PDA

View Full Version : Michio Kaku



Pages : [1] 2

cjackson
2013-Jun-23, 02:15 PM
Does he know what he's talking about, or does he say things to sell books?

SphinxCore
2013-Jun-23, 02:32 PM
Does he know what he's talking about, or does he say things to sell books?

Who is Michio Kaku?

Nowhere Man
2013-Jun-23, 03:19 PM
One of the talking heads that appears frequently in science and "science" programs. He is a theoretical physicist and sort of a spiritual successor to Carl Sagan in the science-popularization field. Wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku)

Fred

SphinxCore
2013-Jun-23, 03:52 PM
One of the talking heads that appears frequently in science and "science" programs. He is a theoretical physicist and sort of a spiritual successor to Carl Sagan in the science-popularization field. Wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku)

Fred

Thanks, please pardon my ignorance of who it was as I rarely watch broadcast television.

Then I suppose the original question would likely be answered with the person in question probably knows a bit of what he's talking about while also trying to sell books.

swampyankee
2013-Jun-23, 03:55 PM
Does he know what he's talking about, or does he say things to sell books?

I think the answer is "yes." Do note, however, that knowing what one is talking about and saying things to sell books are not mutually exclusive.

Jim
2013-Jun-23, 07:03 PM
... spiritual successor to Carl Sagan ...

Some people may think so, and I'm sure he'd like to be considered as such, but I find him more than a bit short of the mark. He obviously knows science - the PhD would say so, anyway - but he tends to go with the sensational explanation or conclusion far too often, perhaps because it gets him lots of attention and callbacks. Sagan never sensationalized science, he just told you what it was and let you realize it's naturally sensational.

Nowhere Man
2013-Jun-23, 07:55 PM
... spiritual successor to Carl Sagan ...

Some people may think so, and I'm sure he'd like to be considered as such, but I find him more than a bit short of the mark. He obviously knows science - the PhD would say so, anyway - but he tends to go with the sensational explanation or conclusion far too often, perhaps because it gets him lots of attention and callbacks. Sagan never sensationalized science, he just told you what it was and let you realize it's naturally sensational.

Agreed. Which is why I described him as "sort of." Right now I can't think of anyone who's doing what Sagan did with his kind of exposure, except maybe Bill Nye and/or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Hmmm, Tyson's hosting a sequel to Cosmos. Cool. Better him than Kaku.

Fred

swampyankee
2013-Jun-23, 11:05 PM
... spiritual successor to Carl Sagan ...

Some people may think so, and I'm sure he'd like to be considered as such, but I find him more than a bit short of the mark. He obviously knows science - the PhD would say so, anyway - but he tends to go with the sensational explanation or conclusion far too often, perhaps because it gets him lots of attention and callbacks. Sagan never sensationalized science, he just told you what it was and let you realize it's naturally sensational.

I have read one of his popular science books; every time he has another published, I fear for the World's supply of handwavium, but I'm not going to judge his academic output based on his popularized science. All things, considered, I prefer something that's written for a more highly educated audience than his popular work. I'm not math-phobic, have a reasonably good background in math and physics (mostly classical physics, as aeronautical engineers rarely need to deal with relativistic flows), and don't mind putting some work into reading non-fiction.

In other words, I'm not a big fan of Michio Kaku, nor am I one of Brian Greene.

Swift
2013-Jun-24, 12:31 AM
I fear for the World's supply of handwavium,
:lol:

I think that and stupidity are two things we will never run out of. :D

Cougar
2013-Jun-24, 12:46 AM
...but he tends to go with the sensational explanation or conclusion far too often, perhaps because it gets him lots of attention and callbacks.

Exactly.

I believe his first major seller was Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyseey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension, which was written in 1994. That title gives a flavor for his sensationalistic approach, and he's pretty much stuck with it.


In other words, I'm not a big fan of Michio Kaku, nor am I one of Brian Greene.

I've got to join you there. I like Brian Greene better than Kaku, but he's a bit too much of a "cheerleader" for string theory. Neil deGrasse Tyson would be perfect to step in for Sagan, if he had a shorter name. :p

Gillianren
2013-Jun-24, 02:54 AM
Yeah, even I look it up half the time to see if he's an "ei" Neil or an "ea" Neal. And whether the "de" is upper or lowercase.

John Mendenhall
2013-Jun-24, 04:01 AM
Stupidium?

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-24, 04:57 AM
I've been panning Kaku for a while. I like his optimism, but his comprehensiveness leaves something to be desired and he leaves you thinking the details aren't important. And Tyson, he makes everything sound cool, by not explaining it all but leaving a bit of mystery. But then there's that Plait guy who gets excited about every little detail with an endless stream of "Holy Volcanoes!" or some such.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-24, 11:14 AM
Does he know what he's talking about, or does he say things to sell books?

I'm sure he knows what he is talking about, and yes he probably says things to sell books...not that there is anything wrong with that.

My favourite science populariser was Carl without a doubt...I don't believe any of them today can hold a candle to him, although Brian Cox would be my pick.

Jim
2013-Jun-24, 12:36 PM
I loved it when Tyson appeared on BBT and Sheldon took him to task for the demotion of Pluto (which Tyson didn't do). Tyson eventually apoligized to Sheldon, and Sheldon refused the apology. The look on Tyson's face was priceless.

Cougar
2013-Jun-24, 12:44 PM
...although Brian Cox would be my pick.

Wiki: Cox is best known to the public as the presenter of a number of science programmes for the BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Broadcasting_Corporation), boosting the popularity of subjects such as astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy) and physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics). He has been described as the natural successor for BBC's scientific programming by both David Attenborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough) and the late Patrick Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore). He also had some fame in the 1990s as the keyboard player for the pop band D:Ream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_Ream).


A keyboardist? Well OK!

Concerned
2013-Jun-24, 12:59 PM
Good author. Especially liked physics of the future.

iquestor
2013-Jun-24, 02:15 PM
... spiritual successor to Carl Sagan ...

Some people may think so, and I'm sure he'd like to be considered as such, but I find him more than a bit short of the mark. He obviously knows science - the PhD would say so, anyway - but he tends to go with the sensational explanation or conclusion far too often, perhaps because it gets him lots of attention and callbacks. Sagan never sensationalized science, he just told you what it was and let you realize it's naturally sensational.

Jim I could not agree more. He seems to like to sensationalize his positions and take them to the farthest extremes in order to get the most hype and newsworthiness out of them.

swampyankee
2013-Jun-24, 05:07 PM
I was never a big fan of Sagan, either, but when he was popular I was too busy to read much popularized science. Right now, I think the best science writer is Mary Roach, although she doesn't get involved with quantum physics, string theory (thank goodness! String theory makes me very cranky).

I've found the best science "popularizing" medium to be iTunesU. Leonard Susskind (Stamford) and Walter Lewin (MIT) are, in my opinion, much better sources than either Michio Kaku or Brian Greene.

Cougar
2013-Jun-24, 07:41 PM
Leonard Susskind (Stamford) and Walter Lewin (MIT) are, in my opinion, much better sources than either Michio Kaku or Brian Greene.

Even after Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape String theory and the illusion of intelligent design [2006]? I don't think so! I've read Complexity, Life at the Edge of Chaos [1992] by Roger Lewin, but I am embarrassingly unfamiliar with Walter Lewin. Checking his wiki bio, you appear to be quite right that science popularization now occurs in large part on the web, not on TV/books, as it was back in the Sagan/Cosmos days. (This is not to say that there are not still a lot of good Nova programs... and excellent science books for a general audience.)

starcanuck64
2013-Jun-24, 08:39 PM
... spiritual successor to Carl Sagan ...

Some people may think so, and I'm sure he'd like to be considered as such, but I find him more than a bit short of the mark. He obviously knows science - the PhD would say so, anyway - but he tends to go with the sensational explanation or conclusion far too often, perhaps because it gets him lots of attention and callbacks. Sagan never sensationalized science, he just told you what it was and let you realize it's naturally sensational.

That was my impression also, Sagan didn't need to fabricate his enthusiasm and enjoyment of the subject matter, he knew his stuff and how to communicate it in ways that others could get at least a basic grasp of the concepts.

publiusr
2013-Jun-24, 10:15 PM
Didn't he feed into some of the anti-Cassini hysteria?

swampyankee
2013-Jun-24, 10:33 PM
Even after Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape String theory and the illusion of intelligent design [2006]? I don't think so! I've read Complexity, Life at the Edge of Chaos [1992] by Roger Lewin, but I am embarrassingly unfamiliar with Walter Lewin. Checking his wiki bio, you appear to be quite right that science popularization now occurs in large part on the web, not on TV/books, as it was back in the Sagan/Cosmos days. (This is not to say that there are not still a lot of good Nova programs... and excellent science books for a general audience.)


I'm referring to Susskind's Stamford classes that are on iTunesU.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-24, 10:43 PM
I was never a big fan of Sagan, either, but when he was popular I was too busy to read much popularized science. Right now, I think the best science writer is Mary Roach, although she doesn't get involved with quantum physics, string theory (thank goodness! String theory makes me very cranky).

I love Mary Roach. She's a lot of fun, and she starts from the level of "I know nothing about this subject," which is more helpful than most popular science writers realize. I'm fond of Bill Bryson for the same reason.


I've found the best science "popularizing" medium to be iTunesU. Leonard Susskind (Stamford) and Walter Lewin (MIT) are, in my opinion, much better sources than either Michio Kaku or Brian Greene.

For the record? Stanford.

swampyankee
2013-Jun-24, 11:38 PM
For the record? Stanford.

They had to put the "m" key right mext to the "n" key. Nore likely, it's because there's a city named "Stamford" down the street.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-25, 12:23 AM
Yeah, whereas I was surprised that spellcheck was fine with "Stamford," because I grew up just down the coast from Stanford.

slang
2013-Jun-25, 12:26 AM
They had to put the "m" key right mext to the "n" key. Nore likely, it's because there's a city named "Stamford" down the street.

I saw what you did there. Very fummy. Then there's those upside down n and m's just two rows up to confuse things further.

Nick Theodorakis
2013-Jun-25, 01:51 AM
Yeah, whereas I was surprised that spellcheck was fine with "Stamford," ...

Probably because Stamford is a city in Connecticut.

Nick

Gillianren
2013-Jun-25, 02:59 AM
Probably because Stamford is a city in Connecticut.

Yeah; I Googled it as soon as I saw that there was no squiggly line, because I knew there had to be a reason.

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-25, 03:58 AM
Didn't he feed into some of the anti-Cassini hysteria?
Yup. Kaku's completely anti-nuclear, failing to realize that were it not for nuclear power, we'd have no way to send the New Horizons probe to Pluto (one can assume that the next time Pluto enjoys what passes for "summer" on it, we'd have figured out some kind of energy source acceptable to Kaku, but that's a few hundred years from now), or that a great deal of the science he waxes so rhapsodically about wouldn't have been discovered if it weren't for people poking around with nuclear energy.

As a guest on The ScreenSavers he was once asked what Einstein's theory of relativity made possible, and he responded with, "Oh, nothing." and while he blabbered on about how it described what was going with various items of technology, he utterly failed to mention that it was used in the calculations made by GPS satellites in figuring out where someone actually was.

Elukka
2013-Jun-25, 05:35 AM
As I recall he made the hilarious claim that a Cassini launch failure would result in the state of Florida being evacuated, along with a bunch of similarly silly claims. Sometimes he either has no idea what he's talking about or he chooses not to in order to push an agenda.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-25, 05:45 AM
As I recall he made the hilarious claim that a Cassini launch failure would result in the state of Florida being evacuated, along with a bunch of similarly silly claims. Sometimes he either has no idea what he's talking about or he chooses not to in order to push an agenda.

Now that you mention it, maybe he is the new Sagan.

SkepticJ
2013-Jun-26, 05:28 AM
I didn't know about Kaku and Cassini. That's some high level cognitive dissonance, right there.

The Voyager and Galileo probes, too, would have been impossible without RTGs. Basically, anything that goes out farther than the asteroid belt can't use solar energy.

I have mixed feelings about the guy. On the one hand, we need STEM popularizers, and on the other--I'm not sure why--but he has been grating on me a bit the last couple years. It may simply be that I see him too much. Dang it, do you have to be a talking head on practically every show related to science and engineering?! You're a theoretical physicist, not an uber-savant in all of STEM, let someone else have a chance to talk too.

novaderrik
2013-Jun-26, 10:36 AM
Michio Kaku annoys me slightly less than that Neil Degrass Tyson guy.. but not by much... they both seem like they try too hard.. Michio Kaku seems to go to the extremes to make a point- he always shows up in those "omg!!! what if a black hole goes into orbit around the earth" kinds of shows- and Neil Degrass Tyson just seems like he thinks he needs to talk to the common people like we are a bunch of kindergarteners when he shows up on the Daily Show or whatever. on that note, it was rather funny how John Stewart got back at him that one time for the way he pointed out that the globe in the opening credits spins the wrong way...

i know that they are both in the business of trying to make science cool and hip and try to use the hip street lingo of the kids (get off my lawn!!), but i find that kind of thing grating. just tell me the facts and don't try to dress it up too much... Carl Sagan had an almost childlike wonder in the way he presented things- you could tell he wasn't putting on some act and that he was actually in awe of the universe that he was talking about... these other guys also seem like they genuinely love the subject matter and want to spread the knowledge to the rest of the world, but they just seem like they are trying too hard...

Gillianren
2013-Jun-26, 04:43 PM
I've seen Neil deGrasse Tyson in person. Trust me--it isn't an act. He really, really does find what he's talking about both fascinating and important. Yes, he tailors his speech to his audience; I saw him speak at a college, and he assumed we knew more than the average person. (But not much. Liberal arts college, after all.) However, that's what a good speaker does.

Solfe
2013-Jun-26, 08:28 PM
What about Brain Cox as a Carl Sagan replacement? He is very soft spoken, and while he is in awe of nature, he doesn't freak out much (if at all).

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-26, 08:44 PM
What about Brain Cox as a Carl Sagan replacement? He is very soft spoken, and while he is in awe of nature, he doesn't freak out much (if at all).

I did mention Brian Cox earlier on in the thread.
He does have a gift [as Carl did] of putting things as simply as possible and he certainly has a pleasing style.

Amber Robot
2013-Jun-26, 11:12 PM
I started a Michio Kaku book once but he wrote some statements that I thought were very arrogant and I couldn't continue.

Solfe
2013-Jun-27, 12:12 AM
I happen to like the book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, he does a good job explaining why "dimension" is important and why is a great pop science topic. He even dives into a tiny bit math and a goodly amount of history. Since that is the only book I recall reading of his, I suspect that he becomes disorientated by tv lights.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-27, 09:47 AM
I happen to like the book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, he does a good job explaining why "dimension" is important and why is a great pop science topic. He even dives into a tiny bit math and a goodly amount of history. Since that is the only book I recall reading of his, I suspect that he becomes disorientated by tv lights.

Yep, read that book also.
I don't really have too much against any of our TV science presenters......like the rest of us, they have individuality and with that individual thoughts.
I have not seen any thing that could be construed for arrogance from Kaku or anyone else.
I also have my favourites like anybody else, De-Grasse Tyson being another.
Richard Dawkins I find slightly too abrasive and that sort of persona, in my opinion will not win friends and/or influence people.

Solfe
2013-Jun-28, 01:02 AM
Richard Dawkins I find slightly too abrasive and that sort of persona, in my opinion will not win friends and/or influence people.

"I just don't want her growing up and joining one of those Star Cults. I don't trust that Richard Dawkins,"

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-28, 01:08 AM
I've seen Neil deGrasse Tyson in person. Trust me--it isn't an act. He really, really does find what he's talking about both fascinating and important. Yes, he tailors his speech to his audience; I saw him speak at a college, and he assumed we knew more than the average person. (But not much. Liberal arts college, after all.) However, that's what a good speaker does.
Interestingly enough, and somewhat related, he mentioned on last week's Startalk (think it was last week's might have been the week before), that he noticed an unusual cadence in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and realized that it probably stemmed from the fact that you could only write 5 to 7 words with a quill pen before having to redip it in the inkwell. Five to seven items are also about the average number of things a person can hold in their short term memory, so he figures that if he writes out his important speeches with a quill pen, that will force him to make them more memorable. I note that MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech has a similar cadence to it, and MLK most likely would have learned to write using a pen that needed to be dipped in an inkwell.

Ivan Viehoff
2013-Jun-28, 01:49 PM
Apparently Kaku used to be proper physicist. As far as I'm concerned he spouts a lot of sensationalist conjecture these days, and, worse, is just wrong about established physics too. I'm not the only person who thinks so.

As Chad Orzel said here, http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2013/03/19/against-kaku-ism/

"Kaku is called by different media organizations to talk about such a wide range of topics that, while he consistently says wrong things about whatever he’s talking about at that particular moment, he’s usually only [annoying] one subfield at a time, and the rest of science happily ignores him."

Some more invective from Orzel.
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/06/23/the-physics-of-the-imbecile/

A bunch of comments from people who think likewise here.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/19/higgs-aint-god-please-stop/

Whilst there is a lot to be said in favour of media-friendly popularisers who are sub-expert in the areas on which they comment, ones who popularise mistakes, or whilst presenting themselves as experts as they make mistakes, or who science-fictionise, can be damaging.

Nick Theodorakis
2013-Jun-28, 01:57 PM
...
Some more invective from Orzel.
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/06/23/the-physics-of-the-imbecile/
....

Yaarggh!! Seeing the "Chopra interviews Kaku" in the title should be enough for anyone.

BTW, speaking of Chopra, this quote in the above article:



...I expect Chopra to sound like a character from Star Trek, that’s his shtick,...


reminds me of the "Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator" page:

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Nick

KaiYeves
2013-Jun-28, 02:53 PM
Interestingly enough, and somewhat related, he mentioned on last week's Startalk (think it was last week's might have been the week before), that he noticed an unusual cadence in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and realized that it probably stemmed from the fact that you could only write 5 to 7 words with a quill pen before having to redip it in the inkwell. Five to seven items are also about the average number of things a person can hold in their short term memory, so he figures that if he writes out his important speeches with a quill pen, that will force him to make them more memorable. I note that MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech has a similar cadence to it, and MLK most likely would have learned to write using a pen that needed to be dipped in an inkwell.
That's really interesting!

Gillianren
2013-Jun-28, 03:37 PM
BTW, speaking of Chopra . . . .

And further speaking of Chopra, he once refused to fasten his seatbelt in a city that had recently passed a law requiring on it (he was on book tour at the time, and the author escort picking him up from the airport asked him to) because "he had foreseen his own death, and it wouldn't be in a car accident."

Trebuchet
2013-Jun-28, 04:59 PM
And further speaking of Chopra, he once refused to fasten his seatbelt in a city that had recently passed a law requiring on it (he was on book tour at the time, and the author escort picking him up from the airport asked him to) because "he had foreseen his own death, and it wouldn't be in a car accident."

That's some serious Chopra right there!

NEOWatcher
2013-Jun-28, 05:27 PM
And further speaking of Chopra, he once refused to fasten his seatbelt in a city that had recently passed a law requiring on it (he was on book tour at the time, and the author escort picking him up from the airport asked him to) because "he had foreseen his own death, and it wouldn't be in a car accident."
Then I guess he can't foresee getting serious head and bone injuries instead of just a bruised shoulder and stomach.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-28, 06:34 PM
Al Franken (in whose book I read the story) wanted to know if he'd foreseen the poor author escort's getting a $500 fine.

Margarita
2013-Jun-28, 09:05 PM
Apparently Kaku used to be proper physicist. As far as I'm concerned he spouts a lot of sensationalist conjecture these days, and, worse, is just wrong about established physics too. I'm not the only person who thinks so.

As Chad Orzel said here, http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2013/03/19/against-kaku-ism/

"Kaku is called by different media organizations to talk about such a wide range of topics that, while he consistently says wrong things about whatever he’s talking about at that particular moment, he’s usually only [annoying] one subfield at a time, and the rest of science happily ignores him."

Some more invective from Orzel.
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/06/23/the-physics-of-the-imbecile/

A bunch of comments from people who think likewise here.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/19/higgs-aint-god-please-stop/

Whilst there is a lot to be said in favour of media-friendly popularisers who are sub-expert in the areas on which they comment, ones who popularise mistakes, or whilst presenting themselves as experts as they make mistakes, or who science-fictionise, can be damaging.

Oh, that interview was so ghastly that it made me laugh out loud! Thanks for posting it. And this thread for confirming that the antsy feeling that Kaku gives me isn't just me being intolerant... Regarding Chopra, well - I'm perfectly content to be utterly intolerant of HIM!

