I haven't read his new book so can't definitively pass judgement but he seems to be going off the deep end.

Incidentally for those unfamiliar with reddit it can be a pain to find exactly where someone has posted in a long thread. A little tip is to go to Kaku's profile and just read through the posts he has made:
http://www.reddit.com/user/DrMichioKaku
 
  • #67
Evo said:
Wow, just wow. :eek:

It's possible that if Michio Kaku joins and writes in this forum, he could get banned within a week.
 
  • #68
micromass said:
I am colorblind and I find this offensive.

:smile:
 
  • #69
jobyts said:
It's possible that if Michio Kaku joins and writes in this forum, he could get banned within a week.
Probably more like first post if this is what he posted about.
 
  • #70
You missed how some of his answers on the AMA assume string theory will be the successful grand unification and it will be confirmed in the next collider.

That consciousness thing is weird too.
 
  • #71
I've skimmed the Kaku AMA a little bit and noticed that he keeps saying that his day job is a string theory physicist and that he's working out M-theory in some amount of dimensions and such. I'm no theoretical physicist by a long shot (and have no idea what who publishes what in that field) but I've read on here and elsewhere that he hasn't really published anything in 10+ years. If that is all true then I have completely lost all respect for the guy, pushing his pop-sci/sci-fi nonsense under the guise of a working scientist.
 
  • #72
Yanick said:
I've skimmed the Kaku AMA a little bit and noticed that he keeps saying that his day job is a string theory physicist and that he's working out M-theory in some amount of dimensions and such. I'm no theoretical physicist by a long shot (and have no idea what who publishes what in that field) but I've read on here and elsewhere that he hasn't really published anything in 10+ years. If that is all true then I have completely lost all respect for the guy, pushing his pop-sci/sci-fi nonsense under the guise of a working scientist.

Yes, I've read that too and it surprised me. So I thought that perhaps we're wrong and he does still publish.

I checked arxiv: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Michio+Kaku/0/1/0/all/0/1
I saw no recent publications.

His university page http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/profiles/michio-kaku.cfm seems to have no recent publications other than his pop-sci books and two recent string theory books (those seem to me the only advanced thing he published the last 10 years).

On his university website, he refers to google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:+Michio+Kaku&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33 but I don't see much recent activity there as well.

Somebody please prove me wrong and show me that he does still publish papers regularly.
 
  • #73
AlephZero said:
What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?
:smile:
 
  • #74
AlephZero said:
What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?

Does that count as animal abuse?
 
  • #75
micromass said:
Somebody please prove me wrong and show me that he does still publish papers regularly.

Nope, can't find anything this side of the millennium. His university physics department page claims he is working on a theory of everything but no articles showing that.
 
  • #76
Ryan_m_b said:
Nope, can't find anything this side of the millennium. His university physics department page claims he is working on a theory of everything but no articles showing that.
He's getting old, and it is not surprising if his creative juices have dried up. Nor would it at all be bad that previously active physicists involved them in popularization of the topic. But, it is rather sad that he is still so pretentious that he won't admit his active physics days are long gone. I'm not surprised,though, it is in tune with his character to still waffle about being in the forfefront of everything.
 
  • #77
I don't even care if he's made any major breakthroughs at the forefront of string theory. I don't even care if he actively announces his lack of work. Its simply the number of times I saw his comments alluding to his "day job" as a physicist and that he spends "most of his time" thinking about such and such theory. Its those types of comments coupled with his reluctance to answer any real scientific questions (from what I saw and others directly commented on) and his constant shows and other celebrity duties which made me lose all of my respect for the guy. He's trying to validate his pop-sci/sci-fi mumbo jumbo by claiming that he's just doing all this other stuff on the side.

Come on, the guy figured out a new (quantitative) model of conscious on the side? Like, he spent an hour or two after working on string theory all day and has revolutionized the field of neuroscience in his spare time? I have lost all respect for the guy. This isn't even crackpot territory, its morally and ethically reprehensible.
 
  • #78
Ryan_m_b said:
but he [Kaku] also said the best way for humanity to explore space...
So far so good.
Ryan_m_b said:
...is to upload our consciousness into machines...
Say what? :rolleyes:
Ryan_m_b said:
...and blast that data in every direction.
That's not exploration. That's spamming.
 
  • #79
micromass said:
Agreed.

