Looking for good intro science books. I'm thinking Kaku?

[TranscedentKid]

So, I've been inspired by shows like Fringe, games like Deus Ex and Halo, and movies like Robo Cop, The Machine, Eva, and Blade Runner.

My interests would fall into the categories of things like neuroscience, biological engineering, nanotechnology, bionics, AI, body-computer interfaces, etc.-- all more future-centric areas of science.

A book I've been reading as sort of a starting point is "Visions" by Michio Kaku, the purpose of which is to give the reader a basic education on the significance of the computer, molecular, and quantum revolutions. A good deal of the book is stuff that's already happened or probably already happened, some of it stuff I already know. There's also a lot of good information that I didn't know about till now.

It seems that Kaku is the only scientist I know of that talks about things in science that I actually care about/ want to see, while making them just barely tangible enough for a toddler scientist to understand. (I wish he went more in-depth with various topics, but I guess I'll just have to do other research...and I will admit that a few of his explanations leave me with a bit more questions than answers)

Thus, I'm trying to decide which of his books to buy next.

Based on reviews I've read, the books "Physics of the Future" is good, "Future of the Mind" is good, and "The Physics of the Impossible" is good. I've also heard good things about "Hyperspace".

However, none of the reviewers seem to have a scientific background (I have no way of knowing). Thus I google more authoritative websites, and come here.

What I've read so far is that few people on this website like Michio Kaku's methods, and that's kind of something to make note of. There's also a subtly scathing letter written by a supposed "experimental nuclear physicist" PHD.

Well, I'm not sure who to believe. I just want someone who can clearly explain to me what I need to know.

PF users, could you give me a hand?THIS IS NOT A KAKU BASHING THREAD! IT'S NOT PRODUCTIVE!

 

[micromass]

The books you listed are not actual science books, they're pop sci. There is nothing wrong with that, if you know the difference, that is: the books you read now will not give you much knowledge of science (and in case of Kaku's books, the knowledge you do get can be quite dubious).

My advice to you is to try out the actual science texts. Yes, it's a struggle and it's difficult, but it will make you far more knowledgeable than what you're doing now. On the other hand, if you're just doing this for your enjoyment, then carry on!

 

[TranscedentKid]

The books you listed are not actual science books, they're pop sci. There is nothing wrong with that, if you know the difference, that is: the books you read now will not give you much knowledge of science (and in case of Kaku's books, the knowledge you do get can be quite dubious).

My advice to you is to try out the actual science texts. Yes, it's a struggle and it's difficult, but it will make you far more knowledgeable than what you're doing now. On the other hand, if you're just doing this for your enjoyment, then carry on!

Thanks for your response!
I could do with a science text, but I'd prefer something themed if possible. As I said, Kaku is the only guy with credibility who talks about science applied in a way I care about.

 

[phinds]

Thanks for your response!
I could do with a science text, but I'd prefer something themed if possible. As I said, Kaku is the only guy with credibility who talks about science applied in a way I care about.

Uh ... I STRONGLY suggest that you do a forum search of Kaku on this forum before you proceed under that highly dubious assumption. Most of what he has to say these days is terrible science.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Uh ... I STRONGLY suggest that you do a forum search of Kaku on this forum before you proceed under that highly dubious assumption. Most of what he has to say these days is terrible science.

When I say credibility, I mean his credentials, and the fact he built an atom smasher in his garage in high school.

 

[phinds]

When I say credibility, I mean his credentials, and the fact he built an atom smasher in his garage in high school.

None of which has an impact on the fact that his output these days is pure pop science, much of it garbage. Again, do a forum search to see that this is not just my opinion.

 

[micromass]

When I say credibility, I mean his credentials, and the fact he built an atom smasher in his garage in high school.

Well yes, he has credentials. And he has written a very decent and credible textbook in string theory. But that doesn't make his popsci books not really less overspeculative.

 

[TranscedentKid]

None of which has an impact on the fact that his output these days is pure pop science, much of it garbage. Again, do a forum search to see that this is not just my opinion.