Re deGrasse Tyson (oh-my-have-I-got-the-spelling-right): can anyone point me in the direction of anything by him, written or video, that can give me a fair idea of him and his thinking? The things I've come across, mostly YouTube, have been bitty and without much to get your teeth into.

Re Stamford. It's also a beautiful town in Lincolnshire, in the English Midlands.
Margarita

Selfsim
2013-Jun-28, 09:41 PM
Apparently Kaku used to be proper physicist. As far as I'm concerned he spouts a lot of sensationalist conjecture these days, and, worse, is just wrong about established physics too. I'm not the only person who thinks so.
...
Whilst there is a lot to be said in favour of media-friendly popularisers who are sub-expert in the areas on which they comment, ones who popularise mistakes, or whilst presenting themselves as experts as they make mistakes, or who science-fictionise, can be damaging.I agree with these views, entirely.

His TV series about his visions of the future, I thought, bordered on the irresponsible .. particularly in the way he mixed present bio-medical technology developments, with a fictionalised vision of its abilities to cure presently incurable diseases.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-28, 10:54 PM
Apparently Kaku used to be proper physicist. As far as I'm concerned he spouts a lot of sensationalist conjecture these days, and, worse, is just wrong about established physics too. I'm not the only person who thinks so.





I would love to see or be given an example of when he has been wrong about established physics.
On the sensationalist conjecture issue, the great Lord Kelvin only a few years before the first manned powered flight, was documented to have said it will never happen...or words to that effect.
He does have a great Imagination, and as we all know, Imagination and speculation are part of the whole scientific process.
I have heard another respected physicist say that the future advances in medicine and associated sciences, could see us living forever.
I have seen nothing crazy in any of Kaku's predictions.....
Why is he so popular???? That answer to that question is obvious.
This scathing criticism of him maybe a case of "tall poppy syndrome".
Why we even have criticism of Carl in the other thread.


As TV presenters, he and others like De-Grasse Tyson, and Brian Cox are taking science to the general public, and making the wonders of the Universe known to all.
They are all individuals and like all individuals, have some faults, just as you, I and all of us have.
But in all cases of these presenters, they are spreading the "scientific Gospel", and for that we all and especially the scientists among you, need to appreciate that.

Some also seem to mistake genuine enthusiasm as an äct"designed for TV. "
I believe that is probably wrong in most cases....An example....Not sure if you people are familiar with the late Steve Irwin, alias the Crocodile Hunter.
I have had the pleasure of having a drink with him, and let me tell you his sometimes seemingly över the top"reactions and description in describing wildlife etc, is quite genuine.
That genuine quality has spread to his family, wife son and daughter who are carrying on his legacy in great style.

Cougar
2013-Jun-28, 11:29 PM
Re deGrasse Tyson (oh-my-have-I-got-the-spelling-right): can anyone point me in the direction of anything by him, written or video, that can give me a fair idea of him and his thinking?

I thought this book of his was very good: Origins, Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution [2004] -- Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith

Gillianren
2013-Jun-29, 01:25 AM
Re Stamford. It's also a beautiful town in Lincolnshire, in the English Midlands.

Most towns in New England, if they are old enough, have a counterpart somewhere in, well, Old England. During colonial days, it was actually the law that every new township should be named after a place in England.

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-29, 02:25 AM
Re deGrasse Tyson (oh-my-have-I-got-the-spelling-right): can anyone point me in the direction of anything by him, written or video, that can give me a fair idea of him and his thinking? The things I've come across, mostly YouTube, have been bitty and without much to get your teeth into.
His Startalk radio show can be found here. (http://www.startalkradio.net/) You can listen back episodes, as well as the current one.

Honestly, the fact that he's a high educated African-American, is a huge element in his favor. He's a very positive role model for people in the African-American community, because he's able to talk science and sound "hip" at the same time. Even in an America where Obama is President, there aren't too many African-Americans popularly known for being really smart. Most of the famous African-Americans are known for their athletic ability or artistic talents. Certainly, a good number of them are intelligent, but that's not what they're known for. When you look at Michael Jordan's wikipedia entry, you see that he earned a college degree, but no mention of what type of degree. The entry is focused almost entirely on his basketball career.

swampyankee
2013-Jun-29, 04:20 AM
Al Franken (in whose book I read the story) wanted to know if he'd foreseen the poor author escort's getting a $500 fine.

In New York, Chopra could get the fine. A former co-worker's daughter was riding in a friends car. When the friend was pulled over, the policeman walked over to the passenger side of the car and gave the co-worker's daughter a citation. The driver may have gotten one, too, but the passenger, since she was an adult, was independently ticketed.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-29, 05:34 AM
Sci-celebs have their own groupies and fanboys. *sigh*

Selfsim
2013-Jun-29, 07:45 AM
Sci-celebs have their own groupies and fanboys. *sigh*Why is it always the stories they tell, their looks, and their sing-song delivery styles, the only things which ever seem to stick?

Surely the most important messages to convey, would be about the thinking and the process which resulted in the story .. and why it isn't just a story?
These factors, I think, are what separates the 'adults from the kids', when it comes to sci-presenters. I think Brian Greene does a good job ... as do: Marcus duSautoy and Jim Al-Khalili (BBC presenters). Then again, they have a large hand in actually writing what they present!

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-29, 12:11 PM
Sci-celebs have their own groupies and fanboys. *sigh*



Hehehe...from fan boys and groupies to the tall poppy syndrome sufferers!

Individual tastes is what counts as to who does the best job, and as I have already expressed, they are all, at least the ones I am familiar with, doing a reasonable job....Something we all could learn from.
It's a far easier job to criticise incognito via cyber space.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-29, 07:10 PM
Hehehe...from fan boys and groupies to the tall poppy syndrome sufferers!I had to look that up because it's not something I've heard of here in the States. I don't think anyone here resents Michio Kaku et al for their talents or achievements. People resent the disservice they feel these people are doing to science by focusing on spectacle instead of substance, and for the occasions when they simply get the science wrong.


Individual tastes is what counts as to who does the best job, and as I have already expressed, they are all, at least the ones I am familiar with, doing a reasonable job....Something we all could learn from.Nope. When Michio Kaku says something that's demonstrably errant, it's not a matter of individual taste.


It's a far easier job to criticise incognito via cyber space.Says the boy with the nome de plume.

I've criticized Phil Plait on the internet, and we've met and he knows who I am. I'd criticize Michio Kaku in person if he were around here more.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-29, 07:18 PM
Why is it always the stories they tell, their looks, and their sing-song delivery styles, the only things which ever seem to stick?Appealing to the masses results in mass appeal. Also known as "pandering".


Surely the most important messages to convey, would be about the thinking and the process which resulted in the story .. and why it isn't just a story?Science as a journey instead of as a destination? Sure, that can work for many people. But then you have people who believe that all science is equally valid because they're doing (or giving lip service to) the process and ignoring the supportability of evidence and data. This can result in conspiracy theories, hoax believers, and creationist "science".


These factors, I think, are what separates the 'adults from the kids', when it comes to sci-presenters. I think Brian Greene does a good job ... as do: Marcus duSautoy and Jim Al-Khalili (BBC presenters). Then again, they have a large hand in actually writing what they present!Partly, I think it's due to shortened attention spans and other things pulling for people's attention. People also want to be entertained by big, flashy ideas instead of nuance and understanding complicated systems. It's good to be able to see the big picture, but too many people confuse the big picture with a grand spectacle.

Far too often, it seems that some of these sci-celebutantes are guilty of affirming the consequent or rubber-stamping spectacular ideas with little merit by ignoring or glossing over the elephants in the room. Kaku did this a lot in his Science channel half-hour specials where he invents fanciful tech to order.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-29, 07:40 PM
Wow!!!
I did ask a few posts back of examples of "wrong science"that has been spruiked by Kaku.....still waiting....
But anyway, I disagree entirely with your summation of him, and do respect the service he does supply to the masses. You are entitled to your opinion though...that's OK.
From where I sit the proof of the pudding, is in the eating. His popularity says it all along with his qualifications.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-29, 07:48 PM
Nope. When Michio Kaku says something that's demonstrably errant, it's not a matter of individual taste.

Exactly. It has reached the point that, when I see Michio Kaku in a documentary, I seriously consider whether I'm going to finish watching it, because if I'm watching a documentary, I'm looking for facts.

Actually, as I've said here before, I personally criticized Neil deGrasse Tyson's education to his face. Maybe not on purpose, but he asked us who had known that the French fought on the side of the Americans in the Revolution, and I was the person closest to him who raised their hand. So he asked me how I knew, and I said, "I had really good teachers in school." He asked if I was implying that he hadn't. I wasn't, exactly, but it was obvious to me that his history teachers should have imparted that information and didn't. He was kind of snippy about it, I grant you, but he was willing to acknowledge that there was something he hadn't known and then changed his opinion about how reasonable it was that it had taken a while for him to learn.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-29, 09:10 PM
Appealing to the masses results in mass appeal. Also known as "pandering"..



Mass appeal...appealing to the masses. This of course can result in good things as well as bad. We can go from one extreme to the other.
Kaku, in my opinion, has a speculative style, innovateness and Imagination that has benefited science and physics many times throughout history.....Flashes of Imagination, coupled with aquired knowledge has advanced science many times.
The masses in general have obviously liked his style, hence his obvious success.
BTW and as a matter of Interest, I have probably seen him maybe 20 or so times over the years on the box, and do not watch every episode, or record every detail of what he has said...Which obviously means I aint no fanboy or groupie [sorry Michio]
I have read and enjoyed one book by him, that was "Hyperspace".








Science as a journey instead of as a destination? Sure, that can work for many people. But then you have people who believe that all science is equally valid because they're doing (or giving lip service to) the process and ignoring the supportability of evidence and data. This can result in conspiracy theories, hoax believers, and creationist "science".

Partly, I think it's due to shortened attention spans and other things pulling for people's attention. People also want to be entertained by big, flashy ideas instead of nuance and understanding complicated systems. It's good to be able to see the big picture, but too many people confuse the big picture with a grand spectacle.

Far too often, it seems that some of these sci-celebutantes are guilty of affirming the consequent or rubber-stamping spectacular ideas with little merit by ignoring or glossing over the elephants in the room. Kaku did this a lot in his Science channel half-hour specials where he invents fanciful tech to order.








Many people also confuse reasonable scientific speculation as pure fantasy and are unable to see as history continues to show, that what maybe deemed as impossible today, or highly speculative today, given innovation and knowledge, just maybe reality tomorrow.
Just ask Lord Kelvin, to relate to an old signature of mine.
Kaku is known for his speculation......I find that a quality to be admired, not criticised.
I continue to wait for examples of "wrong science" he has supposedly spruiked.

Or maybe to be fairer we should ask him to visit the forum to explain himself?
Although I would surmise he has better things to do.


In summation, his overall style appeals to most but not all.
The other science presenters all have the same problem........subjective tastes is what makes humanity so viable and Interesting.
Also it should be noted that some seem to want to silence these science presenters over pedantic petty issues, overlooking the great job that they do in spreading knowledge of the Universe around us and all it contains.
It would be a far more ignorant world were the hallow halls of science to close their doors to the outside world and become an exclusive boys club.

Selfsim
2013-Jun-29, 10:24 PM
… It would be a far more ignorant world were the hallow halls of science to close their doors to the outside world and become an exclusive boys club.So, it looks like we might be getting closer to the primary motivation behind your posts, eh?

Science is not 'an exclusive boys club' .. its there for all to learn. The learning happens in classrooms, texts, reading and participation in the special kind of thinking involved. Documentaries do little to encourage such discipline. Participation in the conversations, whilst not participating in the thinking, results in exclusion … but that would be by one's own choice, by free will .. not rejection.

I find Kaku to be too prescriptive in his presentation of science. He doesn't seem to care about grooming thinking and leading others to think for themselves.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-29, 11:30 PM
So, it looks like we might be getting closer to the primary motivation behind your posts, eh?




It seems you can Imagine when it suits your agenda.










Science is not 'an exclusive boys club' .. its there for all to learn. The learning happens in classrooms, texts, reading and participation in the special kind of thinking involved. Documentaries do little to encourage such discipline. Participation in the conversations, whilst not participating in the thinking, results in exclusion … but that would be by one's own choice, by free will .. not rejection.

I find Kaku to be too prescriptive in his presentation of science. He doesn't seem to care about grooming thinking and leading others to think for themselves.







That's your opinion as I have said all along...I happen to vehemently disagree with it.

Paul Beardsley
2013-Jun-29, 11:42 PM
That's your opinion as I have said all along...I happen to vehemently disagree with it.

You really don't get it. Scientific opinions are based on data and reason, not on whether or not something fits your ideas of how the world should be or whether it appeals to you. Saying "that's just your opinion" is for discussions about fashion and favourite pop groups, not science.

In some walks of life, you really can say things like, "There is no right or wrong answer" or "everyone's opinion is equally valid". Science is not one of those, and it is possible to be very, very wrong. If you make a statement that is not supported by the existing evidence or by reason, then that statement is indeed wrong.

Trebuchet
2013-Jun-29, 11:45 PM
His popularity says it all along with his qualifications.

Deepak Chopra is also extremely popular, and is qualified as an MD. He's also a complete loon. Kaku is not nearly so crazy, but tends to be over the top.

SkepticJ
2013-Jun-30, 12:56 AM
Deepak Chopra is also extremely popular, and is qualified as an MD. He's also a complete loon.

Or a conman who knows exactly what he's doing. He's the Peter Popoff of New Ageism.

Gillianren
2013-Jun-30, 01:00 AM
Deepak Chopra is also extremely popular, and is qualified as an MD. He's also a complete loon. Kaku is not nearly so crazy, but tends to be over the top.

Right--if we're going to accept "popular" as a synonym for "right," we're all in trouble.

Selfsim
2013-Jun-30, 01:39 AM
Deepak Chopra is also extremely popular, and is qualified as an MD. He's also a complete loon. Kaku is not nearly so crazy, but tends to be over the top.We should start a new thread to go into into this 'ins' and 'outs' of this guy, Chopra.

He's taught me that MD qualifications don't require a knowledge of science, or of the scientific method. (As have several GP Doctors I have encountered ..)

Luckily, I don't rely on the letters following another's name, when making life or death decisions ..

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 02:13 AM
You really don't get it. Scientific opinions are based on data and reason, not on whether or not something fits your ideas of how the world should be or whether it appeals to you. Saying "that's just your opinion" is for discussions about fashion and favourite pop groups, not science.

In some walks of life, you really can say things like, "There is no right or wrong answer" or "everyone's opinion is equally valid". Science is not one of those, and it is possible to be very, very wrong. If you make a statement that is not supported by the existing evidence or by reason, then that statement is indeed wrong.



Oh I get it all right....Scientific opinions are certainly based on data and reasoning, it's just that people [yep even scientists] interpret that data and evidence in different ways.

And yes of course there are areas of science where we may have no right or wrong answers, and my öpnion" of Kaku is well supported by evidence, and I'm still waiting in eager for someone to show me some "wrong science"he has spruiked.
Which leaves the other reasons I have listed for the continued criticism [without evidence] based on personal opinion. Which of course you are entitled to, science or no science...\
I am turned off by the abruptness and abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins, but that is a personal dislike while others find his style as quite necessary against the YEC's
With respect, Maybe you really don't get it?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 02:30 AM
Michio Kaku annoys me slightly less than that Neil Degrass Tyson guy.. but not by much... they both seem like they try too hard.. Michio Kaku seems to go to the extremes to make a point- he always shows up in those "omg!!! what if a black hole goes into orbit around the earth" kinds of shows- and Neil Degrass Tyson just seems like he thinks he needs to talk to the common people like we are a bunch of kindergarteners when he shows up on the Daily Show or whatever. on that note, it was rather funny how John Stewart got back at him that one time for the way he pointed out that the globe in the opening credits spins the wrong way...

i know that they are both in the business of trying to make science cool and hip and try to use the hip street lingo of the kids (get off my lawn!!), but i find that kind of thing grating. just tell me the facts and don't try to dress it up too much... Carl Sagan had an almost childlike wonder in the way he presented things- you could tell he wasn't putting on some act and that he was actually in awe of the universe that he was talking about... these other guys also seem like they genuinely love the subject matter and want to spread the knowledge to the rest of the world, but they just seem like they are trying too hard...





Perfect post for illustrating differring opinions on different science presenters, not that I personally agree with those thoughts other then for the thoughts on the great Carl Sagan himself.

Not sure if anyone has mention Stephen Hawking....
Now there's someone we all should admire for incredible qualities!

Jim
2013-Jun-30, 03:05 AM
Kaku knows a lot about everything. Or so he claims. He has expounded on string theory (his area), multiverses and parallel worlds, the LHC, nuclear energy, extraterrestrial intelligence, artificial intelligence, genetics and evolution, global warming, secret military projects, politics, religion, deja vu ... everything. He can also point out the mistakes made by Einstein and Hawking.

But he has made a few of his own.

He says that the Higgs Boson helped cause the Big Bang, and that’s why it’s called the God Particle.

He says "grosse evolution" has stopped. That is, our brains are not getting bigger, and our physical features aren't changing either, “... so chances are, decades from now, we'll look pretty much the same.” (Kaku invented the term "grosse evolution.")

He says the Fukishima reactors were comparable to the Chernobyl reactor. “Plutonium is the most toxic chemical known to science! A speck of plutonium, a millionth of a gram, could cause cancer if it’s ingested.” (This comes from a Ralph Nader statement.)

Selfsim
2013-Jun-30, 03:19 AM
Not sure if anyone has mention Stephen Hawking....
Now there's someone we all should admire for incredible qualities!Hawking's most recent book, 'The Grand Design' left me somewhat cold and in doubt about just how much input he really had, content-wise ...

Check out the critical reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)#Critical_reactions) to it in Wiki .. (I agree with most of them). Dwight Garner (New York Times) summed it up nicely …

"The real news about 'The Grand Design' is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in 'A Brief History of Time', has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable.As a result, I ponder the same question as posed in the OP, when it comes to Hawking:

Does he know what he's talking about, or does he say things to sell books?With 'The Grand Design', maybe it could also be queried as to whether he has also demonstrated a penchant for fame over work quality(?)

Romanus
2013-Jun-30, 03:25 AM
I went through a (very) brief phase of seeing him as the next Carl Sagan, until he joined the whole "Cassini's plutonium is a threat the planet" crowd. I've never really forgiven him, even if I do appreciate the "bully pulpit" work he has done (and continues to do) for science. Still, he can't hold a candle to Bill Nye or De Grasse Tyson, or even Brian Greene.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 04:43 AM
Hawking's most recent book, 'The Grand Design' left me somewhat cold and in doubt about just how much input he really had, content-wise ...

Check out the critical reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)#Critical_reactions) to it in Wiki .. (I agree with most of them). Dwight Garner (New York Times) summed it up nicely …
As a result, I ponder the same question as posed in the OP, when it comes to Hawking:
With 'The Grand Design', maybe it could also be queried as to whether he has also demonstrated a penchant for fame over work quality(?)






Not many books anyone could point to that has never had some criticism, either justified or because it's expected as in a critic.


With your last statement, maybe we all at times need to query ourselves, over agenda driven opinions.
Not too many can say that it doesn't apply. [agendas]
But again, opinions and you are entitled to that.

Selfsim
2013-Jun-30, 04:46 AM
… He says "grosse evolution" has stopped. That is, our brains are not getting bigger, and our physical features aren't changing either, “... so chances are, decades from now, we'll look pretty much the same.” (Kaku invented the term "grosse evolution.")Take a more detailed look at the above nonsense by Kaku … (warning .. this is painful to watch ..)

Mankind has stopped evolving .. (http://bigthink.com/videos/mankind-has-stopped-evolving)


However, you have to realize that as far a gross evolutionary pressure is concerned; there is none anymore on the human race.He seems to think that human evolution has stopped because 'gross' evolutionary pressures, (presumably forcing 'gross development), have gone. Does he not realise there are still major diseases, which kill millions annually?

We no longer have any isolated pockets, like Australia, which would accelerate human evolution.
...
Australia is a continent that broke off from the other continents and it evolved very rapidly because it diverged from the rest of the evolutionary tree. There are no more Australias anymore.How is Australia a product of accelerated evolution? Did geographical isolation somehow suddenly increase mutation rates of humans in Australia?

What bunkum!

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 05:10 AM
Kaku knows a lot about everything. Or so he claims. He has expounded on string theory (his area), multiverses and parallel worlds, the LHC, nuclear energy, extraterrestrial intelligence, artificial intelligence, genetics and evolution, global warming, secret military projects, politics, religion, deja vu ... everything.

I'm reasonably sure that being an opportunistic watcher of science TV shows by most of the presenters mentioned here so far, that all have commented on a wide range of subjects.