But I think bad science popularization creates more distrust than no popularization at all. I've heard enough laymen say things like "what they showed in that documentary can't be real, it goes against common science. All those scientists are idiots and shouldn't be trusted". I think that's a normal reaction to bad popularizations like "through the wormhole". However, it's not something that somebody will say after watching something divine like Feynman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI

Seriously, you just got a video of a guy sitting in a chair and it makes you excited to learn physics. It's much better than fancy graphics, but rubbish explanations you see most of the time.

And really, how much science documentaries do you see where they attempt some dubious explanation of what magnetism or some other concept is. Feynman is again far superior with his answer that it can't be explained in familiar terms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
I like Feynman's style. He is down-to-earth, as well as knowledgeable and insightful - and he's not pretentious. In fact I found him rather modest and sometimes self-deprecating.

I watched the Feynman lectures from Cornell University (in black and white) when I was in high school. I thoroughly enjoyed his lectures, but I would expect that the majority of fellow students in high school would be thoroughly uninterested or bored. I think Feynman appealed to students who were keenly interested in science, particularly math and physics. Feynman discusses this matter in the first video.

I don't care for pop-sci celebrities, especially when they misrepresent or hype science.


I think Kaku follows somewhat in the footsteps of Teller in terms of hype and celebrity.
 
  • #80
To me, I do not see the existence of Kaku as needed or justified as long as Stephen Haking is around. Existence as popularizer of science, that is, if somebody mistook my meaning. :smile:
 
  • #81
I've been doing some googling to try and find out exactly what his new theory of consciousness is. Not having much luck but did find one reference in a review;

The problem is that we still don’t have much in the way of a working model of consciousness. With a physicist’s eye for economy, Kaku tries to provide one through what he calls a “space-time theory.” It’s a model of consciousness with a graded scale of awareness based on the number of feedback loops between environment and organism. Thus, in Kaku’s view, a thermostat has the lowest possible level of consciousness while humans, with our ability to move through space and project ourselves mentally backward and forward in time, represent the highest level currently known.

Can't really parse that but it doesn't sound like a description of consciousness that makes any sense.

The review itself is pretty good at highlighting what's wrong with his style of public communication; it's pretty much all science fiction drawn from baseless extrapolations of current technology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/books/review/michio-kakus-future-of-the-mind.html?_r=0
 
  • #82
AlephZero said:
What about odd animals? Is there some deep argument about the symmetry of space-time that says odd animals are not conscious?

And don't even get me started on lolcats. That would open up a whole new can of tuna. As we post, Schrodinger is loling in his grave.
 
  • #83
Curious3141 said:
And don't even get me started on lolcats. That would open up a whole new can of tuna. As we post, Schrodinger is loling in his grave.

Get started right meow, what are you waiting for? Schrodinger can't be loling, his wavefunction has definitely collapsed.
 
Last edited:
  • #85
Astronuc said:
I like Feynman's style. He is down-to-earth, as well as knowledgeable and insightful - and he's not pretentious. In fact I found him rather modest and sometimes self-deprecating.

I watched the Feynman lectures from Cornell University (in black and white) when I was in high school. I thoroughly enjoyed his lectures, but I would expect that the majority of fellow students in high school would be thoroughly uninterested or bored. I think Feynman appealed to students who were keenly interested in science, particularly math and physics. Feynman discusses this matter in the first video.

I don't care for pop-sci celebrities, especially when they misrepresent or hype science.I think Kaku follows somewhat in the footsteps of Teller in terms of hype and celebrity.

+1. Thanks for this, great post. I so miss Feynman, bongo drums and all.
 
  • #86
micromass said:
But I think bad science popularization creates more distrust than no popularization at all. I've heard enough laymen say things like "what they showed in that documentary can't be real, it goes against common science. All those scientists are idiots and shouldn't be trusted". I think that's a normal reaction to bad popularizations like "through the wormhole". However, it's not something that somebody will say after watching something divine like Feynman:

Sure, except nobody would watch Feynman except those who already have an avid interest and don't need motivation.

The man who developed an ion propulsion systems for one of NASA's deep space probes comes to mind. He, along with countless scientists and engineers, were first motivated by Star Trek, not Feynman. If you want to keep the public's interest, which can have a direct bearing on funding, then you have to sell the dream. Imo that's what Kaku and Through the Wormhole do. Kaku has made a career for himself but there is a very good reason why he is so popular. Feynman would bore most people to death. Kaku helps to fire the imagination, as did Star Trek.
 
  • #87
Ivan Seeking said:
Sure, except nobody would watch Feynman except those who already have an avid interest and don't need motivation.