Assuming you read my post, you know I'm well aware of his reputation here

 

[micromass]

Added to that, he certainly has his credentials as a theoretical physicists and a string theorist. But I don't see why that would make him qualified to talk about neuroscience?

 

[phinds]

Assuming you read my post, you know I'm well aware of his reputation here

Sorry. I missed that. I got as far as "Kaku" and red flags popped up

 

[phinds]

Added to that, he certainly has his credentials as a theoretical physicists and a string theorist. But I don't see why that would make him qualified to talk about neuroscience?

Oh, he doesn't limit his spouting to string theory or neuroscience, he spouts on geology, exobiology, anything that at TV show needs someone to spout about.

 

[micromass]

Anyway, the main danger with pop-sci books is to take them too seriously. If you realize it is just entertainment and not everything in it is actual proven science, then it's fine. But I've seen many people who use it as a serious source of knowledge. That would be bad. The actual science is always more subtle, deeper and more interesting.
It is a bit like describing a painting to a blind person. You might be able to give some details, but he will never get the full picture until he experiences it. The same is true with popsci versus actual science.

 

[DiracPool]

Oh, he doesn't limit his spouting to string theory or neuroscience, he spouts on geology, exobiology, anything that at TV show needs someone to spout about.

Yeah, that's basically it, somehow Michio Kaku has become the foremost authority on everything..

 

[TranscedentKid]

Added to that, he certainly has his credentials as a theoretical physicists and a string theorist. But I don't see why that would make him qualified to talk about neuroscience?

Just because his specialty is theoretical physics doesn't mean he can't know stuff about other things. If I remember correctly, Isaac Asimov specialty was biochemistry (and he was part of the Manhattan Project, right?), yet his book "iRobot" (the three laws) is one of the most referenced things for the world of AI (to my knowledge).
A teacher of mine last year specialized in geophysical fluid dynamics. She knows enough about the rest to teach Bio, Chem, and environmental science.

I'm not saying he's the right guy or not-- I wouldn't know.

 

[phion]

He's a very smart man, but I think he's probably hit a wall in his professional career.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Anyway, the main danger with pop-sci books is to take them too seriously. If you realize it is just entertainment and not everything in it is actual proven science, then it's fine. But I've seen many people who use it as a serious source of knowledge. That would be bad. The actual science is always more subtle, deeper and more interesting.
It is a bit like describing a painting to a blind person. You might be able to give some details, but he will never get the full picture until he experiences it. The same is true with popsci versus actual science.

It's entertaining because it talks about science in a context that I care about. If it really isn't actually teaching me anything, then it's utterly useless. I'm not looking to read for pure entertainment--I have "Neuromancer" for that. I want background.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Sorry. I missed that. I got as far as "Kaku" and red flags popped up

It's fine :)

But I'm going to be honest with you-- trashing Kaku isn't in anyway shape or form helping me move forward

 

[DiracPool]

He's a very smart man, but I think he's probably hit a wall in his professional career.

I don't think he's hit a wall at all. And to be fair, I don't think he's selling out for money or fame. I think he really wants to inspire interest and excitement in physics/cosmology and futurism, but in my opinion he takes it too far, to the point where he perverts the science by giving unrealistic expectations of what is actually possible.

 

[Evo]

Thanks for your response!
I could do with a science text, but I'd prefer something themed if possible. As I said, Kaku is the only guy with credibility who talks about science applied in a way I care about.

So, you prefer getting recommendations for pop-science books, that's ok. Not too many here read pop-science, but maybe there are some people here that can recommend a few, just understand, you will be giving up real science for the entertainment value.

 

[micromass]

Just because his specialty is theoretical physics doesn't mean he can't know stuff about other things. If I remember correctly, Isaac Asimov specialty was biochemistry (and he was part of the Manhattan Project, right?), yet his book "iRobot" (the three laws) is one of the most referenced things for the world of AI (to my knowledge).
A teacher of mine last year specialized in geophysical fluid dynamics. She knows enough about the rest to teach Bio, Chem, and environmental science.

I'm not saying he's the right guy or not-- I wouldn't know.