He can also point out the mistakes made by Einstein and Hawking.I'm reasonably sure that being an opportunistic watcher of science TV shows by most of the presenters mentioned here so far, that all have commented on a wide range of subjects

But he has made a few of his own.

I'm sure he has, as has Einstein and Hawking, both by their own admissions.



He says that the Higgs Boson helped cause the Big Bang, and that’s why it’s called the God Particle.

He says "grosse evolution" has stopped. That is, our brains are not getting bigger, and our physical features aren't changing either, “... so chances are, decades from now, we'll look pretty much the same.” (Kaku invented the term "grosse evolution.")I'm reasonably sure that being an opportunistic watcher of science TV shows by most of the presenters mentioned here so far, that all have commented on a wide range of subjects

He says the Fukishima reactors were comparable to the Chernobyl reactor. “Plutonium is the most toxic chemical known to science! A speck of plutonium, a millionth of a gram, could cause cancer if it’s ingested.” (This comes from a Ralph Nader statement.)

Thanks for those examples......
Do we know enough about the Higg's Boson, to say he is/was wrong?
I have even heard criticism of it being labeled "The God Particle"by a few physicist, although not too sure who and why.
Wasn't it Leo Lederman who labelled it that?
With the evolution question, I have heard Hawking say the opposite...that is, evolution is and will continue.
Plutonium the most toxic chemical known??? I wouldn't like to digest it at any rate.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 05:27 AM
He seems to think that human evolution has stopped because 'gross' evolutionary pressures, (presumably forcing 'gross development), have gone

What bunkum!

Mankind has stopped evolving ..










From your link.......


For example, in the old days, when we lived in the forests, there was enormous selection and pressures placed on us to develop a large brain, to understand how to use tools, to run, to be able to navigate, to survive in the forests. Enormous pressures on us because if you were not fit to live in the forest, you died. And so your genes are not here today.


and this........


Evolution is still taking place. But gross evolution, that is, evolution that will give us big brains, big eyes, bald heads and little bodies, that kind of gross evolution is pretty much gone.




Well, well....
I openly admit I don't know a great deal about continued evolution, but you seem rather persistent that he is an Idiot.
The two paragraphs from your own quote refute what you say, or at least point to the fact that you have misinterpreted it and grossly overstated Kaku's thoughts and the inference that human evolution is not taking place..

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-30, 05:35 AM
Peter Higgs hates the name "god particle." (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/professor-higgs-speaks-out-against-the-name--god-particle---095113715.html#wJS9lI9)
It may have been hailed as the Holy Grail of physics - but nicknaming the Higgs boson the “God Particle” has proved equally controversial.

The latest outburst against the term was by Professor Peter Higgs himself – the British physicist who suggested the particle's existence.

Higgs's comments come as scientists close in on final proof of the particle's existence at the Large Hadron Collider - ending a 40-year, Ł8.6 billion quest.

The 83-year-old, who came up with the theory while walking in the Cairngorms in 1964, said calling the Higgs boson “the God particle” was “misleading”

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-30, 06:24 AM
Mass appeal...appealing to the masses. This of course can result in good things as well as bad. We can go from one extreme to the other.Yes, we know Godwin's law.


Kaku, in my opinion, has a speculative style, innovateness and Imagination that has benefited science and physics many times throughout history.....Flashes of Imagination, coupled with aquired knowledge has advanced science many times.Yes, I saw his tv shows about engineering the impossible. From what I saw, he was just copying what others had already imagined when they wrote the fiction he was describing. The difference was that they labelled it fiction.


The masses in general have obviously liked his style, hence his obvious success.The masses also like magicians, miracle-workers, and Muppets. People like showmanship. People like a man with confidence, sometimes that's also known as a con-man. How much money have you spent on his books or videos, or paid for cable or satellite service that sponsored or paid for a program he was in? It's all about communication. Like Eddie Izzard once said, It's 70% how you look, 20% how you sound, and 10% what you say.


BTW and as a matter of Interest, I have probably seen him maybe 20 or so times over the years on the box, and do not watch every episode, or record every detail of what he has said...Which obviously means I aint no fanboy or groupie [sorry Michio]
I have read and enjoyed one book by him, that was "Hyperspace".And yet you expect us to have committed to memory his errors. lol


Many people also confuse reasonable scientific speculation as pure fantasy and are unable to see as history continues to show, that what maybe deemed as impossible today, or highly speculative today, given innovation and knowledge, just maybe reality tomorrow.Yes, we keep telling you that.


Just ask Lord Kelvin, to relate to an old signature of mine.
Kaku is known for his speculation......I find that a quality to be admired, not criticised.Are you a fan of Erich von Daniken too? I hear he's into speculation.


I continue to wait for examples of "wrong science" he has supposedly spruiked.In the immortal words of Dr. Evil. "I don't speak freaky-deaky dutch."


Or maybe to be fairer we should ask him to visit the forum to explain himself?
Although I would surmise he has better things to do.Or you could be his emissary. Is that what you want, to stand on the shoulders of giants? First rule of giant-shoulder standing: find a giant...


In summation, his overall style appeals to most but not all.Do we have actual data on this?


The other science presenters all have the same problem........subjective tastes is what makes humanity so viable and Interesting.Interesting, maybe. Viable, is a harder argument to make. There's the Darwin Award for human exercises in attempting to expand the horizons of what is "viable".


Also it should be noted that some seem to want to silence these science presenters over pedantic petty issues, overlooking the great job that they do in spreading knowledge of the Universe around us and all it contains.
It would be a far more ignorant world were the hallow halls of science to close their doors to the outside world and become an exclusive boys club.lol Have you no clue about how such a secret organization works? We don't silence them, we co-opt them, or we let them be the cause of their own inevitable downfall.

Paul Beardsley
2013-Jun-30, 08:47 AM
With respect, Maybe you really don't get it?

Tail trying to wag the dog.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 08:47 AM
Yes, we know Godwin's law.

Yes, I saw his tv shows about engineering the impossible. From what I saw, he was just copying what others had already imagined when they wrote the fiction he was describing. The difference was that they labelled it fiction.

The masses also like magicians, miracle-workers, and Muppets. People like showmanship. People like a man with confidence, sometimes that's also known as a con-man. How much money have you spent on his books or videos, or paid for cable or satellite service that sponsored or paid for a program he was in? It's all about communication. Like Eddie Izzard once said, It's 70% how you look, 20% how you sound, and 10% what you say.

And yet you expect us to have committed to memory his errors. lol

Yes, we keep telling you that.

Are you a fan of Erich von Daniken too? I hear he's into speculation.

In the immortal words of Dr. Evil. "I don't speak freaky-deaky dutch."

Or you could be his emissary. Is that what you want, to stand on the shoulders of giants? First rule of giant-shoulder standing: find a giant...

Do we have actual data on this?

Interesting, maybe. Viable, is a harder argument to make. There's the Darwin Award for human exercises in attempting to expand the horizons of what is "viable".

lol Have you no clue about how such a secret organization works? We don't silence them, we co-opt them, or we let them be the cause of their own inevitable downfall.




At the risk of repeating myself, you are entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is.


Take it easy, OK?

Paul Beardsley
2013-Jun-30, 08:58 AM
At the risk of repeating myself, you are entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is.

Some opinions are better informed and more reasoned than others.

Margarita
2013-Jun-30, 09:10 AM
Many thanks, Cougar and Tuckerfan for pointing me towards deGrasse Tyson material - I'm downloading a Kindle sample of the book at the moment and have located the radio show site. The shows do seem to be available outside the USA, which many PBS (and BBC) productions - sadly - are not.
Gillian wrote: "During colonial days, it was actually the law that every new township should be named after a place in England." Well - how interesting! I didn't know that.

Margarita

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 09:13 AM
Something that hasn't been mentioned as yet, is the difficulty faced by science presenters. Their style as much as possible, must be able to hold the attention of children and adults alike, and all in between.
Your explanations need to change in complexity, depending on the age group of the audience and its knowledge on the particular subject matter.

And of course when we have an expert science presenter like Kaku, who by choice and title is a Futuristic theoretical physicist, or a Sagan with natural universal appeal, and with logical scientific beliefs such as in the existence of ETL and of course even the prediction of extra solar planets which was highly speculative only 20 or so years ago, they need to be prepared for flack from the more staid unimaginative type of scientist.
Collectively they do a service and that's always going to be a good thing.

Paul Beardsley
2013-Jun-30, 09:59 AM
Something that hasn't been mentioned as yet, is the difficulty faced by science presenters. Their style as much as possible, must be able to hold the attention of children and adults alike, and all in between.
Your explanations need to change in complexity, depending on the age group of the audience and its knowledge on the particular subject matter.

And of course when we have an expert science presenter like Kaku, who by choice and title is a Futuristic theoretical physicist, or a Sagan with natural universal appeal, and with logical scientific beliefs such as in the existence of ETL and of course even the prediction of extra solar planets which was highly speculative only 20 or so years ago, they need to be prepared for flack from the more staid unimaginative type of scientist.
Collectively they do a service and that's always going to be a good thing.

Firstly, there is a massive difference between simplifying something to make it accessible and being downright misleading.

Secondly, you talk of imagination as if it were a rare resource that only a handful of eccentrics possess. Newsflash: Vast numbers of people have imagination. I have it; I had a novel and several short stories professionally published. The novel featured a planet in a chaotic figure-of-8 orbit around a double star system. Maybe planets like that really exist; maybe there's a good reason why they don't, I don't know. I've written about alien life forms that make the alien in Alien look simple. I've written crazy time travel stuff. Other writers have come up with stuff that might turn out to have a basis in reality but which probably won't.

Dreams are ten a penny. The scientists you dismiss as reactionary, boring, closed-minded or whatever have just as much imagination as the rest. They just happen to care about the evidence and logic that marks the difference between idle speculation and disciplined science.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 10:48 AM
Secondly, you talk of imagination as if it were a rare resource that only a handful of eccentrics possess. Newsflash: Vast numbers of people have imagination. I have it; I had a novel and several short stories professionally published. The novel featured a planet in a chaotic figure-of-8 orbit around a double star system. Maybe planets like that really exist; maybe there's a good reason why they don't, I don't know. I've written about alien life forms that make the alien in Alien look simple. I've written crazy time travel stuff. Other writers have come up with stuff that might turn out to have a basis in reality but which probably won't.

.




Impresssive!!!! Congrats!!!


Michio Kaku:

Went to the National Science Fair in high school with a home-made atom smasher built in his parents' garage.
1968, Physics B.S. (summa cum laude) from Harvard University
1972, Physics Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley
1973, lectureship at Princeton University
25 years as Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York.
Has been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton & New York University.
String Field Theory Work:

In the realm of physics research, Michio Kaku is best known as the co-founder of string field theory, which is a specific branch of the more general string theory which relies heavily on mathematically framing the theory in terms of fields. Kaku's work was instrumental in showing that the field theory is consistent with known fields, such as Einstein's field equations from general relativity.
Radio & Television Appearances:

Michio Kaku is the host of two radio programs: Science Fantastic and Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku. Information about these programs can be found on Dr. Kaku's official website.
In addition to radio appearances, Michio Kaku frequently makes appearances on a wide variety of popular shows as a science expert, including Larry King Live, Good Morning America, Nightline, and 60 Minutes. He has hosted a number of science shows, including the Science Channel series Sci-Fi Science.

Books:

Dr. Kaku's written a number of academic papers and textbooks over the years, but is especially noted among the public for his popular books on advanced theoretical physics concepts:
Physics of the Future
Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration Into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel (coming March 11, 2008)
Einstein's Cosmos: How Albert Einstein's Vision Transformed Our Understanding of Space and Time
Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century and Beyond
Parallel Worlds
Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension


at.......
http://physics.about.com/od/michiokaku/p/michiokakubio.htm

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 10:52 AM
Firstly, there is a massive difference between simplifying something to make it accessible and being downright misleading..





That has yet to be shown as true with evidence and data/,,,,,




Dreams are ten a penny. The scientists you dismiss as reactionary, boring, closed-minded or whatever have just as much imagination as the rest. They just happen to care about the evidence and logic that marks the difference between idle speculation and disciplined science.







I have not as yet dismissed any scientist of any note on this thread.

Cougar
2013-Jun-30, 10:53 AM
Take a more detailed look at the above nonsense by Kaku … (warning .. this is painful to watch ..)
Mankind has stopped evolving .. (http://bigthink.com/videos/mankind-has-stopped-evolving)

This is reminiscent of Fred Hoyle. As Simon Singh wrote:


In fact, Hoyle was almost obsessive in his questioning of orthodoxy. Sometimes he turned out to be right, but on many occasions he showed himself as a scientist out of his depth. Most notoriously, Hoyle denounced an archaeopteryx fossil as a forgery...


Hoyle, however, made at least one important scientific discovery. Kaku...?

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jun-30, 11:49 AM
That has yet to be shown as true with evidence and data/,,,,,
Read the comments about Kaku on evolution and nuclear power.

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-30, 04:07 PM
From Kaku's Wiki entry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku)
Kaku has publicly stated his concerns over matters including the anthropogenic cause of global warming, nuclear armament, nuclear power and the general misuse of science.[19] He was critical of the Cassini–Huygens space probe because of the 72 pounds (33 kg) of plutonium contained in the craft for use by its radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Conscious of the possibility of casualties if the probe's fuel were dispersed into the environment during a malfunction and crash as the probe was making a 'sling-shot' maneuver around Earth, Kaku publicly criticized NASA's risk assessment.[20]

News account of him protesting the launch of Cassini. (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9710/04/cassini/)
"Winds can blow (plutonium) into Disney World, Universal City, into the citrus industry and destroy the economy of central Florida," said Michio Kaku, a protesting physics professor from New York. He claimed that casualties could run as high as a million people if there were an accident.
Protesters maintain that the material is highly toxic, and downplayed NASA's safety assurances. "Jimmy the Greek would say: Look at the track record," Kaku said. "The track record is one out of 20 booster rockets blow up on launch ... Ten percent of our space probes actually come down."Sigh, what I wouldn't give to have been a baseball bat wielding thug at that protest. :evil:

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-30, 04:44 PM
At the risk of repeating myself, you are entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is.


Take it easy, OK?

Aren't you being hypocritical here? You like to dismiss the questions others ask of you while pushing others to answer your questions, even after they've already been answered.

Physics, chemistry, engineering are complex. Like Edison once said, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

The plural of imagination is not innovation.

Jim
2013-Jun-30, 04:57 PM
Impresssive!!!! Congrats!!!

Michio Kaku:

Went to the National Science Fair in high school with a home-made atom smasher built in his parents' garage.
1968, Physics B.S. (summa cum laude) from Harvard University
1972, Physics Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley
1973, lectureship at Princeton University
25 years as Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York. ...

I see lots of bona fides in physics, but I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of evolutionary biology, yet he is happy to make grandiose statements about it.

I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of human physiology, yet he makes grandiose claims.

I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of human psychology, yet ditto.

Other than his "homemade atom smasher" (Your words or his?) I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of nuclear power plants or nuclear safety, yet ditto again.

Frankly, I'd take the opinion of someone with a B.S. in nuclear engineering, or genetics, or psychology, or whatever over a PhD physicist. I'm not saying he should remain silent in those areas - free speech and all - but at least he can not be so certain about his pronouncements. He seems to be arguing from his own authority.

Oh, and his statement about the Higgs Particle shows how he sometimes fails to grasp details in even his own field. The Higgs has never been proposed as the instigator of the Big Bang and was not called the God Particle because of that.

("We hate calling it the God particle but the reason it picked that up is because it goes out and touches every other particle and gives them their property, which is their mass," [William] Trischuk [professor of physics at the University of Toronto] said. Kaku should know this.)

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-30, 05:08 PM
Kaku once said that in the future, we'd all have computer displays in our eyeglasses. Given that most of us who wear glasses would rather not need them, I have to say that folks would be more likely to want contact lenses capable of having computer displays in them, or ocular implants.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jun-30, 07:50 PM
Kaku once said that in the future, we'd all have computer displays in our eyeglasses. Given that most of us who wear glasses would rather not need them, I have to say that folks would be more likely to want contact lenses capable of having computer displays in them, or ocular implants.
I'm not wearing eyeglasses because I had my cornea reshaped by laser keratomileusis.

Why would I want eyeglasses with a computer display?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 07:58 PM
Aren't you being hypocritical here? You like to dismiss the questions others ask of you while pushing others to answer your questions, even after they've already been answered.




I'm not dismissing any questions....I'm dismissing personal opinions.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 08:06 PM
I see lots of bona fides in physics, but I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of evolutionary biology, yet he is happy to make grandiose statements about it.

I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of human physiology, yet he makes grandiose claims.

I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of human psychology, yet ditto.

Other than his "homemade atom smasher" (Your words or his?) I see nothing that qualifies him in the field of nuclear power plants or nuclear safety, yet ditto again.

Frankly, I'd take the opinion of someone with a B.S. in nuclear engineering, or genetics, or psychology, or whatever over a PhD physicist. I'm not saying he should remain silent in those areas - free speech and all - but at least he can not be so certain about his pronouncements. He seems to be arguing from his own authority.

Oh, and his statement about the Higgs Particle shows how he sometimes fails to grasp details in even his own field. The Higgs has never been proposed as the instigator of the Big Bang and was not called the God Particle because of that.

("We hate calling it the God particle but the reason it picked that up is because it goes out and touches every other particle and gives them their property, which is their mass," [William] Trischuk [professor of physics at the University of Toronto] said. Kaku should know this.)




But all our TV science presenters cover and give opinions on many areas outside their expertise. Why signal one out of the bunch?
Again, regarding the Higgs, do we know enough about it to dismiss any claims.

With regards to his stance on Cassini and nuclear powered space vehicles, I certainly remember his stance on that and yes he was shown to be wrong.

Again, his expertise is "futuristic theoretical physicist" and his claims and predictions in that area does seem to unecessarily upset some people.
One can only guess at the reasons.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-30, 08:13 PM
I'm not dismissing any questions....I'm dismissing personal opinions.

Perhaps you should start with dismissing your own, Sir Robin.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jun-30, 08:14 PM
But all our TV science presenters cover and give opinions on many areas outside their expertise. Why signal one out of the bunch?
...
Again, his expertise is "futuristic theoretical physicist" and his claims and predictions in that area does seem to unecessarily upset some people.
One can only guess at the reasons.

And your guess is?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 08:45 PM
And your guess is?

Well let's see.....
I'll let you take your pick.....

I've given a few possible reasons in this thread.

Jim
2013-Jun-30, 08:50 PM
But all our TV science presenters cover and give opinions on many areas outside their expertise. ...

Examples, please, of experts who go outside their fields of expertise and offer opinion and conjecture as fact.


Again, regarding the Higgs, do we know enough about it to dismiss any claims.

His claim is they named it the God Particle because it instigated the Big Bang. That is not why they named it such.


Again, his expertise is "futuristic theoretical physicist" and his claims and predictions in that area does seem to unecessarily upset some people.
One can only guess at the reasons.

What training do you need to be a "futuristic theoretical physicist?" I wouldn't mind him making predictions or guesses - or educated guesses - about the future, but he makes statements as if they are hard fact. And most of them are sensationalistic in nature. (He has said UFOs are real and when we meet the aliens it will not be pleasant - it will be Bambi meets Godzilla.)

Until at least some of his predictions are borne out, I wouldn't call it "expertise." From what I can tell, at this point he's about as accurate as Sylvia Brown at predicting the future.

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-30, 09:17 PM
His claim is they named it the God Particle because it instigated the Big Bang. That is not why they named it such.In fact, they wanted to give the particle an obscene nickname, because of how hard it was to find, but nobody would publish it. Though, in some sense, if you're talking about names for something that's hard to find, "God" is a pretty good choice. ;)

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 09:22 PM
Examples, please, of experts who go outside their fields of expertise and offer opinion and conjecture as fact..





Brian Cox...Brian Green De-Grasse Tyson.
But I don't believe he gives futuristic predictions as fact. He has a style.
And I don't really believe any of our science presenters give their views as fact.
But someone can show me something to the contrary if they like.








His claim is they named it the God Particle because it instigated the Big Bang. That is not why they named it such..




I just checked out an interview with Kaku, and he certainly says the HB instigated the BB, but nothing saying that that was the reason they called it the God Particle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCMuInLYVr4

Another interesting rundown here......
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/michio-kaku-says-higgs-boson-caused-big






What training do you need to be a "futuristic theoretical physicist?" I wouldn't mind him making predictions or guesses - or educated guesses - about the future, but he makes statements as if they are hard fact. And most of them are sensationalistic in nature. (He has said UFOs are real and when we meet the aliens it will not be pleasant - it will be Bambi meets Godzilla.)