The man who developed an ion propulsion systems for one of NASA's deep space probes comes to mind. He, along with countless scientists and engineers, were first motivated by Star Trek, not Feynman. If you want to keep the public's interest, which can have a direct bearing on funding, then you have to sell the dream. Imo that's what Kaku and Through the Wormhole do. Kaku has made a career for himself but there is a very good reason why he is so popular. Feynman would bore most people to death. Kaku helps to fire the imagination, as did Star Trek.

Star Treks never claims to be scientifically accurate. Kaku does. I think there is where your analogy fails.
 
  • #88
micromass said:
Star Treks never claims to be scientifically accurate. Kaku does. I think there is where your analogy fails.

Kaku generally qualifies what he says. Maybe you can cite an example of how he misrepresents science.
 
  • #89
Ivan Seeking said:
Kaku generally qualifies what he says. Maybe you can cite an example of how he misrepresents science.

If you read this thread, you'll see examples enough. For example, see the interview on reddit, or the interview with Deepak Chopra.
 
  • #90
Here you go, Ivan, for some specific sources:

D H said:
Deepak Chopra interviews Michio Kaku: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/michio-kaku-interview-by_b_614971.html

Art Bell (Coast to Coast) interviews Michio Kaku: https://archive.org/details/MichioKaku-QuantumPhysicsOnCoastToCoastAmWithArtBell

Why, Professor Kaku, why?

Speaking of which, http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/19/why-professor-kaku-why/



Apologies in advance to Evo for linking to a crackpot sources (Deepak Chopra and Coast to Coast). It's important in this case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #91
Ivan Seeking said:
Kaku generally qualifies what he says. Maybe you can cite an example of how he misrepresents science.

Well I don't know about misrepresenting science but he misrepresents himself. In the following interview at 2:15 he takes credit for string theory, boldly claiming that it is his own contribution to science.

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBB2qHgZvLY"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #92
DHF said:
Well I don't know about misrepresenting science but he misrepresents himself. In the following interview at 2:15 he takes credit for string theory, boldly claiming that it is his own contribution to science.

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBB2qHgZvLY"

It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.
 
Last edited:
  • #93
Greg Bernhardt said:
It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.

Consistent with his personality as a vain, conceited blatherboy, though...
 
  • #94
Greg Bernhardt said:
It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.

yes it is possible to make verbal typos but in this case I don't believe it was. he seems fairly specific in what he was saying. things like "that is my equation " "my own contribution to science" . This is directly misleading.
 
  • #95
arildno said:
Consistent with his personality as a vain, conceited blatherboy, though...

+1 on that
 
  • #96
Greg Bernhardt said:
It is bold and he should have added "helped" but still I take it as if he were saying "I worked on it". Interviews are tough because you can't edit what you say after the fact. We'd all say poorly worded things.

Hah! Speak yourself for, Greg, I say never word poorly things !
 
  • #97
I know this question is going to sound stupid, but... Why would he do such things? Can't he just do his physics stuff and stop trying to get into the spotlight on TV?
 
  • #98
Vahsek said:
I know this question is going to sound stupid, but... Why would he do such things? Can't he just do his physics stuff and stop trying to get into the spotlight on TV?

Good question. Why do Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus do what they do? Fame? Money? I don't know...
 
  • #99
micromass said:
Good question. Why do Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus do what they do? Fame? Money? I don't know...

:-p Very funny. But, what I mean is that the guy is a physicist, and he was pretty smart too if I believe what I have already read about him. It's not like he was some random "lady Gaga" or "Miley Cyrus"...
 
  • #100
Vahsek said:
:-p Very funny. But, what I mean is that the guy is a physicist, and he was pretty smart too if I believe what I have already read about him. It's not like he was some random "lady Gaga" or "Miley Cyrus"...

It was only meant half as a joke. I just mean, people do crazy things to keep being in the spotlights. Modern musicians try to keep an audience by going naked or just weird. Maybe Kaku has to go all speculative in order to keep the audience. Or perhaps it's because his books sell well and he gets rich. Or maybe it's because he genuinly believes he's doing a good job. Perhaps a combination of those.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person

Similar threads

Looking for good intro science books. I'm thinking Kaku?
Replies
45
Views
4K
Unifying the universe: Michio Kaku
Replies
1
Views
2K
Physics What are the steps to becoming a physicist?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Read Physics Postdoc's Reflections on Education, Knowledge, & Life
Replies
8
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top