Right, but you yourself started talking about credentials. So I assume they are important to you. I was just pointing out then that Kaku does not have any credentials in the fields you're interested in.

 

[micromass]

It's fine :)

But I'm going to be honest with you-- trashing Kaku isn't in anyway shape or form helping me move forward

So what will help you move forward? What is your actual goal? You have said it's not about entertainment. So then it must be about actual science knowledge. Then I'm afraid the only way to really move forward is to start hitting the actual science books. Nothing else will help you move forward.

 

[TranscedentKid]

So, you prefer getting recommendations for pop-science books, that's ok. Not too many here read pop-science, but maybe there are some people here that can recommend a few, just understand, you will be giving up real science for the entertainment value.

If there isn't anything to learn from pop-science books, then what is the point of them?

I have sci-fi books for straight entertainment.

I'm well aware that I'm not going to learn to the fundamentals of computer programming and physics from these books. That's not the point-- the point is to learn what's out there with what intriques me. Then I connect the dots with "real science".

 

[TranscedentKid]

So what will help you move forward? What is your actual goal? You have said it's not about entertainment. So then it must be about actual science knowledge. Then I'm afraid the only way to really move forward is to start hitting the actual science books. Nothing else will help you move forward.

The goal is to become have a reliable low res picture of what interests me. Then I learn the hard stuff to heighten the resolution.

 

[Evo]

If there isn't anything to learn from pop-science books, then what is the point of them?

Entertainment mostly.

 

[micromass]

If there isn't anything to learn from pop-science books, then what is the point of them?

I have sci-fi books for straight entertainment.

I'm well aware that I'm not going to learn to the fundamentals of computer programming and physics from these books. That's not the point-- the point is to learn what's out there with what intriques me. Then I connect the dots with "real science".

What intrigues you in popsci books might not be as intriguing if you actually study the real science, and conversely. For example, quantum theory is often talked about in popsci together with mindblowing stuff like teleportation and consciousness, while if you really study it, it has nothing to do with it at all. So these things can be misleading.

Why don't you get your hands on some science magazines such as scientific american? The information there will still not be very reliable (mostly due to the fact that it is close to impossible to translate scientific results accurately to common language). But at least you will learn what scientists are actually doing right now.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Entertainment mostly.

Then there must be more useless pop-sci books than I realize.

 

[micromass]

Then there must be more useless pop-sci books than I realize.

Except for entertainment value and getting people excited about science, I don't think popsci is useful at all.

 

[TranscedentKid]

What intrigues you in popsci books might not be as intriguing if you actually study the real science, and conversely. For example, quantum theory is often talked about in popsci together with mindblowing stuff like teleportation and consciousness, while if you really study it, it has nothing to do with it at all. So these things can be misleading.

Why don't you get your hands on some science magazines such as scientific american? The information there will still not be very reliable (mostly due to the fact that it is close to impossible to translate scientific results accurately to common language). But at least you will learn what scientists are actually doing right now.

Except for entertainment value and getting people excited about science, I don't think popsci is useful at all.

Well, before I read Kaku's "Visions", I didn't know about John Hopfields theory that neural networks operate at the lowest power (the quickest way to learning). I didn't know about the "Top down" and "down up" schools of AI. One focuses on carefully constructed rules, the other focuses on neural networks. I got a basic idea of the structure of the brain. I learned about what Moore's law actually means (how many transistors can we put on a silicon wafer?). I'd never heard of petFLOP. I learned what DNA computers actually are. I got a few tidbits about what quantum mechanics is.

While there's not a lot I can do with that, it gives me something to connect the dots around.

 

[micromass]

Well, before I read Kaku's "Visions", I didn't know about John Hopfields theory that neural networks operate at the lowest power (the quickest way to learning). I didn't know about the "Top down" and "down up" schools of AI. One focuses on carefully constructed rules, the other focuses on neural networks. I got a basic idea of the structure of the brain. I learned about what Moore's law actually means (how many transistors can we put on a silicon wafer?). I'd never heard of petFLOP. I learned what DNA computers actually are. I got a few tidbits about what quantum mechanics is.