Until at least some of his predictions are borne out, I wouldn't call it "expertise." From what I can tell, at this point he's about as accurate as Sylvia Brown at predicting the future.



He's a physicist...Physicists along with any science discipline do make futuristic predictions.
With regards to UFO's I do remember a lecture/talk from Kaku about UFO's.
He definitely states that 95% of all sightings are explained by Earthly weather anomalies and such, BUT the 5% remaining is unexplained....And then words to the effect that its possible that maybe something within that 5% could be extra terrestrial.
Note Could be"", certainly not is certainly"".......

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 09:39 PM
"There are many many Michio Kaku u tube videos on the net.......a testament to his fame, popularity and knowledge I might add.
Here's another......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1uHSgxrgQ


Plenty of are there such and such, is that possible....I did not detect any certainty

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 09:47 PM
Kaku once said that in the future, we'd all have computer displays in our eyeglasses. Given that most of us who wear glasses would rather not need them, I have to say that folks would be more likely to want contact lenses capable of having computer displays in them, or ocular implants.



I have seen that prediction many times stated by many individuals.
With what we have in our mobiles and I-phones today, who would really dispute that possibility...Maybe you could dispute the necessity, but not the possibility.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jun-30, 10:03 PM
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/m...son-caused-big



The above link concerns criticism of Kaku by a couple of his peers........who disagree with his claim/interpretation of the HB and BB connection.

But as I asked way back up there somewhere, who hasn't made mistakes? Not that I would agree yet that he did/has made an error with 100% certainty.
The greatest of them all admits to that.
Scientists have disagreed over interpretation over all of history.


I just find the över the top criticism of him"as unjustified........and I certainly do not have any agenda or barrow to push.

Tuckerfan
2013-Jun-30, 10:37 PM
I have seen that prediction many times stated by many individuals.
With what we have in our mobiles and I-phones today, who would really dispute that possibility...Maybe you could dispute the necessity, but not the possibility.
Oh, for heaven's sakes! You're like the crash survivor in the Douglas Adams book asking if people want fire that can be used nasally. Have you followed any of the stories surrounding Google Glass? It is exactly what Kaku was talking about, and the public reaction has been decidedly mixed, with even people who're fans of the devices saying that they really wish there was a better way of doing it than eye glasses! People are busy trying to develop a contact lens version because they know that folks don't like wearing eye glasses. (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515666/contact-lens-computer-like-google-glass-without-the-glasses/) (No word on if those will cause fewer eye problems than have been hinted at with Google Glass.)

Folks currently spend thousands of dollars on eye surgery because they don't want to deal with wearing eye glasses, putting a computer display in the lenses certainly isn't going to reverse that. As someone who's had to wear glasses for over 30 years now, I can tell you that if I had the choice of not wearing glasses or having a computer display in my eye glasses, I'd pick no glasses hands down. Its not even close. Just because something is possible, or even better than what we have now, doesn't mean that people are going to adopt it.

For example, its far safer to have the driver of a car sit in the center of the dash, rather than at the left or right side of the car. Additionally, it'd be cheaper to build them that way, since you don't have different versions for countries where they drive on the right. You know how many production cars have been made that way? One. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1) (Though, to be fair, they're working on two other cars with that same design and a much lower cost. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/11/travel-and-transport-ethical-living)) Why? Because people don't like the idea. Its that simple. The possibility exists for every car to be built that way, but its never going to happen. Just like with Kaku's idea of everyone having computer displays in their eye glasses. The possibility is there, and there'll be some specialized uses for it (Boeing was testing this out in the late '80s to help with the installation of wiring in their aircraft), but widespread adoption? No. Not likely at all.

Selfsim
2013-Jun-30, 10:38 PM
I just find the över the top criticism of him"as unjustified........and I certainly do not have any agenda or barrow to push.Do you have the knowledge to analyse what he says, and make the interpretation of that, as being valid scientific rationale?

If someone portrays themselves as speaking from authority, then one should be judged on that basis. Kaku and Cox certainly leave a lot of room for concern in that regard, when judged by those who do possess such knowledge.

Your point seems to be more about the fact that these guys have a made an effort to give the public some information about science .. I have no problems about that point with the exception that the information they're giving out is actually misinformation, which actually defeats their purpose.

swampyankee
2013-Jun-30, 10:44 PM
Anybody who is popularizing is simplifying, and frequently mis-stating, what is actually happening. Remember how you were told an airfoil produces lift? Unless the teacher mentioned circulation, vorticity, and the Kutta condition, chances are quite high it was wrong.

Selfsim
2013-Jun-30, 10:58 PM
Anybody who is popularizing is simplifying, and frequently mis-stating, what is actually happening. Remember how you were told an airfoil produces lift? Unless the teacher mentioned circulation, vorticity, and the Kutta condition, chances are quite high it was wrong.Many popularisers manage to simultaneously communicate that what they're saying is a truncated version, whilst also pointing out that what they are not saying, moderates the definiteness of any scientific statement they've made.

This attribute is one way of 'ranking' popularisers .. and those who do this, also appeal to a much wider audience because it stimulates further research and continued thinking.

Those who don't however, give no other alternatives but to keep going back to them, to find out what to think. I find that style highly patronising, as it starts out assuming others are not capable of practising critical analysis on their own, and then goes on to perpetuate that behaviour.
This is not what education is about.

Tuckerfan
2013-Jul-01, 12:27 AM
Anybody who is popularizing is simplifying, and frequently mis-stating, what is actually happening. Remember how you were told an airfoil produces lift? Unless the teacher mentioned circulation, vorticity, and the Kutta condition, chances are quite high it was wrong.There is a big difference between simplifying things (as we often do with history), and getting things absolutely wrong. I don't mind people simplifying things if the gist is basically correct, I do mind, however, when they get things absolutely wrong. Kaku's statement that Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't have any "practical" use, isn't a mere simplification, its flat out wrong. GPS satellites use it in their calculations to help us find where we are.

Kaku's failure to say that is particularly damaging to promoting the spread of science literacy, IMHO. When things like the LHC are brought up, and small minded people complain that there's "no practical use for the information gained," its helpful to be able to say things like Einstein's theory (which doesn't really seem to have a practical use to most people) is needed by GPS satellites, something that wasn't even thought of when old Al began scratching his idea out on paper back at the patent office.

Swift
2013-Jul-01, 01:25 AM
At the risk of repeating myself, you are entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is.

Take it easy, OK?

Aren't you being hypocritical here? You like to dismiss the questions others ask of you while pushing others to answer your questions, even after they've already been answered.


I'm not dismissing any questions....I'm dismissing personal opinions.

Perhaps you should start with dismissing your own, Sir Robin.
Both of you knock it off, right now. Next rude, snarky, or snippy comment gets an infraction.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-01, 04:00 AM
It seems the opinions by some on our scientific TV presenters is that they all leave a lot to be desired.
I mean we even have criticism of Carl Sagan, the grand daddy of all science presenters in my opinion.
Why would that be?
Is it just a case that there general expectations and beliefs [ The science presenters] that ET's exist somewhere, sometime offend some?
Why is that?
I havn't heard any of them say it's a 100% certainty that they exist...I've heard them say it's most likely they exist, and I see nothing wrong in that.
Are certain people expecting too much of them?
Is it because some may say that the 5% of UFO sightings that cannot be explained, may possibly be of extra terrestrial origin?
I see nothing untoward about that either.
Is it a case of "tall poppy syndrome"?
Are others just expecting too much, in light of the realization that they have a huge audience to cater for, both young and old, both lay people and professional and consequently need to adapt to those audiences.
And it goes without saying, that they must do all in their power, within truth and reason to draw viewers for the sake of their media Overlords.
Is it a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees by those "professionals" that see the need to nit pick?
Would you rather have no science TV presenters?
Isn't that what these science presenters are doing??Taking science/Astronomy etc to the masses?
It may not be exact text book stuff, but most give a basic idea of the subject matter.


All have made some errors [as we all, you, me and Joe Blow have made]
But the good they are doing, far out weighs the minor matters that have been raised here.


I see them all as doing more good then harm. Yes I have favourites, and I believe none can hold a candle to Sagan.
I like Brian cox, and Neil De-Grasse Tyson....Brian Green and Kaku are OK with me...But all that is my opinion for the reasons I have given.

NEOWatcher
2013-Jul-01, 04:00 PM
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/m...son-caused-big
The above link concerns criticism of Kaku by a couple of his peers........who disagree with his claim/interpretation of the HB and BB connection.
Where; I see a whole lot of topics, but when I search the page for Kaku, nothing is found.


But as I asked way back up there somewhere, who hasn't made mistakes? Not that I would agree yet that he did/has made an error with 100% certainty.
The greatest of them all admits to that.
And they explain what they said was wrong and how/why. Have we seen that from Kaku on some of his more controversial mistakes?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-01, 07:56 PM
Where; I see a whole lot of topics, but when I search the page for Kaku, nothing is found.









Apologies...
Not sure what happened there....Try the link in post 105 or maybe this will work......

http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/m...son-caused-big

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-01, 07:58 PM
Apologies...
Not sure what happened there....Try the link in post 105 or maybe this will work......

http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/m...son-caused-big







That doesn't work either....
Go to second link at post 105.

NEOWatcher
2013-Jul-01, 08:22 PM
The above link concerns criticism of Kaku by a couple of his peers........who disagree with his claim/interpretation of the HB and BB connection.

That doesn't work either....
Go to second link at post 105.
Just a couple?
No; those two brought it to the attention of the reporter. Then upon followup, he knew Kaku's statement was wrong.

So; that brings me to my second part of "people make mistakes". Did Kaku admit to his mistake?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-01, 08:58 PM
So; that brings me to my second part of "people make mistakes". Did Kaku admit to his mistake?





I really don't know....Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't.

I did ask a question though, regarding whether we yet know enough about the Higgs particle to say Kaku was totally wrong.....Reputable physicists before today have had differing interpretations on different scientific data and discoveries.

Selfsim
2013-Jul-01, 10:29 PM
I did ask a question though, regarding whether we yet know enough about the Higgs particle to say Kaku was totally wrong.....Reputable physicists before today have had differing interpretations on different scientific data and discoveries.And see this is the part which has been stated over and over again, in many forums here at CQ. Something which is unknown, is not an automatic licence to make some equally unsupportable claim on physical reality!

The consensus is that Kaku was probably referring to the Higgs scalar field as being the cause of the Big Bang. Whilst its true that the Higgs model requires a scalar field, and that a similar type of hypothetical 'Inflaton field' of the Standard Cosmo model, is typically invoked to explain inflation, Kaku's assertions are purely speculative at best, and have significant theoretical problems to overcome. (That is of course, if this was what he was actually rabbiting on about ..).
(See 'Insight into cosmic inflation' section in the table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field#Scientific_impact)).

So his written claim (Wall Street Journal July 2012 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577508622617259052.html)) :
In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion [the Big Bang]. In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson.Is an entirely speculative claim in quantum physics, (which does not overtly disclose its entirely speculative nature). It'd probably be treated as ATM if he made it at CQ.
(The Big Bang event was not 'a cosmic explosion', either .. yet another misrepresentation by Kaku)

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-01, 10:43 PM
And see this is the part which has been stated over and over again, in many forums here at CQ. Something which is unknown, is not an automatic licence to make some equally unsupportable claim on physical reality!





People/Scientists etc will and do speculate, and then based on already known data, they may even assume.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Some may even disagree on assumptions made from the same known data...eg, Freddy Hoyle saw observational data re the Universe and its origins far different from the interpretation by the majority at that time.

Selfsim
2013-Jul-01, 10:58 PM
People/Scientists etc will and do speculate, and then based on already known data, they may even assume.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Some may even disagree on assumptions made from the same known data...eg, Freddy Hoyle saw observational data re the Universe and its origins far different from the interpretation by the majority at that time.And all that is reasonable (for the sake of clarity) is for the speaker to actually state that what they are submitting, is an idea which is speculative (in the lay-man sense of the word). If this statement is not forthcoming, then all they create is confusion .. which is rarely productive in conversation.

Even better is to distinguish that the 'speculation' is not 'scientific speculation' .. which ultimately (by definition), is based on physical or theoretical observations and whose defined purpose, is to ultimately lead to productive testing.

Semantically deliberately confusing lay man's 'speculation', with 'scientific speculation' is obfuscatory.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-01, 11:21 PM
And all that is reasonable (for the sake of clarity) is for the speaker to actually state that what they are submitting, is an idea which is speculative (in the lay-man sense of the word). If this statement is not forthcoming, then all they create is confusion .. which is rarely productive in conversation.

Even better is to distinguish that the 'speculation' is not 'scientific speculation' .. which ultimately (by definition), is based on physical or theoretical observations and whose defined purpose, is to ultimately lead to productive testing.

Semantically deliberately confusing lay man's 'speculation', with 'scientific speculation' is obfuscatory.



Again, I think you are nit picking.
I believe when Kaku, or Cox or Green or Sagan or Hawking or De-Grasse Tyson
say that ETL is overwhelmingly likely to exist somewhere sometime, people do realise that they are making an assumption that has less then 100% probability.

Again with the Higgs reference, it still appears to me that we do not as yet know enough about it, to say whether Kaku was 100% wrong.

But again, he is at least [along with all the others] taking science to the general public.
And that is what should be commended.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-02, 05:52 AM
I constantly hear about how global warming isn't real because scientists were warning us about a new ice age in the 70s. And this is from college educated persons. Laypeople have long memories when it comes to maintaining popularized "scientific" notions that are later invalidated (or even already invalid).

Selfsim
2013-Jul-02, 06:25 AM
I constantly hear about how global warming isn't real because scientists were warning us about a new ice age in the 70s. And this is from college educated persons. Laypeople have long memories when it comes to maintaining popularized "scientific" notions that are later invalidated (or even already invalid).Perhaps the thing they should be popularising, is the understanding of how to interpret the various statements made by science, and by scientists .. and why such statements are made in the first place?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-02, 06:41 AM
I constantly hear about how global warming isn't real because scientists were warning us about a new ice age in the 70s. And this is from college educated persons. Laypeople have long memories when it comes to maintaining popularized "scientific" notions that are later invalidated (or even already invalid).




That could also easily be applied to scientists and others with agendas to push.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jul-02, 10:12 AM
I really don't know....Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't.

I did ask a question though, regarding whether we yet know enough about the Higgs particle to say Kaku was totally wrong.....Reputable physicists before today have had differing interpretations on different scientific data and discoveries.
We know why it was named as it was, from explicit statements of the people who named it. Kaku was totally wrong.

Trantor
2013-Jul-02, 03:26 PM
I've seen Kaku on many science programs and he does seem over the top to me. Sagan was by far the best, as a presenter of science for the masses. The only one that I think comes close to Sagan in the way he speaks and presents the material is Brian Cox. The first time I saw Cox speak, it reminded me a lot of Sagan. He has the same child-like curiousity and the abilty to make complex science topics easier to understand. Like so many others, I'm sure that Cox was a fan of Carl Sagan growing up. Cox would be a natural in a remake of Cosmos, but De-Grasse Tyson is pretty good as well.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-03, 12:00 AM
That could also easily be applied to scientists and others with agendas to push.

Not really. There's a difference between prideful ignorance and intentional deception.

The only agenda I think Kaku is pushing is his own income potential.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-03, 01:22 AM
Not really. There's a difference between prideful ignorance and intentional deception.

The only agenda I think Kaku is pushing is his own income potential.[/QUOTE]





I wasn't speaking of Kaku's agenda........but yeah, his income potential and duty to his media overlords would be certainly at the forefront, as it would also be with you, me and Joe Blow.
We are all capable of having agendas, and that includes the critics.
eg: The conductor of the Australian Chamber Orchestra, had the audacity to criticise Andre Rieu on a recent visit to Australia..... Andre drew 38,000 to one concert alone [I was part of that number] while the Australian Chamber Orchestra would be lucky to draw two men and a dog.
Jealousy, Envy, Tall poppy syndrome are all reasons some see the need to criticise........Not that anyone should be above criticism, but I see the need for it to be genuine. In some cases it's not, in other cases it's rather petty and pedantic.

Solfe
2013-Jul-03, 01:23 AM
The only agenda I think Kaku is pushing is his own income potential.

Despite my inclination to say he gets confused by lights, I have to admit, this sounds very probable.

Jim
2013-Jul-03, 01:38 AM
We know why it was named as it was, from explicit statements of the people who named it. Kaku was totally wrong.

Precisely. Kaku's statement was not about what he thought the Higgs might do, but that what he thought it might do was how it got called the God Particle. In that, he was wrong... totally, completely, unequivocally wrong.

Jim
2013-Jul-03, 01:47 AM
Examples, please, of experts who go outside their fields of expertise and offer opinion and conjecture as fact.


Brian Cox...Brian Green De-Grasse Tyson.

Those are names. Please provide examples of them presenting opinion/conjecture outside their fields as fact.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-03, 04:01 AM
I wasn't speaking of Kaku's agenda........but yeah, his income potential and duty to his media overlords would be certainly at the forefront, as it would also be with you, me and Joe Blow.
We are all capable of having agendas, and that includes the critics.
eg: The conductor of the Australian Chamber Orchestra, had the audacity to criticise Andre Rieu on a recent visit to Australia..... Andre drew 38,000 to one concert alone [I was part of that number] while the Australian Chamber Orchestra would be lucky to draw two men and a dog.
Jealousy, Envy, Tall poppy syndrome are all reasons some see the need to criticise........Not that anyone should be above criticism, but I see the need for it to be genuine. In some cases it's not, in other cases it's rather petty and pedantic.

I suppose that depends on your definition of agenda, or perhaps more properly, whether it is a secret agenda. Desires and mere motivations are not the same thing as plots and plans.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-03, 04:27 AM
Those are names. Please provide examples of them presenting opinion/conjecture outside their fields as fact.



Brian Cox is a particle physicist....

http://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/wonders-of-life-professor-brian-cox-on-evolution-denial/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011zm32


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fbUiNQ0Buk


Neil De-Grasse Tyson is an Astro-Physicist.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhMZAfeJZ0


Brian Green is a Physicist......


http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html


This is what I have found off the top of my head.
I have heard Brian Cox discussing many things on docos, outside their direct expertiseas I have with De-Grasse Tyson, and to a much lesser extent Green. But I do believe they are interconnected somewhat.

Selfsim
2013-Jul-03, 05:26 AM
"There are many many Michio Kaku u tube videos on the net.......a testament to his fame, popularity and knowledge I might add.
Here's another......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1uHSgxrgQ


Plenty of are there such and such, is that possible....I did not detect any certaintyAt the 0:70 mark:
"To me, when we finally discover close to God particle, this is just the beginning .. its going to open the flood gates to a whole new branch of theoretical physics"I'd call that a 'certain' personal prediction! .. And did it?

Then, (even worse), at the 1:39 mark:
"And the mind of God, that Einstein elegantly wrote about for the last 30 years of his life ... the mind of God would be cosmic music, resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace .. that would be the mind of God"Yeah right … now tell me that ain't some claim of certain reality outside of his area of expertise .. (and everyone else's).

Gillianren
2013-Jul-03, 05:48 AM
Why is there suddenly a bunch of argumentum ad populum around here? It literally does not matter how famous or popular he is; neither of those demonstrates his knowledgeability or accuracy.

Selfsim
2013-Jul-03, 07:06 AM
Brian Cox is a particle physicist....

http://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/wonders-of-life-professor-brian-cox-on-evolution-denial/
Brian Cox does hold PhD qualifications. His comments in this article are about denial of 'evolution and the science of biology in general'. I don't see this as being outside of a PhD's 'area of expertise' and offering 'opinion and conjecture as fact'. He is pointing out that denial of the abundant evidence supporting these areas of science, is the issue.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011zm32This apparently refers to a Cox documentary which queries whether or not scientific theories need to be testable or not, in order to call them 'science'. Once again, I see no reason why a PhD examining such issues is beyond their expected level of expertise. I see nothing asserting 'opinion and conjecture as fact'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fbUiNQ0BukIn the first part of this lecture, Cox clearly states his area of expertise is Quantum Mechanics. Clearly QM is a big part of mainstream's explanations of the evolution of the universe. I see no claims outside of his area of expertise (although I'm not going to listen to an hour long lecture looking for one).


Neil De-Grasse Tyson is an Astro-Physicist.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhMZAfeJZ0
The quality of this Youtube is so poor, its difficult to follow.
It appears that deGrasse-Tyson is making the point that beliefs undermine the scientific process by retelling the history surrounding the Pennsylvania court case concerning the move to introduce Intelligent Design in the classroom. I see no particular claims outside of his area of expertise as fact, (apart maybe from some obvious humour in this particular delivery).


