Is it me, or is Michio Kaku a total buffoon?

[jim mcnamara]

poop-loops -

You got to watch the use of the word 'theory' around here before somebody gives you a nasty time about it.

Scientists use theory to mean something that has been investigated and repeatedly tested and found to be correct. As a sort of poor man's guide:
hypotheses -> theory -> law -- in ascending order of, um, "quality"

You are using theory the way it is used outside science:
Theory = a hare-brained idea that I just pulled out of my a** to fit what I see in front of me.

 

[RetardedBastard]

poop-loops -

You got to watch the use of the word 'theory' around here before somebody gives you a nasty time about it.

Scientists use theory to mean something that has been investigated and repeatedly tested and found to be correct. As a sort of poor man's guide:
hypotheses -> theory -> law -- in ascending order of, um, "quality"

I don't know if the "ascending order" concept is really that useful because I don't think science works like that. I mean, when was the last time a scientist pushed for a name change from "Special theory of relativity" to the "Special LAW of relativity?" Despite the fact that SR has been widely validated, it's still "just a theory" (and probably forever will be). And there are other widely verified theories, that despite decades worth of experiments, continue to be called theories, instead of laws.

 

[Cyrus]

Science does work that way RetardedBastard.

 

[binzing]

Dough? You mean good info. Which I try to as often as possible. Either way, real banner ads don't bother me...(cough) AdsOff

 

[tribdog]

I don't know if the "ascending order" concept is really that useful because I don't think science works like that. I mean, when was the last time a scientist pushed for a name change from "Special theory of relativity" to the "Special LAW of relativity?" Despite the fact that SR has been widely validated, it's still "just a theory" (and probably forever will be). And there are other widely verified theories, that despite decades worth of experiments, continue to be called theories, instead of laws.

As opposed to Newton's Law of Gravity. Which isn't quite as accurate as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity

 

[RetardedBastard]

As opposed to Newton's Law of Gravity. Which isn't quite as accurate as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity

Right on! It just goes to show that sometimes a theory trumps a law. So the "acension order" of hypothesis->theory->law is clearly not being followed here.

Thanks for backing me up dog :)

 

[RetardedBastard]

Science does work that way RetardedBastard.

Well, that's a nice little assertion n' all. But I don't see where the example I gave in my post that you're (attempting to) rebuff is infact being rebuffed.

 

[f95toli]

Right on! It just goes to show that sometimes a theory trumps a law. So the "acension order" of hypothesis->theory->law is clearly not being followed here.

Thanks for backing me up dog :)

The reason the word "law" is no longer used is simply that we now understand that there is no such thing as "the laws of nature". Many of the early "natural philosophers" (such as Descartes) had the idea that the aim science was to more or less literally be able to write down the "rules" of nature (that were usually assumed to be "laws" decreed by God) in the same way as there were rules that regulated the life of people. These laws were usually written down in the form of short sentences with perhaps a short mathematical expression, the laws of thermodynamics is one example.

The problem is of course that many of the early "laws" were neither very general or even correct, "Hook's law" is a good example, it is obviously just a very special case of a situation better described by Newton's "laws" which in turn are just (mainly) special cases of more general theories etc. It soon became obvious that most of the "laws" were not really "infallible rules of nature" and eventually they stopped using the word law for new theories.

Anyway, the point is that there is no hierarchy. Nowadays we use the word "theory" in much the same way that the word "law" was used 200 years ago. Hence, a theory can never become a "law".

 

[OmCheeto]

The reason the word "law" is no longer used ...he word "law" was used 200 years ago. Hence, a theory can never become a "law".

Oh..., my..., God... How can anyone argue with a RetardedBastard on St. Patties day?

Erp...

God speed Professor Kaku.

hic..!

 

[Poop-Loops]

poop-loops -

You got to watch the use of the word 'theory' around here before somebody gives you a nasty time about it.

Scientists use theory to mean something that has been investigated and repeatedly tested and found to be correct. As a sort of poor man's guide:
hypotheses -> theory -> law -- in ascending order of, um, "quality"

You are using theory the way it is used outside science:
Theory = a hare-brained idea that I just pulled out of my a** to fit what I see in front of me.

Uh huh. That's just your theory.

 

[slider142]

Uh huh. That's just your theory.

Hi P-L,

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory to understand why it's unsettling to see the phrase "just a theory" in any science forum.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Your theories hold no water with me. If you showed me a law I might respond better.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Your theories hold no water with me. If you showed me a law I might respond better.