While there's not a lot I can do with that, it gives me something to connect the dots around.

Well, if you think the books are worthwhile, then all power to you! Continue reading the books then. Although I am not sure why you started this thread actually...

 

[TranscedentKid]

Well, if you think the books are worthwhile, then all power to you! Continue reading the books then. Although I am not sure why you started this thread actually...

Well, I didn't think this would turn into a pop-sci/Kaku bashing contest (I do admit that I helped propel it with my responses). I thought I would get helpful book and author recommendations.

 

[micromass]

I thought I would get helpful book and author recommendations.

Oh ok. Somehow I thought that you wanted to discuss the merits of popsci books.

Well, this might not be the right place of asking then, since this forum is mostly populated by professional scientists and science students. So while we can perfectly recommend actual science textbooks, I don't think there's an actual expertise in popsci books here. I certainly can't help you further, sorry.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Oh ok. Somehow I thought that you wanted to discuss the merits of popsci books.

Well, this might not be the right place of asking then, since this forum is mostly populated by professional scientists and science students. So while we can perfectly recommend actual science textbooks, I don't think there's an actual expertise in popsci books here. I certainly can't help you further, sorry.

Does no one see any remote useful information in these books??!

Also, what do you think of Khan Academy's attempts at math, physics, chem, and bio?

 

[micromass]

Does no one see any remote useful information in these books??!

Not really. These books make me either angry or bored. Bored because actual science is way more exciting to me. Angry because I can sometimes recognize being misled intentionally.

Also, what do you think of Khan Academy's attempts at math, physics, chem, and bio?

Very good. I like Khan Academy. But take it with a grain of salt. It is not a substitute for an actual textbook. It is a very good supplement to such a textbook though. But eventually, you need to get an actual book and work through it (including the problems!). Relying only on Khan Academy is a recipe for failure. Well, at least Khan doesn't tell misleading things (although I did hear some things on some of his videos that I really didn't like!).

 

[TranscedentKid]

Not really. These books make me either angry or bored. Bored because actual science is way more exciting to me. Angry because I can sometimes recognize being misled intentionally.
Very good. I like Khan Academy. But take it with a grain of salt. It is not a substitute for an actual textbook. It is a very good supplement to such a textbook though. But eventually, you need to get an actual book and work through it (including the problems!). Relying only on Khan Academy is a recipe for failure. Well, at least Khan doesn't tell misleading things (although I did hear some things on some of his videos that I really didn't like!).

When you say actual science, is that a way of saying that pop-sci books are not grounded in science? Or does that just mean you don't learn all the fundamentals?

 

[micromass]

When you say actual science, is that a way of saying that pop-sci books are not grounded in science? Or does that just mean you don't learn all the fundamentals?

It is related to science, but it isn't the same as actually doing science. It will not give the same level of understanding. Just like looking at a painting is fun and enriching, but it is not the same as actually making a work of arts. Many people content themselves with just watching arts though, and many don't care at all. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Myself, I don't hate pop-sci with a passion.
I think Kaku's books are fine for your stated purpose of creating a mind map of concepts used in the areas that interest you. As long as you'll keep in mind that everything you read there might be inaccurate and shouldn't be relegated to the 'I know this' bucket in your memory, you should be fine.

I'm not sure if this is something that you'd consider, but you could always look up introductory courses on the net. A lot of universities provide such courses, or recordings of lectures, free of charge. Youtube itself has got a slew of those.
Ideally, what you want is a course for people who are not taking it as a part of their specialist career, but more like a peripheral knowledge from another field. For example, there's a course called 'Human Behavioural Biology' on Youtube, aimed at medical students rather than biologists. You'll get a nice, low-level, but broad introduction to the subject, including basics of neuroscience. And if the lecturer is a good conversationalist, you might get plenty of anecdotes about current and historical discoveries to look into.
I know there's a neuroscience course on EdX, and MIT Opencourseware has a number. I'm sure there's more.

The main drawback being that these are not books. But, usually there's also some reading recommended for such courses that you might look up, and some of them can be treated as a sort of an audiobook to listen to.