Brian Green is a Physicist......


http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html
Well now I'm quite familiar with this particular talk and with most of Greene's talks and books. This particular TED talk, is actually an excellent example of someone speaking within his immediate area of expertise (Greene is a recognised, widely-published String Theorist). From his books and various presentations, I find Greene always does a particularly good job of separating fact from theory, and reality from hypothesis, and distinguishing String Theory's physical validity as being not known. He rarely makes claims outside of his area of expertise as fact.

He is one of the best popularisers IMO.

This is what I have found off the top of my head.
I have heard Brian Cox discussing many things on docos, outside their direct expertiseas I have with De-Grasse Tyson, and to a much lesser extent Green. But I do believe they are interconnected somewhat.Specifics would be helpful in supporting your initial claim.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jul-03, 08:35 AM
The problem isn't really people talking about things outside their area of expertise, most science popularizers will have to do that as no one is an expert on everything.
It's about people (Kaku in this case specifically) talking outside their area of expertise without first consulting with people who are experts, and then presenting wrong facts as if they're true. And being unwilling to accept corrections.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-03, 10:14 AM
Specifics would be helpful in supporting your initial claim.



I'll certainly keep looking and as I said, the docos with these presenters in the past have covered areas outside their accepted expertise.
Not that it matters a great deal...I see that as a red herring that was raised.

I do though refer back to your post 78 and the apparent öut of context"remarks you have alleged and my reply at post 80

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-03, 10:21 AM
Then, (even worse), at the 1:39 mark:Yeah right … now tell me that ain't some claim of certain reality outside of his area of expertise .. (and everyone else's).




We all indulge in certainties outside our areas of expertise, and really the remark you refer to is akin to that made by many presenters and even critics I might add.

And I see it as another rather opinionated remark which he is entitled to.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-03, 10:33 AM
Specifics would be helpful in supporting your initial claim.


My initial claim was as is in post 99.....that is most, if not all TV science presenters offer thoughts ideas etc on areas outside their own direct expertise.
Once again though, I see nothing wrong in that, while realising that sometimes a mistake maybe made.
We can all put up out hands for that .

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-03, 05:46 PM
Why is there suddenly a bunch of argumentum ad populum around here? It literally does not matter how famous or popular he is; neither of those demonstrates his knowledgeability or accuracy.

Good question. I wonder if it has to do with the recent focus on "scientific consensus" when it comes to AGW. I don't blame scientists for starting it, but when attacked by minority reports that arrive at different conclusions, they take refuge in large numbers.

Jim
2013-Jul-03, 06:31 PM
My initial claim was as is in post 99.....that is most, if not all TV science presenters offer thoughts ideas etc on areas outside their own direct expertise.
Once again though, I see nothing wrong in that, while realising that sometimes a mistake maybe made.
We can all put up out hands for that .

I'm fine with someone discussing areas outside their expertise, as long as they admit they are not experts and what they have to offer is opinion. I am not fine with someone who is willing to be seen as an expert in other areas and who makes statements of opinion as if they are fact. I'm especially not fine with someone holding forth in his area of expertise and making an erroneous statement (not an opinion) as if it is true.


The problem isn't really people talking about things outside their area of expertise, most science popularizers will have to do that as no one is an expert on everything.
It's about people (Kaku in this case specifically) talking outside their area of expertise without first consulting with people who are experts, and then presenting wrong facts as if they're true. And being unwilling to accept corrections.

Speaking of which ...

The other day 19 firefighters died when a wildfire they were fighting changed direction and swept through them. They had protective gear but it proved inadequate.

Today, there's Kaku being interviewed about it and holding forth as an expert in the field. Not once did he say "I'm no expert" or "This is just conjecture." Not once did he suggest there might be actual experts to be consulted. He acted like he was stating fact and he was the authority on it.

That's what I don't like about him.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-03, 07:04 PM
The other day 19 firefighters died when a wildfire they were fighting changed direction and swept through them. They had protective gear but it proved inadequate.

Today, there's Kaku being interviewed about it and holding forth as an expert in the field. Not once did he say "I'm no expert" or "This is just conjecture." Not once did he suggest there might be actual experts to be consulted. He acted like he was stating fact and he was the authority on it.

That's what I don't like about him.

I missed that. What was it he said?

The only thing of authority he might be able to claim is that if they had been string theorists instead of fire-fighters that they might be alive.

Forget looking for the "Theory of Everything", we've discovered the "Theorist of Everything". :

NEOWatcher
2013-Jul-03, 07:41 PM
Despite my inclination to say he gets confused by lights...
That might explain why he got his start on radio.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-03, 08:43 PM
Speaking of which ...

The other day 19 firefighters died when a wildfire they were fighting changed direction and swept through them. They had protective gear but it proved inadequate.

Today, there's Kaku being interviewed about it and holding forth as an expert in the field. Not once did he say "I'm no expert" or "This is just conjecture." Not once did he suggest there might be actual experts to be consulted. He acted like he was stating fact and he was the authority on it.

That's what I don't like about him.


Firstly condolences to all those families affected by this tragedy.
How could something like this happen?


On Kaku, and as I have mentioned earlier, people can like or dislike his style, the same as others here have expressed criticism of even Sagan and Hawking......
and that really takes the cake, but its their opinion, and as much as I disagree, they have the right to hold that opinion.
Presenters as we all do, have a style.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jul-03, 09:08 PM
Firstly condolences to all those families affected by this tragedy.
How could something like this happen?
Wind shifted unexpectedly so they got trapped, best safety equipment that can be carried by a man who has to be capable of doing effective work on the ground gives 50% chance of surviving being totally overrun by the fire, statistics caught up with them.
This risk is part of going in, they know it and they still go in.

Gillianren
2013-Jul-04, 02:41 AM
That's what I don't like about him.

That's . . . .

Okay, my first question--who interviewed him about it? I mean, he said yes, and that's bad enough. But why go there in the first place?

Tuckerfan
2013-Jul-04, 04:16 AM
I'm fine with someone discussing areas outside their expertise, as long as they admit they are not experts and what they have to offer is opinion. I am not fine with someone who is willing to be seen as an expert in other areas and who makes statements of opinion as if they are fact. I'm especially not fine with someone holding forth in his area of expertise and making an erroneous statement (not an opinion) as if it is true.



Speaking of which ...

The other day 19 firefighters died when a wildfire they were fighting changed direction and swept through them. They had protective gear but it proved inadequate.

Today, there's Kaku being interviewed about it and holding forth as an expert in the field. Not once did he say "I'm no expert" or "This is just conjecture." Not once did he suggest there might be actual experts to be consulted. He acted like he was stating fact and he was the authority on it.

That's what I don't like about him.There's a tech journalist who recounts a story about the BBC calling him for commentary about something dealing with Google. He thought that it was a "non-story" and told them so, but they kept pestering him to come on and talk about the issue. Finally, he agreed, and once on the air, proceeded to tell the BBC reporter on live TV that they were wasting everyone's time talking about the matter and attacked the integrity of everyone involved with trying to make it a story. On his End of the Universe album, Lewis Black talks about USA Today calling him and asking him about 9/11. Lewis says that he told them they were nuts to ask a a stand up comic about this and that they needed to be talking to experts about the subject. (No idea if he actually did say that.) Both cases offer an example of what one should do if the media contacts them and they're not an expert on a subject.

Rumbling around in the back of my head, is a memory of an article that was printed in, I think, Harper's in the '90s, that showed some rather sleazy letters from press agents representing some talking head, trying to get their client on news programs to comment about topics, even though their client had zero qualifications on most of the topics. (I believe the reason suggested for this was that their client had a new book out, and this was seen as a way of promoting the book.)

I also don't have too much trouble with folks like Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse-Tyson, Brian Greene, and Bill Nye talking about areas of science outside of their expertise, because all of them care passionately about science and do a lot of research. They may not know as much about, say, evolutionary biology, as an expert in the field, but they do understand the scientific method quite well (unlike many in the press), and can speak from an educated standpoint as to why it matters and what it can tell us. I also can't think of a time when any one of them has speculated on the future and said something along the lines of, "We're going to do <insert something like traveling to another star>." If the subject of interstellar travel comes up, they will explain that right now, we don't know of any way that it can be done using FTL, but that scientists are always working on ways to try and figure out loopholes around the speed of light limit. deGrasse-Tyson will generally throw in a comment about the "wonder of science" and point out times in the past when scientists thought something but were proven to be slightly wrong as a way to sound hopeful.

Bill Nye, in addition to talking about the importance of science education, has decided to focus on the topic of global warming, which is outside his specialization of engineering. Nye, however, has obviously done lots of research on the subject and can cite specific reports on the subject, when he feels the need to.

EDG
2013-Jul-04, 05:14 AM
Does he know what he's talking about, or does he say things to sell books?

To me, he's a quack. I don't consider him a science educator. He certainly doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Carl Sagan (or even the same paragraph. Or page. Or book.)

Jim
2013-Jul-04, 05:53 PM
That's . . . .

Okay, my first question--who interviewed him about it? I mean, he said yes, and that's bad enough. But why go there in the first place?

My recollection is CNN. (The BW had the tv on showing a news program and she prefers CNN.) I'd venture that CNN has Kaku on some sort of retainer and decided to use it. Either that or they felt he'd agree to an interview and would give an air of authority to it.

Yes, they could have not interviewed him. And, bigger yes, he could have declined stating he wasn't an expert in the field. And, biggest yes, they could have actually found an expert on fighting wildfires, not a string theorist.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-04, 08:57 PM
My recollection is CNN. (The BW had the tv on showing a news program and she prefers CNN.) I'd venture that CNN has Kaku on some sort of retainer and decided to use it. Either that or they felt he'd agree to an interview and would give an air of authority to it.

Yes, they could have not interviewed him. And, bigger yes, he could have declined stating he wasn't an expert in the field. And, biggest yes, they could have actually found an expert on fighting wildfires, not a string theorist.

Or maybe he was available because actually suitable scientists were busy being scientists.

Tobin Dax
2013-Jul-05, 12:18 PM
Or maybe he was available because actually suitable scientists were busy being scientists.

Even if that's the case, that's not an excuse for Kaku to accept the interview.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-05, 03:04 PM
Even if that's the case, that's not an excuse for Kaku to accept the interview.

Maybe they think he's a renaissance man, or has convinced others of that. Or maybe he's the very model of a modern major general, with information vegetable, animal and mineral...

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-05, 09:46 PM
A few quotes attributed to Michio Kaku:


Scientific revolutions, almost by definition, defy common sense.

MICHIO KAKU, preface, Hyperspace




Once confined to fantasy and science fiction, time travel is now simply an engineering problem.

MICHIO KAKU, Wired Magazine, Aug. 2003

It would take a civilization far more advanced than ours, unbelievably advanced, to begin to manipulate negative energy to create gateways to the past. But if you could obtain large quantities of negative energy -- and that's a big "if" -- then you could create a time machine that apparently obeys Einstein's equation and perhaps the laws of quantum theory.

MICHIO KAKU, Scientific American, Nov. 24, 2003

Instead of being overwhelmed by the universe, I think that perhaps one of the deepest experiences a scientist can have, almost approaching a religious awakening, is to realize that we are children of the stars, and that our minds are capable of understanding the universal laws that they obey. The atoms within our bodies were forged on the anvil of nucleo-synthesis within an exploding star aeons before the birth of the solar system. Our atoms are older than the mountains. We are literally made of star dust. Now these atoms, in turn, have coalesced into intelligent beings capable of understanding the universal laws governing that event.

MICHIO KAKU, Hyperspace


http://www.notable-quotes.com/k/kaku_michio.html




From Wiki:

Michio Kaku /ˈmiːtʃioʊ ˈkɑːkuː/ (加来 道雄 Kaku Michio?, born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City College of New York, a futurist, and a communicator and popularizer of science. He has written several books about physics and related topics; he has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film; and he writes extensive online blogs and articles. He has written two New York Times Best Sellers, Physics of the Impossible (2008) and Physics of the Future (2011).
Kaku has hosted several TV specials for the BBC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the Science Channel.


Kaku was born in San Jose, California to Japanese immigrant parents (with Tibetan DNA ancestry[1] ). His grandfather came to the United States to take part in the clean-up operation after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake[citation needed]. His father was born in California but was educated in Japan and spoke little English. Both his parents were put in the Tule Lake War Relocation Center, where they met and where his brother was born.
At Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, Kaku assembled a particle accelerator in his parents' garage for a science fair project. His admitted goal was to generate "a beam of gamma rays powerful enough to create antimatter."[2] At the National Science Fair in Albuquerque, New Mexico, he attracted the attention of physicist Edward Teller, who took Kaku as a protégé, awarding him the Hertz Engineering Scholarship. Kaku graduated summa cum laude at Harvard University in 1968 and was first in his physics class. He attended the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972, and in 1972 he held a lectureship at Princeton University.
During the Vietnam War, Kaku completed his U.S. Army basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia and Advanced Infantry Training at Fort Lewis, Washington.[3] However, the Vietnam War ended before he was deployed as an infantryman



I for one hopes he continues the good work [which far outweighs any questionable mistakes he has supposedly made] he has obviously been involved in over the years.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-05, 10:17 PM
A few quotes attributed to Michio Kaku:


Scientific revolutions, almost by definition, defy common sense.

MICHIO KAKU, preface, Hyperspace




Once confined to fantasy and science fiction, time travel is now simply an engineering problem.

MICHIO KAKU, Wired Magazine, Aug. 2003

It would take a civilization far more advanced than ours, unbelievably advanced, to begin to manipulate negative energy to create gateways to the past. But if you could obtain large quantities of negative energy -- and that's a big "if" -- then you could create a time machine that apparently obeys Einstein's equation and perhaps the laws of quantum theory.

MICHIO KAKU, Scientific American, Nov. 24, 2003

Instead of being overwhelmed by the universe, I think that perhaps one of the deepest experiences a scientist can have, almost approaching a religious awakening, is to realize that we are children of the stars, and that our minds are capable of understanding the universal laws that they obey. The atoms within our bodies were forged on the anvil of nucleo-synthesis within an exploding star aeons before the birth of the solar system. Our atoms are older than the mountains. We are literally made of star dust. Now these atoms, in turn, have coalesced into intelligent beings capable of understanding the universal laws governing that event.

MICHIO KAKU, Hyperspace

Others have already quoted some of his ridiculous statements, but sure, we can add these to the list.

What scientific revolution ever defied common sense?

What engineering problem of time travel? We all can move forward, even without trying.

What negative energy?

"We are made of star dust" is a paraphrase from Babylon 5 and probably even earlier works of fact and/or fiction. But I guess being a "popularizer" doesn't require one to be original.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-05, 10:26 PM
Others have already quoted some of his ridiculous statements, but sure, we can add these to the list.

What scientific revolution ever defied common sense?

What engineering problem of time travel? We all can move forward, even without trying.

What negative energy?

"We are made of star dust" is a paraphrase from Babylon 5 and probably even earlier works of fact and/or fiction. But I guess being a "popularizer" doesn't require one to be original.



I'm positive you are wrong.
I don't see any of the quotes as ridiculous and many others of Kaku's calibre also hold them.
Lord Kelvin for one was quoted as saying flying heavier then air machines would never happen....or words to that effect.
Many other examples would be available also

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-05, 10:31 PM
"We are made of star dust" is a paraphrase from Babylon 5 and probably even earlier works of fact and/or fiction. But I guess being a "popularizer" doesn't require one to be original.




Babylon 5?????
One of the poor excuses for good Sci/Fi TV/movies....

The actual inference/statement was first made by the great Carl Sagan.
And many science popularisers, if not all of them have inferred the same thing as the statement is basically fact........Most reputable scientists have also latched on to it

Jim
2013-Jul-05, 10:31 PM
"We are made of star dust" is a paraphrase from Babylon 5 and probably even earlier works of fact and/or fiction. But I guess being a "popularizer" doesn't require one to be original.

Carl Sagan said it, probably pre-B5, though he used "starstuff" more often.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-05, 10:48 PM
Others have already quoted some of his ridiculous statements, but sure, we can add these to the list.

What scientific revolution ever defied common sense?
What engineering problem of time travel? We all can move forward, even without trying.

.


Quantum mechanics for a start.....the advent of SR/GR and consequently time dilation, and length contraction, and the possibility of time travel.....Heavier then air flying machines, BH's
The harnessing of electricity.......All common place and understandable now but all defied common sense, and if we like to go back even further, looking at moving pictures of every day life coming out of a box, or even just the sound of voices being emitted from micrphones....phones etc etc, the list is endless as to what technologies defied common sense.

The great Sir Ernest Rutherford even poo-pooed the idea of obtaining energy from an atom when it was suggested at a lecture by Leo Szillard.


Yep, many scientific revolutions defied common sense at the time, but it is easy to be wise and dismissive after the event.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-05, 11:08 PM
I'm positive you are wrong.
I don't see any of the quotes as ridiculous and many others of Kaku's calibre also hold them.
Lord Kelvin for one was quoted as saying flying heavier then air machines would never happen....or words to that effect.
Many other examples would be available also

Opinions can't be wrong. And thinking that flying machines would never happen was an engineering problem, not a scientific problem. People have been observing birds, bees and butterflies doing it for a long time.


Babylon 5?????
One of the poor excuses for good Sci/Fi TV/movies....

The actual inference/statement was first made by the great Carl Sagan.
And many science popularisers, if not all of them have inferred the same thing as the statement is basically fact........Most reputable scientists have also latched on to it

A ha, so you admit Kaku stole it!


Quantum mechanics for a start.....the advent of SR/GR and consequently time dilation, and length contraction, and the possibility of time travel.....Heavier then air flying machines, BH's
The harnessing of electricity.......All common place and understandable now but all defied common sense, and if we like to go back even further, looking at moving pictures of every day life coming out of a box, or even just the sound of voices being emitted from micrphones....phones etc etc, the list is endless as to what technologies defied common sense.

The great Sir Ernest Rutherford even poo-pooed the idea of obtaining energy from an atom when it was suggested at a lecture by Leo Szillard.


Yep, many scientific revolutions defied common sense at the time, but it is easy to be wise and dismissive after the event.

How was QM a revolution and how did it defy common sense? From what I can tell, humans had been using QM unknowingly for decades, if not longer. Heavier than air flight, as mentioned above, has been demonstrable for millions of years.

Rutherford was right, the EROI of accelerator-induced fission was bad and still is.

There is no such definition of "scientific revolution" and the data does not support one. Kaku is hyperbolizing, probably to sell the idea that common people can't have the sense that he has, which is why they should listen to him and buy his books.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-05, 11:29 PM
Opinions can't be wrong. And thinking that flying machines would never happen was an engineering problem, not a scientific problem. People have been observing birds, bees and butterflies doing it for a long time.
.

We know now it is an engineering problem...we didn't know earlier on in the piece....Oh and you could of course talk to Lord Kelvin [if he was alive]



A ha, so you admit Kaku stole it!

Not in the least......Depends on what sort of agenda one has.



How was QM a revolution and how did it defy common sense? From what I can tell, humans had been using QM unknowingly for decades, if not longer. Heavier than air flight, as mentioned above, has been demonstrable for millions of years..

That's a long story....But one well accepted by scientists and laymen alike.

For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
Niels Bohr, quoted in Heisenberg, Werner (1971). Physics and Beyond. New York: Harper and Row. pp. 206.

Now of course you can interprete "shocked" whatever way you like...Most know it defied what we know as common sense.



Rutherford was right, the EROI of accelerator-induced fission was bad and still is.".

No Rutherford was 100% wrong and also lacked some foresight and the ability to listen to one of his students in Szillard.
He questioned the possibility of obtaining energy fro the atom with the following statement
"" anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine"". .



There is no such definition of "scientific revolution" and the data does not support one. Kaku is hyperbolizing, probably to sell the idea that common people can't have the sense that he has, which is why they should listen to him and buy his books.

Scientific revolutions have been happening for eons......we could go right back to Gallileo, and Copernicus and overturning the Ptolomy concept, and further more will continue to happen.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-06, 12:17 AM
Early on in what "piece"?
Also, kites and hot air balloons had been used well before Lord Kelvin was born. All your example is doing is proving my point that people who speak on science may not know what they are talking about, and that such statements are later accepted as fact by later people who didn't do the research.

What does "agenda" have to do with quoting someone and not giving attribution?

But how does being shocked by a discovery equate to it defying common sense? A discovery is not the same thing as a reversal. Where's the defying in learning something new when something old is not upset?

You're taking Rutherford's statement out of context. He was referring to getting energy from a proton-accelerator, as I mentioned above. He was correct then and he's correct now.