If it was just a theory I'd take it extremely seriously particular with reference to science. If it was just a hypothesis and all maths of course that's a different matter. Most scientists these days I think are in the against string "theory" camp. Although I could be mistaken, but ever since Smolin jumped ship it seems that way.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Anyway, the point is that there is no hierarchy. Nowadays we use the word "theory" in much the same way that the word "law" was used 200 years ago. Hence, a theory can never become a "law".

I don't know if you were trying to refute what I was saying (as one of posters above me seemed to think) or actually agreeing with me. It seems like the second one to me.

And that's exactly the point I'm making... there's no hierarchy, or "ascending order", that science uses where we can proclaim that a "law" is of a higher "quality" than a theory. Hence, my point is that the hypothesis->theory->law food-chain is useless (because science doesn't work that way). Science doesn't promote theories into laws... well, with the notable exception of when General relativity was promoted from a Colonel ;)

 

[RetardedBastard]

If it was just a theory I'd take it extremely seriously particular with reference to science. If it was just a hypothesis and all maths of course that's a different matter. Most scientists these days I think are in the against string "theory" camp. Although I could be mistaken, but ever since Smolin jumped ship it seems that way.

As opposed to Newton's Law of Gravity. Which isn't quite as accurate as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity

How did we ever get two dogs all in one thread?

 

[humanino]

I have Michio Kaku's (latest edition) books on Quantum Field theory (1993) and both on String theory (1999) . They are not very satisfactory if you have a rigourous mind. To me, he does not talk about QFT or ST, to me he speaks around it. It is stimulating if you want to get the taste of it, but frustrating if you want to actually do it.

To be fair, I just looked at SPIRES (never did before), and some of them have impressive citation level (one 250+, two at 100+, 5 at 50+, and are quite interesting really). Of course, he knows what he is talking about (when it is theoretical physics) but I really dislike his books style.

 

[f95toli]

I don't know if you were trying to refute what I was saying (as one of posters above me seemed to think) or actually agreeing with me. It seems like the second one to me.

Neither, actually.
My point was that the whole "theory vs. law" discussion is meaningless since the difference between them has more to do with history and linguistics than with natural science.
It is a bit like trying to argue that "thou" is a better pronoun than "you". They are just two different words and while they do not mean exactly the same thing we can still -in almost all contexts- replace thou by you. Same thing with "law" and "theory", for the most part they mean the same thing.
The word "law" is used only for historical reasons, mainly because it happens to be part of the name of many relations and theories

 

[Ouabache]

Do you mean the type I-IV stuff? Kaku didn't invent the idea. That is merely a way to assign levels of technology based on the energy that a civilization can capture and use.

Originally, this idea was the subject of a panel discussion [that included Sagan] that was the opening sequence for the movie 2001. It explained the basis of the movie, but at the last minute Kubrick deleted the scene.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1964SvA...8..217K&letter=.&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=217&epage=217&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf may have coined this "Type I-IV civilizations" terminology.

I once wrote an e-mail to Kaku based on something he wrote that others have been asking me about. Now I wrote this using my work address, which means that it had my credentials, etc., so it wasn't an anonymous e-mail from a crazed fan.

What I got back was not only a form letter, but it contained an advertisement for one of his books! Ever since then, I haven't been a big fan of him. His books continue to spur many crackpots into thinking that they can invent anything they like.

Zz.

Did you write to his academic address (as noted on this page)?
If you are serious conferring on science with him, try phoning. His number is also given.

Kaku is a futurist and a theoretical physicist. I think he definitely helps people get interested and inspired about physics and scientific development.

That is the mission of a popular physicist (scientist), to educate & inspire a wide audience about physics. Michio is often described as the successor to Carl Sagan, in this regard. In order to inspire a wide audience, you cannot be too detailed, your will lose them. Personally I find his books an enjoyable read..

 

[Tekno]

I have Michio Kaku's (latest edition) books on Quantum Field theory (1993) and both on String theory (1999) . They are not very satisfactory if you have a rigourous mind. To me, he does not talk about QFT or ST, to me he speaks around it. It is stimulating if you want to get the taste of it, but frustrating if you want to actually do it.

To be fair, I just looked at SPIRES (never did before), and some of them have impressive citation level (one 250+, two at 100+, 5 at 50+, and are quite interesting really). Of course, he knows what he is talking about (when it is theoretical physics) but I really dislike his books style.

Having been a fan of Dr. Kaku's for many years, I would guess that it seems that way to some because he explains things in his books in a manner that normal (non science oriented) people can understand. But I have often heard those looking for the meat of the subject are somewhat dissatisfied with the books because of it. For me, physics is a hobby and an inspiration in my art, so I tend to find his manner of explaining things helpful. I will soon be lost in Hyperspace & Parallel Worlds, two of his books on their way to me.