 

[micromass]

Myself, I don't hate pop-sci with a passion.
I think Kaku's books are fine for your stated purpose of creating a mind map of concepts used in the areas that interest you. As long as you'll keep in mind that everything you read there might be inaccurate and shouldn't be relegated to the 'I know this' bucket in your memory, you should be fine.

I'm not sure if this is something that you'd consider, but you could always look up introductory courses on the net. A lot of universities provide such courses, or recordings of lectures, free of charge. Youtube itself has got a slew of those.
Ideally, what you want is a course for people who are not taking it as a part of their specialist career, but more like a peripheral knowledge from another field. For example, there's a course called 'Human Behavioural Biology' on Youtube, aimed at medical students rather than biologists. You'll get a nice, low-level, but broad introduction to the subject, including basics of neuroscience. And if the lecturer is a good conversationalist, you might get plenty of anecdotes about current and historical discoveries to look into.
I know there's a neuroscience course on EdX, and MIT Opencourseware has a number. I'm sure there's more.

The main drawback being that these are not books. But, usually there's also some reading recommended for such courses that you might look up, and some of them can be treated as a sort of an audiobook to listen to.

Coursera is also a good resource.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Myself, I don't hate pop-sci with a passion.
I think Kaku's books are fine for your stated purpose of creating a mind map of concepts used in the areas that interest you. As long as you'll keep in mind that everything you read there might be inaccurate and shouldn't be relegated to the 'I know this' bucket in your memory, you should be fine.

I'm not sure if this is something that you'd consider, but you could always look up introductory courses on the net. A lot of universities provide such courses, or recordings of lectures, free of charge. Youtube itself has got a slew of those.
Ideally, what you want is a course for people who are not taking it as a part of their specialist career, but more like a peripheral knowledge from another field. For example, there's a course called 'Human Behavioural Biology' on Youtube, aimed at medical students rather than biologists. You'll get a nice, low-level, but broad introduction to the subject, including basics of neuroscience. And if the lecturer is a good conversationalist, you might get plenty of anecdotes about current and historical discoveries to look into.
I know there's a neuroscience course on EdX, and MIT Opencourseware has a number. I'm sure there's more.

The main drawback being that these are not books. But, usually there's also some reading recommended for such courses that you might look up, and some of them can be treated as a sort of an audiobook to listen to.

THANK YOU! XD

Yes, there's a few parts parts in the book I have of his that I'm skeptical of. For the most part though, I think he's done his research and know's what he's talking about. It would be really awkward if it turned out there wasn't a basis for something he said.

 

[TranscedentKid]

It is related to science, but it isn't the same as actually doing science. It will not give the same level of understanding. Just like looking at a painting is fun and enriching, but it is not the same as actually making a work of arts. Many people content themselves with just watching arts though, and many don't care at all. Nothing wrong with that.

Can you define "actually doing science" in this context?

 

[micromass]

Can you define "actually doing science" in this context?

Reading a science textbook. Working through the problems. Reading research papers. Etc.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Reading a science textbook. Working through the problems. Reading research papers. Etc.

You mean grinding the fundamentals. While that is a true base, I fail to see how it is vastly different from a well researched and thought out "pop-sci book" (apart from the obvious learning of the underlying math).

 

[micromass]

You mean grinding the fundamentals. While that is a true base, I fail to see how it is vastly different from a well researched and thought out "pop-sci book" (apart from the obvious learning of the underlying math).

OK, then we have a fundamental disagreement about how we see science. And I'm afraid we won't really get anywhere in this conversation other than arguing back and forth. So I'll just leave this thread to people willing to give you book recommendations.

 

[TranscedentKid]

OK, then we have a fundamental disagreement about how we see science. And I'm afraid we won't really get anywhere in this conversation other than arguing back and forth. So I'll just leave this thread to people willing to give you book recommendations.

Good day, and Good luck

 

[Bandersnatch]

It would be really awkward if it turned out there wasn't a basis for something he said.

Let me tell you how pop-sci truthfulness works from the point of view of a field I know a bit more about than what you're looking for.