Your argument about scientific revolutions is circular. All I have to do is point out any one scientific revolution that did not defy common sense and then Kaku's definition collapses.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 12:58 AM
Early on in what "piece"?
Also, kites and hot air balloons had been used well before Lord Kelvin was born. All your example is doing is proving my point that people who speak on science may not know what they are talking about, and that such statements are later accepted as fact by later people who didn't do the research.






Hot air balloons operated under a different principle....Kites are gliders, not manned powered flight.
What my example shows is that we have two aspects of what we may call scientist....The pessimist and the optimist....The Imaginative Speculator and the "head in the sand" Impossible forecaster.
Even though the former may make heaps of mistakes and be shown to be wrong many times, science and technological progress stagnates without him/her.







What does "agenda" have to do with quoting someone and not giving attribution?






Those that make profound Innovative statements will have them repeated throughout the ages. You made the remark that Kaku stole it....It has been used, or to use your ďnterpretation"stolen many times by many presenters including Cox and De-Grasse Tyson and Hawking.
I'm sure Sagan would be pleased with others recognising it for what it is.
It is pleasing though that you recognise it as originating from Sagan.






But how does being shocked by a discovery equate to it defying common sense? A discovery is not the same thing as a reversal. Where's the defying in learning something new when something old is not upset?







Because that is exactly what it does...defy common sense. I'm rather surprised you fail to recognise that.






You're taking Rutherford's statement out of context. He was referring to getting energy from a proton-accelerator, as I mentioned above. He was correct then and he's correct now.





No not in the least.
He said.....
" anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine"". .







Your argument about scientific revolutions is circular. All I have to do is point out any one scientific revolution that did not defy common sense and then Kaku's definition collapses.





Not really.....No one, either Kaku, Cox De-Grasse Tyson or anyone else including myself said that ÄLL"scientific revolutions defy common sense.
Just most......
They speak in generalities, as we all do at times, you me and Joe Blow,
Example:
Birds fly....well most do....Emus, Cassowaries and Ostriches are the exception.

neilzero
2013-Jul-06, 02:01 AM
I don't think it is necessary to give credit to the originator of any ideas. Most of us understand that somebody thought of most everything before we did. We could turn short paragraphs to book length if we try to give credit for every sound byte. An occasional IMHO = in my humble opinion is sufficient. Neil

Tuckerfan
2013-Jul-06, 03:10 AM
Carl Sagan said it, probably pre-B5, though he used "starstuff" more often.
The song Woodstock, by Joni Mitchell and covered by Crosby, Stills, and Nash has the lines, "We are stardust/We are golden/We are billion year old carbon" was written in 1969, so that beats Sagan saying in the Cosmos series by a number of years.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 03:39 AM
The song Woodstock, by Joni Mitchell and covered by Crosby, Stills, and Nash has the lines, "We are stardust/We are golden/We are billion year old carbon" was written in 1969, so that beats Sagan saying in the Cosmos series by a number of years.




Just giving the memory a work out, and I actually thought is was more along the lines "we were born in the belly of stars" and I found this.....

We Originated in the Belly of a Star
“Consider that you can see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220 km/sec across the galaxy. 90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA and are not “you.” The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999% empty space and none of them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of a star. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 2 less than the common potato. The existence of the rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So you don’t just look at a rainbow, you create it. This is pretty amazing, especially considering that all the beautiful colors you see represent less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum.” –Sergio Toporek


http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/beware-of-images/

But maybe Sagan said it before "Cosmos"?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 03:40 AM
I don't think it is necessary to give credit to the originator of any ideas. Most of us understand that somebody thought of most everything before we did. We could turn short paragraphs to book length if we try to give credit for every sound byte. An occasional IMHO = in my humble opinion is sufficient. Neil

Quite true.

Solfe
2013-Jul-06, 03:56 AM
We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. Sir Arthur Eddington, 1882-1944

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-06, 04:56 AM
Hot air balloons operated under a different principle....Kites are gliders, not manned powered flight.
What my example shows is that we have two aspects of what we may call scientist....The pessimist and the optimist....The Imaginative Speculator and the "head in the sand" Impossible forecaster.
Even though the former may make heaps of mistakes and be shown to be wrong many times, science and technological progress stagnates without him/her.
Whirly-gig toy helicopters had been around for centuries. Are you suggesting that Lord Kelvin had not seen nor heard of them, or thought that birds flew by magic? And what proof have you that Lord Kelvin ever made such a claim? And what is the context of Lord Kelvin's alleged statement? There are well-cited quotes where he said the opposite, such as:

"The air-ship, on the plan of those built by Santos-Dumont, is a delusion and a snare. A gas balloon, paddled around by oars, is an old idea, and can never be of any practical use. Some day, no doubt, some one will invent a flying machine that one will be able to navigate without having to have a balloon attachment. But the day is a long way off when we shall see human beings soaring around like birds." [TLWT, vol. 2, p. 1168]


Those that make profound Innovative statements will have them repeated throughout the ages. You made the remark that Kaku stole it....It has been used, or to use your ďnterpretation"stolen many times by many presenters including Cox and De-Grasse Tyson and Hawking.
I'm sure Sagan would be pleased with others recognising it for what it is.
It is pleasing though that you recognise it as originating from Sagan.
Not I, others said it came from Sagan. I figured it came from a writer or a poet, such as others have suggested preceded Sagan's usage.


Because that is exactly what it does...defy common sense. I'm rather surprised you fail to recognise that.
The plural of circular arguments is not linear reasoning.


No not in the least.
He said.....
" anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine"". .
Then you tell us what was the context of his statement? Do you seriously think that he was saying that energy from nuclear fission wasn't possible? Or are you saying that extracting energy from proton bombardment is practicable?


Not really.....No one, either Kaku, Cox De-Grasse Tyson or anyone else including myself said that ÄLL"scientific revolutions defy common sense.
Just most......
They speak in generalities, as we all do at times, you me and Joe Blow,
Example:
Birds fly....well most do....Emus, Cassowaries and Ostriches are the exception.
Penguins don't fly either, and neither are the excuses you're making for Kaku.

Look in the mirror. You're the product of such errant "science" popularization. You refer to misquotes, spurious quotes and generalizations as if they are fact, and think it makes your point, when it does the exact opposite: it shows how errant, misinformed science popularization results in an errant, misinformed population.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 05:19 AM
Whirly-gig toy helicopters had been around for centuries. Are you suggesting that Lord Kelvin had not seen nor heard of them, or thought that birds flew by magic? And what proof have you that Lord Kelvin ever made such a claim? And what is the context of Lord Kelvin's alleged statement? There are well-cited quotes where he said the opposite, such as:

"The air-ship, on the plan of those built by Santos-Dumont, is a delusion and a snare. A gas balloon, paddled around by oars, is an old idea, and can never be of any practical use. Some day, no doubt, some one will invent a flying machine that one will be able to navigate without having to have a balloon attachment. But the day is a long way off when we shall see human beings soaring around like birds." [TLWT, vol. 2, p. 1168]


Not I, others said it came from Sagan. I figured it came from a writer or a poet, such as others have suggested preceded Sagan's usage.


The plural of circular arguments is not linear reasoning.


Then you tell us what was the context of his statement? Do you seriously think that he was saying that energy from nuclear fission wasn't possible? Or are you saying that extracting energy from proton bombardment is practicable?


Penguins don't fly either, and neither are the excuses you're making for Kaku.

Look in the mirror. You're the product of such errant "science" popularization. You refer to misquotes, spurious quotes and generalizations as if they are fact, and think it makes your point, when it does the exact opposite: it shows how errant, misinformed science popularization results in an errant, misinformed population.



I have given the reference for that quote from Kelvin in a previous thread.
I suggest you do a search yourself, because it is/was factual and was only a few years before the first manned powered flight.


On science revolution and quantum theory, again I quote Neils Bohr and even Feynman from memory had something similar to say.
If I was wrong, I'm sure you would make the effort to show that.

For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
Niels Bohr, quoted in Heisenberg, Werner (1971). Physics and Beyond. New York: Harper and Row. pp. 206.



With regards to Rutherford another great of the past, but another that was wrong about atomic energy possibilities........


""""
Szilárd went to London in 1933 where he read an article in The Times summarizing a speech given by Ernest Rutherford in which he rejected the feasibility of using atomic energy for practical purposes. Rutherford's speech remarked specifically on the recent 1932 work of his students, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, in "splitting" lithium into alpha particles, by bombardment with protons from a particle accelerator they had constructed:
We might in these processes obtain very much more energy than the proton supplied, but on the average we could not expect to obtain energy in this way. It was a very poor and inefficient way of producing energy, and anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine. But the subject was scientifically interesting because it gave insight into the atoms.[10]
Although the atom had been split and energy released, nuclear fission had not yet been discovered. Szilárd was reportedly so annoyed at Rutherford's dismissal that when his speech was published, Szilárd conceived of the idea of nuclear chain reaction (analogous to a chemical chain reaction), using recently discovered neutrons. The idea did not use the mechanism of nuclear fission, which was not then known, but Szilárd realized that if neutrons could initiate any sort of energy-producing nuclear reaction, such as the one that had occurred in lithium, and could be produced themselves by the same reaction, energy might be obtained with little input, since the reaction would be self-sustaining. The following year he filed for a patent on the concept of the neutron-induced nuclear chain reaction. Richard Rhodes described Szilárd's moment of inspiration:"""""

from.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd



Regarding Penguins and excuses for Kaku, that's your interpretation, and as wrong as they maybe in my opinion, you are entitled to hold them.

With your final comment, you have yet to show me what and where I have misquoted anyone....

I offer you that opportunity again.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 05:35 AM
On the legitimacy of Lord Kelvin's quote......
from....
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/interview_aeronautics_and_wireless.html

KELVIN ON SCIENCE.

British Lord Tells His Hopes For Wireless Telegraphy.

DELIGHTED WITH MARCONIGRAMS

The Master of Modern Science Believes Wireless Talk With Faroff Planets Possible—Declares That Dirigibility of the Air Is Utterly and
Absolutely Impracticable.

(snipped for copyright)

and this.......

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk_12.17.03_prt.htm

In this setting it is useful to remember, however, that even leading up to the Wright Brothers' triumph, the idea of powered flight was viewed by many experts of the day as an impossible aspiration.

Indeed, eight years before Orville and Wilbur Wright took their home-built flyer to the sandy dunes of Kitty Hawk, cranked up the engine, and took off into the history books, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England made a forceful declaration. "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," said this very powerful man of science....Rumor has it Lord Kelvin was slightly in error.

Gillianren
2013-Jul-06, 05:41 AM
When I am really bored, I will sometimes attempt to track down some of those quotes "everyone knows" prove that scientific discoveries always shock the mainstream. They almost never turn out to be taken in context, when they were actually said by the person claimed to have said them at all. (That poor head of the patent office who is always said to have recommended closing the patent office over a hundred years ago because "everything has already been invented" turns out to have petitioned Congress for funds to expand the patent office, for example, because his staff was overworked.) I am not that bored just yet. If I am, we'll see.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 05:49 AM
Just to clear up a few points in case anyone happens to believe this is a "Let's get Lord Kelvin" exersise.....
Lord Kelvin was a great scientist of the Victorian era who did great things. His failing, which possibily is a human failing of not only great men, but humanity in general, is that their ideas, beliefs, are enshrined and fenced by the beliefs of the day. Even the greatest Einstein, was forced to hold onto the "static Universe" model, despite what his own equations were telling him.
It's those that can think outside the box, and are prepared to forecast, speculate and innovate that has taken technological change to the levels we see today.

Shaula
2013-Jul-06, 07:37 AM
It's those that can think outside the box, and are prepared to forecast, speculate and innovate that has taken technological change to the levels we see today.
However those that do so in a non-rigorous way and just spray ideas at the wall hoping some will stick are not so useful. There is a very fine line to walk on this - too many total crackpots use "dogmatic scientists stuck in their ways, ignoring us brave free-thinkers who are the engines of change" as a catch-all excuse to avoid having to do any hard work. Nothing in science is set in stone, but you have to be aware that things are not often blindly accepted either. There will be a reason, and evidence, that supports the current ideas and it will have to be explained by the new ones. The fault on both sides comes from too much certainty. On the conservative side too much certainty that the current model is right (it never is and probably never will be because that is unprovable), on the revolutionary side too much certainty that the current model is totally wrong (hint to them: current model is wrong != your ideas are right)

Jim
2013-Jul-06, 02:07 PM
It's those that can think outside the box, and are prepared to forecast, speculate and innovate that has taken technological change to the levels we see today.

Well, they've certainly played a major role, but so has happenstance. The cotton gin, vulcanized rubber and Teflon come quickly to mind ... happy accidents. Never underestimate the power of serendipity.

Oh, right, Flubber!

Gillianren
2013-Jul-06, 03:55 PM
I hate the expression "think outside the box." With this passion I can barely describe. I think it's generally used by people who are too lazy to do the work to understand why the box is there in the first place. Yes, we've all learned that certain things are true, and a fair number of them probably aren't, or are true in a Lies to Children kind of way--so simple that they're wrong. However, certain things are true (comets, for example, are not balls of electricity whizzing through space, no matter how much certain people want them to be), and we know they're true. We should take those things into consideration when contemplating what might not be true. We should also know why those things are believed to be true. I think my metaphor is that the box is a toolbox, not a cage. Think beyond it, but think beyond it by using what you found there.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-06, 04:02 PM
I have given the reference for that quote from Kelvin in a previous thread.
I suggest you do a search yourself, because it is/was factual and was only a few years before the first manned powered flight.You're the one who made the claim that he said it. It's your point to prove.


On science revolution and quantum theory, again I quote Neils Bohr and even Feynman from memory had something similar to say.
If I was wrong, I'm sure you would make the effort to show that.

For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
Niels Bohr, quoted in Heisenberg, Werner (1971). Physics and Beyond. New York: Harper and Row. pp. 206.Don't assume anything. I have other things to do than chase down your wild geese. I don't know if Bohr actually said that or if that's what he meant, but it looks more like a statement of opinion than a statement of fact, so I'm less concerned by it. While some people may have been shocked to learn that atoms had their own constituent particles, certainly some people learned in alchemy might have felt vindicated with the idea that transmutation really was possible.


With regards to Rutherford another great of the past, but another that was wrong about atomic energy possibilities........


""""
Szilárd went to London in 1933 where he read an article in The Times summarizing a speech given by Ernest Rutherford in which he rejected the feasibility of using atomic energy for practical purposes. Rutherford's speech remarked specifically on the recent 1932 work of his students, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, in "splitting" lithium into alpha particles, by bombardment with protons from a particle accelerator they had constructed:
We might in these processes obtain very much more energy than the proton supplied, but on the average we could not expect to obtain energy in this way. It was a very poor and inefficient way of producing energy, and anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine. But the subject was scientifically interesting because it gave insight into the atoms.[10]
Although the atom had been split and energy released, nuclear fission had not yet been discovered. Szilárd was reportedly so annoyed at Rutherford's dismissal that when his speech was published, Szilárd conceived of the idea of nuclear chain reaction (analogous to a chemical chain reaction), using recently discovered neutrons. The idea did not use the mechanism of nuclear fission, which was not then known, but Szilárd realized that if neutrons could initiate any sort of energy-producing nuclear reaction, such as the one that had occurred in lithium, and could be produced themselves by the same reaction, energy might be obtained with little input, since the reaction would be self-sustaining. The following year he filed for a patent on the concept of the neutron-induced nuclear chain reaction. Richard Rhodes described Szilárd's moment of inspiration:"""""

from.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rdAnd as you and anyone reading this can see from that quote, he was referring to extracting energy from bombardment by accelerators. Even Einstein reportedly said "It's like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds,". Now that you've proved my point, are you going to admit you're wrong or are you going to say that's not the meaning when the context is staring you in the face?


Regarding Penguins and excuses for Kaku, that's your interpretation, and as wrong as they maybe in my opinion, you are entitled to hold them.Are you saying that penguins do fly?


With your final comment, you have yet to show me what and where I have misquoted anyone....

I offer you that opportunity again.I didn't say you misquoted someone, I said you referred to "misquotes, spurious quotes and generalizations". Do you understand the syntactic and logical difference?

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-06, 04:04 PM
I hate the expression "think outside the box." With this passion I can barely describe. I think it's generally used by people who are too lazy to do the work to understand why the box is there in the first place. Yes, we've all learned that certain things are true, and a fair number of them probably aren't, or are true in a Lies to Children kind of way--so simple that they're wrong. However, certain things are true (comets, for example, are not balls of electricity whizzing through space, no matter how much certain people want them to be), and we know they're true. We should take those things into consideration when contemplating what might not be true. We should also know why those things are believed to be true. I think my metaphor is that the box is a toolbox, not a cage. Think beyond it, but think beyond it by using what you found there.

Business cat says:
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/h55/

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 08:54 PM
Well, they've certainly played a major role, but so has happenstance. The cotton gin, vulcanized rubber and Teflon come quickly to mind ... happy accidents. Never underestimate the power of serendipity.

Oh, right, Flubber!



I'm in agreement with that. It's not often I have said ÄLL" with relation to anything and certainly not in this case.
But what I do/did say does take prominence.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 08:59 PM
I hate the expression "think outside the box." With this passion I can barely describe. I think it's generally used by people who are too lazy to do the work to understand why the box is there in the first place. Yes, we've all learned that certain things are true, and a fair number of them probably aren't, or are true in a Lies to Children kind of way--so simple that they're wrong. However, certain things are true (comets, for example, are not balls of electricity whizzing through space, no matter how much certain people want them to be), and we know they're true. We should take those things into consideration when contemplating what might not be true. We should also know why those things are believed to be true. I think my metaphor is that the box is a toolbox, not a cage. Think beyond it, but think beyond it by using what you found there.



" Thinking outside the box "is a great expression, signifying that if one wants to progress and achieve, then in many cases, [not all, many] one needs to think outside the box.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-06, 09:20 PM
You're the one who made the claim that he said it. It's your point to prove.

Yes it was wrong of me to expect you to support your argument. Please see post 174 which you seem to have overlooked.




Don't assume anything. I have other things to do than chase down your wild geese. I don't know if Bohr actually said that or if that's what he meant, but it looks more like a statement of opinion than a statement of fact, so I'm less concerned by it. While some people may have been shocked to learn that atoms had their own constituent particles, certainly some people learned in alchemy might have felt vindicated with the idea that transmutation really was possible.

Bohr did say that and most would be aware of his statement., as did Richard Feynman infer similar....both straight forward statements, with no room for interpretations.

Speaking of Dicky Feynman, I also enclose for your education and enjoyment the following little u tube video of Feynman in one of his lectures.
Note his comment re "No one understands Quantum Mechanics" great little video that also shows the man;s humour as well as his teaching ability
at.....

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/richard-feynman-on-the-weirdness-of-physical-reality/259718/




And as you and anyone reading this can see from that quote, he was referring to extracting energy from bombardment by accelerators. Even Einstein reportedly said "It's like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds,". Now that you've proved my point, are you going to admit you're wrong or are you going to say that's not the meaning when the context is staring you in the face?

Rutherford meant exactly what Szillard thought he meant, but irrespective of that, I do find it rather peculiar that you are attempting to justify that statement and attribute doubt to it as you did with Bohr, and yet you see the need to be highly critical, almost obsessivley so, of Kaku with little evidence to support that criticism.





Are you saying that penguins do fly?

I'm saying you are wrong, and seem to be misinterpreting some aspects, and ignoring other aspects.





I didn't say you misquoted someone, I said you referred to "misquotes, spurious quotes and generalizations". Do you understand the syntactic and logical difference?


And I said that you have yet to show me why they are misquotes from either Kelvin, Bohr or Rutherford.

Shaula
2013-Jul-07, 06:18 AM
" Thinking outside the box "is a great expression, signifying that if one wants to progress and achieve, then in many cases, [not all, many] one needs to think outside the box.
I think that Gillianren and I were both saying was that it is a much abused phrase. It is used to justify badly thought out, badly formulated, badly worked through ideas. What too many outside box people miss is that ideas are easy. Testing them is not. So you get this continual spray of low quality unscientific stuff that it is someone else's job to test. And after they have spent a hundred hours doing this rigorously and carefully their reward is ... another badly thought out idea, usually just a rehash of the old one.

Which is why every time I hear someone telling a scientist that they need to think outside the box, or get an ideas person in I want to chew off my own hand. It is like the community is penalised for testing ideas carefully and thoroughly by being compared to people just spitting out junk ideas faster. Now if we could look at the SNR values for each community...

Paul Beardsley
2013-Jul-07, 07:33 AM
Yes. It's similar to my observation that imagination is not in short supply.