 

[Tekno]

For those wanting a bit more meat on Dr. Kaku's work, here is a link you might find useful... http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/search?a=kaku&t=&q=&c=&n=25&s=Listings

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1964SvA...8..217K&letter=.&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=217&epage=217&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf may have coined this "Type I-IV civilizations" terminology.

Yes, post 16:

In a seminal paper published in 1964 in the Journal of Soviet Astronomy, Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev theorized that advanced civilizations must therefore be grouped according to three types: Type I, II, and III, which have mastered planetary, stellar and galactic forms of energy, respectively. He calculated that the energy consumption of these three types of civilization would be separated by a factor of many billions. But how long will it take to reach Type II and III status? [continued]

...though I'm not sure who first suggested type IV.

 

[humanino]

For those wanting a bit more meat on Dr. Kaku's work, here is a link you might find useful...

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+kaku&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

Just to make it clear, I did not claim that Kaku does not understand what he is talking about, or even that he is a bad researcher. I read only three of his books, technical ones, and came to the conclusion that he tends to speak to much without enough substance. Having seen that in his technical books, I would definitely stay away from any kind of vulgarisation from him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Speaking in general terms is what allows him to connect with the public. How many other physicists have the ear of the average person - Joe Sixpack?

If nothing else, the scientific community should be grateful for the interest in, and ultimately the support for tax dollars for science that people like Kaku help to stimulate.

 

[ZapperZ]

If nothing else, the scientific community should be grateful for the interest in, and ultimately the support for tax dollars for science that people like Kaku help to stimulate.

If this is the consequence of what he has done, then he's not doing a very good job, from looking at the funding to basic research this past 20 years.

Zz.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Yeah, but just imagine what it would be like if he wasn't helping out! The theories are enormous!

 

[humanino]

If nothing else, the scientific community should be grateful for the interest in, and ultimately the support for tax dollars for science that people like Kaku help to stimulate.

I am very sorry, but I do not fully agree with that point of view. Maybe I should not write this here, however I will try to make from the beginning that I am aware how much my own opinion is contreversial these days, and probably largely considered quite unfair.

Scientific research does not always benefit from too much communication. When you keep making promesses to people, you have to provide at some point otherwise they will not trust your words and fund you anymore. Scientists claiming for decades to the public that they will come up with a "theory of everything", or "the equation of God", or the "ultimate truth" may also harm the scientific community from this point of view on the long term. Are they really that naive ? Some might consider them selfish at the very least...

Yeah, but just imagine what it would be like if he wasn't helping out! The theories are enormous!

Maybe the situation would be far better without such people, how can we know ? You assume he helps. Far from clear to me.

 

[Tekno]

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+kaku&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

Just to make it clear, I did not claim that Kaku does not understand what he is talking about, or even that he is a bad researcher. I read only three of his books, technical ones, and came to the conclusion that he tends to speak to much without enough substance. Having seen that in his technical books, I would definitely stay away from any kind of vulgarisation from him.

Thanks humanino!

He is more than a bit the opposite of many Theorists, most make me research so I can understand it all. I have multiple disabilities and they cause me to mix up words, not anywhere near as good at the advanced math since my accident either. So I tend to like the way Michio explains things... then I go dig for the meat... LOL

 

[Tekno]

If this is the consequence of what he has done, then he's not doing a very good job, from looking at the funding to basic research this past 20 years.

Zz.

LOL... no, but as Albert Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and Dr. Kaku does inspire that.

I am not usually into popularist things or people, I tend to be a bit of a skeptic and not one to follow the crowd. But Michio's appearances on places like the Science Channel awakened an old passion for physics. I love to mix it into many of my artworks.

 

[jhicks]

I have Michio Kaku's (latest edition) books on Quantum Field theory (1993) and both on String theory (1999) . They are not very satisfactory if you have a rigourous mind. To me, he does not talk about QFT or ST, to me he speaks around it. It is stimulating if you want to get the taste of it, but frustrating if you want to actually do it.

If you read the introduction to his QFT book he basically says "if you can't do the exercises based on what is presented here you aren't trying hard enough" . I honestly wonder if anyone has successfully self studied from his book, especially before the age of the internet.

 

[octelcogopod]

I watched a video series on the future, I took most of it as a cool sci-fi dream..
It didn't seem like a professional analysis, or theory on the future, it seemed more like dreams and cool predictions, and the show was presented that way as well.

Although I don't know anything about him, I liked his character on the show, I liked all the cool stuff he talked about, but ultimately I didn't take it as a credible analysis of what might come later. It seemed like just one of many many possibilities.