Say, you read a book describing the Big Bang, and at some point it says it was like an explosion. The part that is factual is that there is a theory called Big Bang, and it has to do with the evolution of the universe, so the book does inform in this respect, as otherwise you might never even have heard of it. But the part about it being an explosion is misleading - a word chosen for whatever reason, be it laziness, en effort to simplify too much, etc.
So, after reading this hypothetical book, you should keep the keywords, and if there's something you think would interest you, look it up in more detail. See if the explanations given can be reinforced, or should be rejected.
If, however, you end up taking away the sound bite 'the BB was an explosion', you'll end up mislead and possibly misleading other people if asked about the concept.

Or, maybe you're reading a book where the author is a fan of the idea of zero energy universe. His bias will permeate the book, and you might end up thinking that's just how it is, whereas in reality it's not at all as clear-cut as it was portrayed.
And again, if the book whose goal is to popularise science prompts you to look up and learn more about the concept mentioned, then it worked rather well. If it makes you believe you now know that the universe has zero energy, it has failed.

People here have a beef with Kaku, because more than many he writes to entertain, often about stuff that is about as good as fantasy. And an uninfomed reader may not be able to tell the difference between where a documentary ends and Michael Bay begins.

So, let me repeat - read his books to get the handle of what concepts are out there, and in what context they exist. But keep a sceptical mind, don't fool yourself into thinking that you now know the field, and do your own research later on. It's easy when you know what to look for.

 

[TranscedentKid]

Let me tell you how pop-sci truthfulness works from the point of view of a field I know a bit more about than what you're looking for.

Say, you read a book describing the Big Bang, and at some point it says it was like an explosion. The part that is factual is that there is a theory called Big Bang, and it has to do with the evolution of the universe, so the book does inform in this respect, as otherwise you might never even have heard of it. But the part about it being an explosion is misleading.
So, after reading this hypothetical book, you should keep the keywords, and if there's something you think would interest you, look it up in more detail. See if the explanations given can be reinforced, or should be rejected.
If, however, you end up taking away the sound bite 'the BB was an explosion', you'll end up mislead and possibly misleading other people if asked about the concept.

Or, maybe you're reading a book where the author is a fan of the idea of zero energy universe. His bias will permeate the book, and you might end up thinking that's just how it is, whereas in reality it's not at all as clear-cut as it was portrayed.
And again, if the book whose goal is to popularise science prompts you to look up and learn more about the concept mentioned, then it worked rather well. If it makes you believe you now know that the universe has zero energy, it has failed.

People here have a beef with Kaku, because more than many he writes to entertain, often about stuff that is about as good as fantasy. And an uninfomed reader may not be able to tell the difference between where a documentary ends and Michael Bay begins.

So, let me repeat - read his books to get the handle of what concepts are out there, and what in what context they exist. But keep a sceptical mind, don't fool yourself into thinking that you now know the field, and do your own research later on. It's easy when you know what to look for.

I'm 2/3ds of the way through "Visions". I've read things that still don't make sense to me, but he's also explained things to me the that make clear sense. I'm well aware that I should remain skeptical.

If his conclusions aren't correct, then the reasoning behind the reasoning should have nuggets, and that's what I put in the "bucket".

 

[JorisL]

I'm 2/3ds of the way through "Visions". I've read things that still don't make sense to me, but he's also explained things to me the that make clear sense. I'm well aware that I should remain skeptical.

If his conclusions aren't correct, then the reasoning behind the reasoning should have nuggets, and that's what I put in the "bucket".

The bold part is where you miss out on part of the beauty. Some ideas are elegant and seem simple.
But then you dive into it and it turns out to be quite the contrary.

While you get some information on the science, it can confuse you later if/when you get deeper in the actual science.
Another danger is people that think they got all information from pop-sci books and start fantasizing, coming up with 'theories' which fully/partially contradict the established methods and results. And what's worse is that these people do not accept any information refuting their arguments.

tl;dr pop-sci only gets you so far.
Compare it to reading about cars in a magazine (how well they handle etc.), you won't learn how to race a ferrari on a race track (or more far-fetched fix engine problems)