We didn't get powered flight, men on the moon, a map of the human genome and great insights into the cosmos because of people daydreaming; we got it because educated people were prepared to do the hard work.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-07, 07:50 AM
I think that Gillianren and I were both saying was that it is a much abused phrase. It is used to justify badly thought out, badly formulated, badly worked through ideas. What too many outside box people miss is that ideas are easy. Testing them is not. So you get this continual spray of low quality unscientific stuff that it is someone else's job to test. And after they have spent a hundred hours doing this rigorously and carefully their reward is ... another badly thought out idea, usually just a rehash of the old one.

Which is why every time I hear someone telling a scientist that they need to think outside the box, or get an ideas person in I want to chew off my own hand. It is like the community is penalised for testing ideas carefully and thoroughly by being compared to people just spitting out junk ideas faster. Now if we could look at the SNR values for each community...


I don't believe it is abused.
Many aspects are responsible for our technological advancement, Imagination, Speculation, Innovation. experimentation, observation, knowledge and in many cases thinking outside the box.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-07, 07:55 AM
We didn't get powered flight, men on the moon, a map of the human genome and great insights into the cosmos because of people daydreaming; we got it because educated people were prepared to do the hard work.

Agreed, and achieved in spite of the pessimism and criticism from other learned sources in some cases.

Shaula
2013-Jul-07, 12:21 PM
I don't believe it is abused.
Well you are welcome to that belief. As a scientist who works in a scientific job and spends plenty of time on science forums I am telling you that I see it abused. I have been asked to do other people's work using the old "dogmatic scientists need out-of-the-box thinkers like me to direct them" more times than I can count. Have a look in the ATM section for a few examples.

swampyankee
2013-Jul-07, 02:27 PM
Before one can "think outside the box," one must know where the box is and why it's there.

Paul Beardsley
2013-Jul-07, 02:55 PM
I don't believe it is abused.

Not everything is a matter of opinion or belief.


Before one can "think outside the box," one must know where the box is and why it's there.

A task made harder when science popularisers misinform.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-07, 04:10 PM
Yes it was wrong of me to expect you to support your argument. Please see post 174 which you seem to have overlooked.Post 174 does not contain the information requested, which is required to support your claim. I have no argument to support. I'm not claiming that he didn't say it, I'm asking you to support your claim that he did. The only quotes of him similar to the one you claim, actually have the opposite meaning, and that claim has been supported with references.


Bohr did say that and most would be aware of his statement., as did Richard Feynman infer similar....both straight forward statements, with no room for interpretations.

Speaking of Dicky Feynman, I also enclose for your education and enjoyment the following little u tube video of Feynman in one of his lectures.
Note his comment re "No one understands Quantum Mechanics" great little video that also shows the man;s humour as well as his teaching ability
at.....I don't care what Bohr said, and I told you why. This is a Red Herring.


Rutherford meant exactly what Szillard thought he meant,Prove it.


but irrespective of that, I do find it rather peculiar that you are attempting to justify that statement and attribute doubt to it as you did with Bohr, and yet you see the need to be highly critical, almost obsessivley so, of Kaku with little evidence to support that criticism.So far as I can tell, most everyone else in this thread is criticizing Kaku and ignoring Bohr.


I'm saying you are wrong, and seem to be misinterpreting some aspects, and ignoring other aspects.I'm wrong that penguins don't fly? Prove it.


And I said that you have yet to show me why they are misquotes from either Kelvin, Bohr or Rutherford.I didn't bring up Bohr, you did. The proof that Rutherford's quote was taken out of context is in your last post. You have not yet proven that Lord Kelvin made such a statement, and it stands against cited statements he did make on the subject.

Gillianren
2013-Jul-07, 04:45 PM
Okay, I've done a little poking around. While it's true that Lord Kelvin said all kinds of dramatic, bold, later-proved-to-be-untrue things, no one can find any evidence that the quote in question here was ever said during his lifetime. As with the aforementioned patent office quote, it seems to have been invented by people with a specific agenda. What's more, it assumes that people don't know anything about Lord Kelvin other than the fact that he was a famous scientist. If you know only a very little more than that, you know that he was also awfully fond of the sound of his own voice. You can find firm pronouncements he made both for and against wireless telegraphy (though admittedly, that was in part changing his mind based on further evidence, something of which I am strongly in favour). He was convinced that the aether was real. There are a lot of things he got wrong, and mostly, it was because he thought he was smarter than everyone else. Lord Kelvin made some great contributions to science, but he was also kind of a jerk.

Jim
2013-Jul-07, 04:45 PM
Before one can "think outside the box," one must know where the box is and why it's there.

Nothing to add. I just think that bears repeating.

Swift
2013-Jul-07, 09:07 PM
Post 174 does not contain the information requested, which is required to support your claim.
Just so it is clear, this is OTB, not ATM or CT. There is no requirement for anyone to support anything; remember this is all just for fun here. It is nice if people do so, but there is no rule based requirement.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-07, 09:41 PM
Post 174 does not contain the information requested, which is required to support your claim. I have no argument to support. I'm not claiming that he didn't say it, I'm asking you to support your claim that he did. The only quotes of him similar to the one you claim, actually have the opposite meaning, and that claim has been supported with references.


Yes it does and we have many other references from reputable sites that he did say it.
But anyway here are a couple more..........
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/
and another reputable site known as Wolfram Research.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html....
Plenty of references that he did say it, none that he didn't, and I'm sure if he had not have said it, someone, somewhere would have jumped on that and made it known.....
Of course the Lord Kelvin quote was raised to illustrate that even great men sometimes are bound and shackled to the present and lack Imagination.




I don't care what Bohr said, and I told you why. This is a Red Herring..

You can't dismiss Bohr that easily.
You asked the question in post 158 re "What scientific revolution ever defied common sense?" and I quoted Bohr as that example....



Prove it..

Again many easily obtained references as to what Rutherford said, and Szillard's reaction as to what he meant.
Just another example of even great men of science, being constrained by the "standards"of the day.



So far as I can tell, most everyone else in this thread is criticizing Kaku and ignoring Bohr..


So???....I'm not really drawn by the "mob mentality" syndrome.....I tell it as I see it to wit, the criticism of Kaku in most cases is unfounded and in my opinion, rests on personal likes and dislikes.
Bohr of course was raised as I said to show you that it is indeed factual that sometimes new science does defy common sense.
A fact that I would have thought you would have known, especially with regards to QM.



I'm wrong that penguins don't fly? Prove it.

No, you are wrong in thinking that no new science ever defies common sense....hence the reference to Bohr.



I didn't bring up Bohr, you did. The proof that Rutherford's quote was taken out of context is in your last post. You have not yet proven that Lord Kelvin made such a statement, and it stands against cited statements he did make on the subject.


Yes I did....Are you as yet convinced on that question?

Rutherford meant exactly what Szillard thought he meant, but irrespective of that, I do find it rather peculiar that you are attempting to justify that statement and attribute doubt to it as you did with Bohr, and yet you see the need to be highly critical, almost obsessivley so, of Kaku with little evidence to support that criticism. Why?

There are hundreds of references as to what Lord Kelvin did say, and some of them from quite reputable sources.
I cannot find any reference that "Lord Kelvin did not say that".

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-07, 09:45 PM
Nothing to add. I just think that bears repeating.


The "box"is of course necessary, but it is also continuilly being redefined by those that do think and Imagine beyond.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-07, 10:13 PM
Just so it is clear, this is OTB, not ATM or CT. There is no requirement for anyone to support anything; remember this is all just for fun here. It is nice if people do so, but there is no rule based requirement.



No worries......
I love being "nice" and find support of what anyone has to say in any of the threads, as highly desirable.

The links I gave in post 174 were the following.....

Interview: Utter Impracticability of Aeronautics & Favorable Opinion on Wireless
Reprinted in The Newark Advocate, April 26, 1902, p. 4.
at...
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/interview_aeronautics_and_wireless.html
In the interview Lord Kelvin's replies to a couple of questions were.....

Q:"Your objection, as I understand it, rests upon the unwieldiness of the balloon, but how about the aeroplane? Do you think that that is practicable?"

A:"No; no more than the other."

Q:"Then we cannot navigate the air at all in a commercial way?"

A:"No; I think it cannot be done. No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful."


The other link is from NASA.....
at....
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk_12.17.03_prt.htm

where in part it is said.......

Indeed, eight years before Orville and Wilbur Wright took their home-built flyer to the sandy dunes of Kitty Hawk, cranked up the engine, and took off into the history books, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England made a forceful declaration. "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," said this very powerful man of science....Rumor has it Lord Kelvin was slightly in error.

Selfsim
2013-Jul-07, 11:09 PM
Why is it that examples drawn in support of the supposedly 'negative', 'close-minded mentality', are being taken from the 'ancient history' era of science? Is this an example of pseudoscientific-style cherry-picking, designed to avoid recognising the bulk of productive science, which has emerged from the peer-review process?

Peer review developed throughout the twentieth century, (ie: post Kelvin etc), as a way of maintaining accuracy against a peer-developed standard. This was called for, particularly in the light of growing complexity in the scientific arena. Nowadays, it is a hallmark sign of professonalism, and pervades most professional pursuits in some way, shape or form. It involves critical analysis of 'new ideas' .. which is not 'negativity', to the trained eye. It works. Those who are experienced in the process, exhibit a common style of caution when they speak, as a result.

Are present-day 'sloppy popularises', merely using their access to the mass media, as a way of subverting that professional process, in order to push their own pet ideas and social policy advocacy? Are popularisers who pride themselves on their own self-assessment of their own abilities, more likely to appear more frequently in the mass media? (Ala Kaku). Film awards aside, has Kaku ever been recognised by awards specifically from his peers?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-07, 11:26 PM
Why is it that examples drawn in support of the supposedly 'negative', 'close-minded mentality', are being taken from the 'ancient history' era of science? Is this an example of pseudoscientific-style cherry-picking, designed to avoid recognising the bulk of productive science, which has emerged from the peer-review process?

Peer review developed throughout the twentieth century, (ie: post Kelvin etc), as a way of maintaining accuracy against a peer-developed standard. This was called for, particularly in the light of growing complexity in the scientific arena. Nowadays, it is a hallmark sign of professonalism, and pervades most professional pursuits in some way, shape or form. It involves critical analysis of 'new ideas' .. which is not 'negativity', to the trained eye. It works. Those who are experienced in the process, exhibit a common style of caution when they speak, as a result.

Are present-day 'sloppy popularises', merely using their access to the mass media, as a way of subverting that professional process, in order to push their own pet ideas and social policy advocacy? Are popularisers who pride themselves on their own self-assessment of their own abilities, more likely to appear more frequently in the mass media? (Ala Kaku). Film awards aside, has Kaku ever been recognised by awards specifically from his peers?



That's easy...No, no and no.......
Bohr of course was around Einstein's time within the 20th century, and of course the late great Richard Feynman [who i also mentioned somewhere in relation to new science defying common sense] was even later.
I hope that helps.

Michio Kaku also holds Henry Semat Chair of Theoretical Physics at the City College of New York, besides hosting several TV specials for the BBC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the Science Channel.
Hope that helps.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-07, 11:30 PM
Speaking of Dicky Feynman, I also enclose for your education and enjoyment the following little u tube video of Feynman in one of his lectures.
Note his comment re "No one understands Quantum Mechanics" great little video that also shows the man;s humour as well as his teaching ability
at.....

Please go to the link in post 184...

Selfsim
2013-Jul-08, 12:30 AM
Feynman was a gifted individual .. certainly in a minority category, and in no way, can be said to represent the bulk of scientists. He emerged from the rigours of peer review (the Bohr debates), and was recognised in full, for having done that (he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965 .. I seem to have missed when Kaku 'earned' his??). Feynman's comments about understanding QM, (and many others he made), served as a challenge for continued research in QM and were mostly made following recognition by his peers. These were challenges directed at them, and are viewed as being posed by an already respected and recognised leader in the field. (Hilbert, for example did the same towards his peers, at the turn of the century).

His famous commentary, commonly taken in ignorance, and out of context, is unfortunately, frequently 'used' by pseudoscientists, who sadly see themselves, as being as gifted as Feynman was. The converse of such a perspective, ie: seeing oneself as not ever being capable of understanding science at all, unless one possesses the raw intellect of 'a Feynman', is no different in its effects from the pseudoscience perspective. (Ie: this is simply 'anti-intellectualism' in action). Such a perspective is typically used as a tactic for avoiding exposure of a lack of education in science, (in spite of the 'loud' expressions of strong opinions about it), and as an avoidance tactic when called to engage directly in subject matter itself.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-08, 12:56 AM
Feynman was a gifted individual .. certainly in a minority category, and in no way, can be said to represent the bulk of scientists. He emerged from the rigours of peer review (the Bohr debates), and was recognised in full, for having done that (he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965 .. I seem to have missed when Kaku 'earned' his??). Feynman's comments about understanding QM, (and many others he made), served as a challenge for continued research in QM and were mostly made following recognition by his peers. These were challenges directed at them, and are viewed as being posed by an already respected and recognised leader in the field. (Hilbert, for example did the same towards his peers, at the turn of the century).

His famous commentary, commonly taken in ignorance, and out of context, is unfortunately, frequently 'used' by pseudoscientists, who sadly see themselves, as being as gifted as Feynman was. The converse of such a perspective, ie: seeing oneself as not ever being capable of understanding science at all, unless one possesses the raw intellect of 'a Feynman', is no different in its effects from the pseudoscience perspective. (Ie: this is simply 'anti-intellectualism' in action). Such a perspective is typically used as a tactic for avoiding exposure of a lack of education in science, (in spite of the 'loud' expressions of strong opinions about it), and as an avoidance tactic when called to engage directly in subject matter itself.

Among many gifted individuals, although obviously you and I are not among them.
Your argument [still not sure where you are coming from] is full of inuendo and unsupported data along with personal opinion.
Being the gifted man he was, along with Bohr, they easily recognised from a history of data, that sometimes new science and/or physics, certainly did and does defy common sense.


Could you point me to where pseudoscientists have frequently used the statement in question [being of course "that nö one understands quantum mechanics".

The rest of your post appears to be just hearsay and again personal opinion pointing towards some sort of agenda.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-08, 02:51 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/richard-feynman-on-the-weirdness-of-physical-reality/259718/


Just in case that Dicky Feynman link does not work.....

Tuckerfan
2013-Jul-08, 03:38 AM
Honestly, folks, at this point, I think that you could post a video of Kaku admitting he was making things up and had no business talking about anything at all, and ASTRO BOY would still be saying there was no evidence that Kaku was ever wrong about anything. Personally, instead of killing brain cells by following this thread, I'm going to offer my gray matter to the great god bourbon, and I suggest you do the same.

Paul Beardsley
2013-Jul-08, 04:31 AM
Honestly, folks, at this point, I think that you could post a video of Kaku admitting he was making things up and had no business talking about anything at all, and ASTRO BOY would still be saying there was no evidence that Kaku was ever wrong about anything.

Seconded.

Selfsim
2013-Jul-08, 04:58 AM
Oh … I was just havin' some 'fun'! … :)

Gillianren
2013-Jul-08, 05:04 AM
Honestly, folks, at this point, I think that you could post a video of Kaku admitting he was making things up and had no business talking about anything at all, and ASTRO BOY would still be saying there was no evidence that Kaku was ever wrong about anything. Personally, instead of killing brain cells by following this thread, I'm going to offer my gray matter to the great god bourbon, and I suggest you do the same.

Do you really suggest that I do the same in this moment?

But, yes, it appears that this is a conversation that isn't going anywhere. I'm involved in two of those at the moment, and surely, I have better things to do. Except all I'm doing is sitting around, waiting, so I guess I don't.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jul-08, 08:25 AM
The "box"is of course necessary, but it is also continuilly being redefined by those that do think and Imagine beyond.
Nope, it's redefined by those who do the hard work of rebuilding it, not by those who sit imaginging where its walls are.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-08, 09:37 AM
Honestly, folks, at this point, I think that you could post a video of Kaku admitting he was making things up and had no business talking about anything at all, and ASTRO BOY would still be saying there was no evidence that Kaku was ever wrong about anything. Personally, instead of killing brain cells by following this thread, I'm going to offer my gray matter to the great god bourbon, and I suggest you do the same.




Honestly folks, at this point I could just go away and leave this rather silly debate about Kaku, except the above is not true in the least.
He has made mistakes, as probably all science presenters have at one time or another, my argument is the criticism here of him is way over the top, and like the rest of the science presenters, he does far more good then not...The over the top hearsay criticism is first evident in this thread in post 30.

Other sensationalist claims said he referred to UFO's as of extra terrestrial origin.....He did not.
Claims that he said evolution has stopped...He did not.

The Higgs claim was then trotted out...As if anyone knows enough about it to be certain one way or the other about any claim.


Some have even ventured criticism to all science presenters including Carl Sagan.
Is it just a case that their general expectations and beliefs [ The science presenters] that ET's exist somewhere, sometime offend some?
Why is that?
I havn't heard any of them [ the science presenters] say it's a 100% certainty that they exist...I've heard them say it's most likely they exist, and I see nothing wrong in that.
In fact it's a logical assumption.
Are certain people expecting too much of them?
Is it because some may say that the 5% of UFO sightings that cannot be explained, may possibly be of extra terrestrial origin?
I see nothing untoward about that either.

There has also been some misleading and gross overstating a situation re what Kaku has said...see post 78 and my refutation in post 80.

Why would this occur/prevail on a science forum?
Tall poppy syndrome, mob mentality, and not seeing the forest for the trees maybe reasons why such animosity is prevalent towards Kaku in particular and science presenters in general.
Of course it is also possible he is an Idiot, but I rather think its more likely the other reasons that have been suggested.
And again, I'm certainly no fan boy of him in particular, and prefer at least two or three before him.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-08, 09:41 AM
Nope, it's redefined by those who do the hard work of rebuilding it, not by those who sit imaginging where its walls are.


Of course!
But those walls have certainly been defined by those that have thought outside the box.
To deny that is to deny history.

Selfsim
2013-Jul-08, 10:53 AM
Some have even ventured criticism to all science presenters including Carl Sagan.If this is in reference to my words on Sagan, if you look carefully, I have not criticised him ... I have criticised others who have misinterpreted his intent. He was pursuing various scientifically formulated and testable hypotheses ... whereas others who usually glorify him, appear to be campaigning for some non-science, philosophically based agenda, (which runs a close parallel with alien UFO beliefs, IMO).

There has also been some misleading and gross overstating a situation re what Kaku has said...see post 78 and my refutation in post 80.Ok, so I'm responsible for post 78, and I stand by exactly what I said in that post.

I openly admit I don't know a great deal about continued evolution, ...Then there is no point in debating the intricacies of Evolution Theory where a lack of knowledge is present, and in a forum which is supposed 'to be for fun'.
Sorry .. it just ain't gonna happen .. for those two reasons ... (and several others not related to Evolution Theory and Kaku's misinterpretation of it).

I'm outta here!

Jim
2013-Jul-08, 12:01 PM
Nope, it's redefined by those who do the hard work of rebuilding it, not by those who sit imaginging where its walls are.

Another one that bears repeating.

ASTRO BOY, you seem to read into these statements the meanings you want. No one has said the box is necessary. What is necessary is a solid understanding of the box before you can think profitably outside said box.

Oh, and most of science goes against "common" sense, but it does fit scientific reasoning. There is a huge difference.

Swift
2013-Jul-08, 03:25 PM
Your argument [still not sure where you are coming from] is full of inuendo and unsupported data along with personal opinion.


Honestly, folks, at this point, I think that you could post a video of Kaku admitting he was making things up and had no business talking about anything at all, and ASTRO BOY would still be saying there was no evidence that Kaku was ever wrong about anything. Personally, instead of killing brain cells by following this thread, I'm going to offer my gray matter to the great god bourbon, and I suggest you do the same.
If you guys keep slinging the personal attacks, I'm going to dish out the infractions and close this thread.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-08, 04:37 PM
Yes it does and we have many other references from reputable sites that he did say it.
But anyway here are a couple more..........
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/And your source itself states

"[Note: this quote is widely circulated, especially among self-help gurus, motivational speakers, and the like, but a newspaper archive search and Google book search shows no hits published during Kelvin's lifetime.]"


and another reputable site known as Wolfram Research.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html....There's no mention of who reported it and where he reportedly stated it and whether it was verbal or in writing. The plural of game-of-telephone is not reference.


Plenty of references that he did say it, none that he didn't, and I'm sure if he had not have said it, someone, somewhere would have jumped on that and made it known.....Some did, such as the first link you posted above.


Of course the Lord Kelvin quote was raised to illustrate that even great men sometimes are bound and shackled to the present and lack Imagination.Except it fails because it only shows that lesser men tear great men down with false attributions. I don't know who that lesser man was who may have misquoted Lord Kelvin, but it was probably journalist, and you know how they are.


You can't dismiss Bohr that easily.
You asked the question in post 158 re "What scientific revolution ever defied common sense?" and I quoted Bohr as that example....I'm not dismissing him. I'm ignoring him. He makes no statement of fact, merely a statement of opinion. Bohr may also think that lamb stew should be serves at Christmas, and I wouldn't argue with that statement either.


Again many easily obtained references as to what Rutherford said, and Szillard's reaction as to what he meant.
Just another example of even great men of science, being constrained by the "standards"of the day.

Good point. Let's look at that standard of the day. Bombarding elements with particles released a bit of energy. That is what he was referring to. He could not have been referring to nuclear fission or nuclear fusion because they hadn't been discovered yet. So, he can't have been referring to anything else. And when we do the math. Rutherford's statement is still correct, because extracting energy from particle bombardment is still not economical.


So???....I'm not really drawn by the "mob mentality" syndrome.....I tell it as I see it to wit, the criticism of Kaku in most cases is unfounded and in my opinion, rests on personal likes and dislikes.
Bohr of course was raised as I said to show you that it is indeed factual that sometimes new science does defy common sense.
A fact that I would have thought you would have known, especially with regards to QM.

You're confusing statements of opinion for statements of fact.


No, you are wrong in thinking that no new science ever defies common sense....hence the reference to Bohr.This is a good example of a Strawman Fallacy. I never made an absolute blanket statement of revolutions in science defying common sense. I merely disagreed with your pronouncement.


Rutherford meant exactly what Szillard thought he meant, but irrespective of that, I do find it rather peculiar that you are attempting to justify that statement and attribute doubt to it as you did with Bohr, and yet you see the need to be highly critical, almost obsessivley so, of Kaku with little evidence to support that criticism. Why?Well, most of your findings are peculiar. :)

As to obsession, look in the mirror. You're the one came into this thread and started obsessively defending Kaku and demanding proof from everyone who had a differing opinion. If you attack people, they tend to defend themselves. If you continue to attack people, they tend to continue defending themselves.


There are hundreds of references as to what Lord Kelvin did say, and some of them from quite reputable sources.
I cannot find any reference that "Lord Kelvin did not say that".whadyamean you cannot find any references? It's in the first link you posted right up above.

slang
2013-Jul-08, 07:54 PM
Post 174 does not contain the information requested, which is required to support your claim. Just so it is clear, this is OTB, not ATM or CT. There is no requirement for anyone to support anything; remember this is all just for fun here. It is nice if people do so, but there is no rule based requirement.

And just because we are getting some remarks about this post: this remark from Swift is a general reminder for everyone. Not a warning, not an infraction, not a slap on the wrist for the quoted member. Keep it nice.. please don't make me wade through what this thread has become to figure out who did what to whom when and why... please!

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-08, 08:00 PM
Another one that bears repeating.

ASTRO BOY, you seem to read into these statements the meanings you want. No one has said the box is necessary. What is necessary is a solid understanding of the box before you can think profitably outside said box.

Oh, and most of science goes against "common" sense, but it does fit scientific reasoning. There is a huge difference.



That will do me, thanks.
Remember though the scientific reasoning comes with the gradual understanding of what is happening.
In some cases, we still don't know why...QM for example.

Shaula
2013-Jul-08, 08:18 PM
That will do me, thanks.
Remember though the scientific reasoning comes with the gradual understanding of what is happening.
In some cases, we still don't know why...QM for example.
Ironically some of the basis of QM was originally worked out by someone thinking about what would happen inside a box...

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-08, 09:31 PM
With regard to post 215, again and as always, your opinion and misinterpretation of what I have said, and of the references I have given is yours to have.
I'll continue to "defend" Kaku against unsupported data and hearsay, just as I would be inclined to defend anyone against any such unsupported data and hearsay.

On our friend Lord Kelvin, here is another taken from a letter he sent Lord Baden-Powell........

from....
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/letters.html#baden-powell



Correspondence of Lord Kelvin
Various letters from Sir William Thomson
To Major Baden Baden-Powell, in reply to a request to join the moribund Aeronautical Society:

Dec 8/96

[Letterhead: “THE UNIVERSITY, GLASGOW.”]

Dear Baden Powell

I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society.

Yours truly Kelvin.



One is reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's axiom: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is possible, he is very likely right. When a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is impossible, he is very likely wrong."





This last opinion by Clarke in my opinion sums up this whole apparent "ganging up"on Kaku as a futuristic theoretical physicist, along with the same optimistic approach shown by most of the science presenters, and many other scientists period, and their confidence in space travel and exploration, ETL Intelligent and otherwise, and man's future destiny in the stars.
It apparently ruffles the feathers of those less confident of that future.

Finally it has to be said that Kaku's success, as well as other presenters already mentioned and criticised, speaks for itself.
I had a mate come to me a while back asking about something a science presenter had said [not Kaku] about BH's and why they don't swallow the Universe around them.
The example given was if the Sun could magically become a BH, what would happen to all the planets.
I enforced the presenters revelation to my surprised friend that we would all keep orbiting merrily along the same path as before, but explained it in even simpler terms.
A great example of the overwhelming good that scientific presenters do achieve, including Kaku.

The only way all of these presenters can avoid criticism is admirably summed up in the following quote from a giant of the past..........

“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”
― Aristotle

Jim
2013-Jul-09, 12:43 AM
This last opinion by Clarke in my opinion sums up this whole apparent "ganging up"on Kaku as a futuristic theoretical physicist ...

Once again you are reading the meaning you want to read.

I am not down on Kaku because he is a "futuristic theoretical physicist." I don't care for him because he comes across as an arrogant, self-aggrandizing know-it-all who never met a field in which he wasn't already expert. He makes pronouncements that are sometimes wrong - not opinions, statements of "fact" - but never seems to go back and correct himself, possibly he cannot imagine himself as being wrong.

He may be brilliant, but he's also obnoxious.

swampyankee
2013-Jul-09, 01:18 AM
I hate the expression "think outside the box." With this passion I can barely describe. I think it's generally used by people who are too lazy to do the work to understand why the box is there in the first place. Yes, we've all learned that certain things are true, and a fair number of them probably aren't, or are true in a Lies to Children kind of way--so simple that they're wrong. However, certain things are true (comets, for example, are not balls of electricity whizzing through space, no matter how much certain people want them to be), and we know they're true. We should take those things into consideration when contemplating what might not be true. We should also know why those things are believed to be true. I think my metaphor is that the box is a toolbox, not a cage. Think beyond it, but think beyond it by using what you found there.

My analogy for "the box" is the envelope (I'm a recovering aerospace engineer). The people who find the envelope are highly skilled specialists, some of whom die in the process (defining the envelope is much more dangerous than finding the walls of the metaphorical box, unless fluorine or similar nastiness is involved); the people who try to violate its boundaries better be very skilled and very lucky, or they'll end up somewhat dead. Think outside the box, and it works, you may get a Nobel (Bohr, Feynman) It fails, and you become a laughingstock (Fleischman & Pons).

In business, where "think outside the box" is usually a call from clueless managers for clueful subordinates (some of whom will be project managers, accountants, engineers, and other professionals) to figure out a way to get a project with a stupidly under-resourced budget done without endangering the pointy-haired one's bonus.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-09, 01:31 AM
Once again you are reading the meaning you want to read.

I am not down on Kaku because he is a "futuristic theoretical physicist." I don't care for him because he comes across as an arrogant, self-aggrandizing know-it-all who never met a field in which he wasn't already expert. He makes pronouncements that are sometimes wrong - not opinions, statements of "fact" - but never seems to go back and correct himself, possibly he cannot imagine himself as being wrong.

He may be brilliant, but he's also obnoxious.


No I don't think so, I'm interpreting it on some of the dodgy data that has been presented that's supposed to show him as an Idiot.
You may not care for him and think he is arrogant, that's OK...It''s your opinion.
I think he has done enough things not to deserve the blanket criticism, not only of him, but of most other presenters.
Realisation and difficulties in an effort to please all audiences would be near impossible, so they do the best they can, and that will include the odd mistake.
You say he has never admitted to any mistakes.....Are you sure? Do you watch him religiously?

And of course I have never said he was brilliant but in my opinion, he is certainly not obnoxious either.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-09, 04:46 AM
On our friend Lord Kelvin, here is another taken from a letter he sent Lord Baden-Powell........

I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society.

"Aerial nagivation" does not mean the same thing as mere flight.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-09, 09:21 PM
Undue Cynicism is kind of like folding your arms and stepping back and commenting on things, like the old guys in 'The Muppets,' just throwing out comments all the time, whereas there are other people on the ground really trying to affect things and improve their lives and the lives of other people. I think it's noble and I think it's cool, and in the end it contributes more to technological progress then any over the top, undue criticism..

Tobin Dax
2013-Jul-09, 09:43 PM
And that's exactly why the posters in this thread have pointed out the issues with Kaku as a public figure: to affect things, hopefully for the better. Blind dismissal of valid criticism does not improve anything.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-09, 10:42 PM
Sometimes one needs to step back a little and get a bigger picture of things.
On occasions, for reasons that are not very clear to me, it is sometimes "cool" to do and go along with the ďn thing".
I remember in the early eighties it was the 'in thing" to hate Barry Manilow....Around the same time, that fantastic Swedish group ABBA became "uncool" and if you didn't hate them, you were classed as weird.
I loved both acts and never gave the "in crowd" much thought at all. Still don't.
Not that I love Michio, I just reckon in a couple of instances, people have gone over the top, and the dodgy data to support their opinion, plus the undue cynicism re who was supposed to have said what despite a multitude of documents supporting it, leaves me rather unimpressed.

But yes, like other science presenters, he has made mistakes, as we all do, and as I have said all along.
Those mistakes do not out weigh the good he and other presenters have done.

Jim
2013-Jul-09, 10:53 PM
... I remember in the early eighties it was the 'in thing" to hate Barry Manilow....

I love Manilow.


Around the same time, that fantastic Swedish group ABBA became "uncool" and if you didn't hate them, you were classed as weird. ...

I love ABBA.


Not that I love Michio ...

And I don't hate him ... too much effort. I told you how I feel about him, and I gave you some examples of why.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-09, 11:59 PM
I love Manilow.



I love ABBA.






And I don't hate him ... too much effort. I told you how I feel about him, and I gave you some examples of why.



I accept all of that.
When I do get over your way, I might pop in take you down to the local and we'll have a Schooner or two....My shout!

Gillianren
2013-Jul-10, 01:20 AM
I told you how I feel about him, and I gave you some examples of why.

Oh, nonsense! You feel that way because you're a total follower, not because of any legitimate reasons. (For what it's worth, I'm not fond of Barry Manilow, but I do love ABBA.) No matter how many legitimate reasons you may think you have.

Jim
2013-Jul-10, 01:24 AM
Oh, nonsense! You feel that way because you're a total follower, not because of any legitimate reasons. (For what it's worth, I'm not fond of Barry Manilow, but I do love ABBA.) No matter how many legitimate reasons you may think you have.

Uh ... huh? :confused:

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-10, 04:48 AM
Undue Cynicism is kind of like folding your arms and stepping back and commenting on things, like the old guys in 'The Muppets,' just throwing out comments all the time, whereas there are other people on the ground really trying to affect things and improve their lives and the lives of other people. I think it's noble and I think it's cool, and in the end it contributes more to technological progress then any over the top, undue criticism..

Well, it's a good thing then that his criticism is due.

Gillianren
2013-Jul-10, 05:06 AM
Uh ... huh? :confused:

It seems that legitimate reasons are never legitimate enough, if they lead to criticism. Ergo, any reasons you think are legitimate are obviously because you're the kind of person who goes along with the crowd when it comes to Barry Manilow and ABBA, even though you aren't.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jul-10, 08:38 AM
Uh ... huh? :confused:
I think it may have been an attempt at imitating someone else's style for fun.

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-10, 03:09 PM
I think it may have been an attempt at imitating someone else's style for fun.

That's the way - uh huh, uh huh, he likes it?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-11, 04:50 AM
Well well......Just found a pretty informative little site, re the "World Science Festival" A video, the second one consists of a lecture from Brian Green re the Higgs particle.

see....
http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/higgs_boson_announcement/main?gclid=CIGXxODKprgCFQs4pgodsSQAew

Check out the comment from about the 16M 40Sec mark.....
What he says seems remarkably similar to what some have accused Kaku of saying and consequently wanting to lynch the poor bloke.


Quite a number of videos, so I have some listening to do as each are around 20 to 30 minutes long.



Oh, and an Interview of Kaku at....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfoq8kFC6xc

Selfsim
2013-Jul-11, 08:39 AM
Well well......Just found a pretty informative little site, re the "World Science Festival" A video, the second one consists of a lecture from Brian Green re the Higgs particle.

see....
http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/higgs_boson_announcement/main?gclid=CIGXxODKprgCFQs4pgodsSQAew

Check out the comment from about the 16M 40Sec mark.....
What he says seems remarkably similar to what some have accused Kaku of saying and consequently wanting to lynch the poor bloke.(Re: the underlined bit) ... Nonsense!

Green goes onto clarify that what happens in the LHC testing, should not be confused with the speculative idea of 'Higgs-like' particles, sometimes invoked when exploring some theories in Theoretical Physics. (He's viewing the Higgs in its scalar field analog sense here ... all of which Kaku completely left out, in his outburst on the Higgs).

Kaku confused and conflated what Greene has carefully qualified in this presentation, and this is exactly the problem Kaku has, (and is being commented on by many others in this thread).

What Greene 'has', is what Kaku lacks in spades.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-11, 09:10 AM
(Re: the underlined bit) ... Nonsense!

Green goes onto clarify that what happens in the LHC testing, should not be confused with the speculative idea of 'Higgs-like' particles, sometimes invoked when exploring some theories in Theoretical Physics. (He's viewing the Higgs in its scalar field analog sense here ... all of which Kaku completely left out, in his outburst on the Higgs).

Kaku confused and conflated what Greene has carefully qualified in this presentation, and this is exactly the problem Kaku has, (and is being commented on by many others in this thread).

What Greene 'has', is what Kaku lacks in spades.




No not really...Could be your misinterpretation though for whatever reason?

Green says at around the 16M40 S mark....
The Higgs is endowed with zero spin, the first discovered fundamental particle with zero spin, and goes on to say that the BB mathematics says nothing about the how and why of what may have initiated the sudden explosive like expansion......He then infers that that spinless object [the Higgs] could exert enough of the repulsive push to be responsible for that expansion and that it would indeed put the bang into the BB.

Green gives an excellent presenation at the lecture, but nothing too different in substance from what Kaku said at his interview, remembering Kaku was speaking to a lay person.
Perhaps you are confusing details and consequently cannot see the forest for the trees.
They both say the Higgs is probably responsible for the BB.

Tobin Dax
2013-Jul-11, 09:10 AM
Check out the comment from about the 16M 40Sec mark.....
What he says seems remarkably similar to what some have accused Kaku of saying and consequently wanting to lynch the poor bloke.

Green gave an incorrect origin of calling the Higgs Boson "the God particle"?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-11, 09:37 AM
Green gave an incorrect origin of calling the Higgs Boson "the God particle"?

No he didn't, and neither did Kaku in the video I linked. Both say the Higgs probably initiated the BB.

Kaku in what I have heard has not mentioned why it was called the God particle, a minor issue anyway when compared to what did cause the BB.


Someone earlier on in the thread gave another link and then claimed from that link that Kaku said UFO's were extra terrestrial in origin. That was wrong also.
And then it was said he implied human evolution had ceased. That was also wrong.


If people don't like him for whatever reason, that's OK.
He does a job and that has spread far more good then harm, despite any mistakes he has made...remembering they all make them.

Shaula
2013-Jul-11, 10:03 AM
No he didn't, and neither did Kaku in the video I linked. Both say the Higgs probably initiated the BB.
Then both are wrong.

There is simply not enough evidence to make the call probably. Possible, certainly, but probable is a huge leap. The hypothesised scalar field mechanism is on its own pretty speculative, it is a reasonable fit to the very sparse data but there is no strong evidence that it is right and there are other mechanisms. Then going a step further and saying "since the Higgs is the only scalar field we know it was probably the Higgs" is a leap of faith.

Plus the scalar field mechanism applies to the inflationary period, not the bang itself. The t=0 point is outside all current theories. We don't even know if it is a genuine starting point or just when some extrapolations we make hit the axis of our graph.

At a guess you are paraphrasing what they are saying in a confused or inaccurate way. Either that or both (or one) of them is misrepresenting the current state of knowledge.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-11, 11:25 AM
Then both are wrong.

There is simply not enough evidence to make the call probably. Possible, certainly, but probable is a huge leap.


That's exactly what I said back up the thread a bit, when someone said Kaku was wrong on that matter and wanted to spit roast him for it.........
I suggest you listen to both videos and judge for yourself.





At a guess you are paraphrasing what they are saying in a confused or inaccurate way. Either that or both (or one) of them is misrepresenting the current state of knowledge.

No, I think I have it pretty accurate.
Again, listen to both videos and judge for yourself.
The point I'm making anyway, is that while all and sundry are throwing brickbats at Kaku, another Green said virtually the same thing at a lecture.
Kaku's was at an interview with a lay person.





http://worldsciencefestival.com/even...FQs4pgodsSQAew



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfoq8kFC6xc

Shaula
2013-Jul-11, 12:09 PM
I suggest you listen to both videos and judge for yourself.
I got to 1:40 in the Kaku interview and I literally cannot listen to any more. That is awful. That is honestly the worst review of why the Higgs boson is important, the most awkward mixture of wild speculation, speculation and guesswork presented as fact I have ever had the misfortune to hear. If I were him and I saw that I would genuinely be ashamed of myself. That does no one any favours, doesn't help the cause of science.

I am not going to comment on the person, but as a physicist that interview was physically painful to listen to.

orionjim
2013-Jul-11, 03:21 PM
I watched both the Brian Greene and Michio Kaku videos and both are talking to a layperson. The big difference between the two presentations are that Brian Greene had 22 minutes and Michio Kaku had 4 minutes. Given that Michio had about one fifth the time his focus should be to condense and highlight what the Higgs Boson is and where the concept came from.

What did Michio talk about? Einstein’s birthday, the fifty year anniversary of the concept (never mentioning who came up with it) and then rambling on about a family of Higgs Bosons. Then he ends with defining dark matter. If you look at the time spent on the Higgs was less than 25%. The rest was mostly nonsense.

Brian Greene on the other hand (with much more time) walked through step by step explaining the main points of the Higgs, the correct people who came up with the concept and in general a complete idea of what it is.

And that is what is at the heart of this thread:


Does he know what he's talking about, or does he say things to sell books?

My opinion: He tries to sell books!

Ara Pacis
2013-Jul-11, 03:43 PM
This thread is still going on? Why doesn't someone add a poll, and then whichever side wins is the winner.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jul-11, 06:31 PM
As a guess, because "beer" would win hands down.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-11, 09:23 PM
This thread is still going on? Why doesn't someone add a poll, and then whichever side wins is the winner.




I wasn't aware this was about winning.
Hmmmm, It could though explain some of the false claims that have been misconstrued and/or taken out of context. eg, the claims he said UFO's were extra terrestrial in origin and that human evolution had stopped.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-11, 09:30 PM
As a guess, because "beer" would win hands down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8i35cMTfLw

Selfsim
2013-Jul-11, 09:34 PM
.. That is awful. That is honestly the worst review of why the Higgs boson is important, the most awkward mixture of wild speculation, speculation and guesswork presented as fact I have ever had the misfortune to hear. If I were him and I saw that I would genuinely be ashamed of myself. That does no one any favours, doesn't help the cause of science.

I am not going to comment on the person, but as a physicist that interview was physically painful to listen to.The interview on Evolution is even worse, I reckon (see post #78 (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?144901-Michio-Kaku&p=2141810#post2141810) for the link) ..

neilzero
2013-Jul-11, 09:39 PM
When a celebrity such as Kaku knows little about a subject, brief and tangential response is wise. Neil

Selfsim
2013-Jul-11, 09:57 PM
I watched both the Brian Greene and Michio Kaku videos and both are talking to a layperson. The big difference between the two presentations are that Brian Greene had 22 minutes and Michio Kaku had 4 minutes. Given that Michio had about one fifth the time his focus should be to condense and highlight what the Higgs Boson is and where the concept came from. ...Even if one takes just a short time-slice of the Greene lecture, the points he raises are accurate and consistent to the science it is based on. In just about every presentation I've seen him deliver, he always manages to delineate the speculative parts of what he says, from the theory. I'd recommend his book: "The Fabric of the Universe" to anyone wanting a good general introductory understanding of Cosmology and Astrophysics.

By way of comparison, I can't read more than a couple of pages of any of Kaku's books …