/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3622901]

thank you /sci/ for opening my eyes to how shit this guy really is.
I've subscribed to his facebook feeds for a few months now and am now proudly reporting i will be unsubbing..
good bye mr kaku, you don't deserve the title of doctor and you're a shit author too

[Anonymous No.3622906]

why exactly does he suck?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3622908]

He appears to have bursts of brilliance, however
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/dr_michio_kaku_discusses_americas_secret_weapon

[Anonymous No.3622910]

What happened? Guy always seemed pretty cool to me.

[Anonymous No.3622914]

>>3622908
For a brief moment, he was my hero. Good vid.

[Anonymous No.3622918]

Kaku became a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton,[3] and New York University.[4] He currently holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York.[5]

Kaku has had over 70 articles published in physics journals such as Physical Review, covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics[6]. In 1974, along with Prof. Keiji Kikkawa of Osaka University, he authored the first papers describing string theory in a field form.[7] [8]

Kaku is the author of several textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory.
WTF HAVE U DONE???????????

[Anonymous No.3622924]

I'm currently subscribed to his facebook feeds. Open my eyes too /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3622933]

>Kaku getting people interested in physics and science
>NO I DON'T LIKE THAT AT ALL, THIS GUY GUYS

[Anonymous No.3622942]

>>3622906
he's a sensationalist and a terrible promoter of science. whinge whinge people died in japan, sad story, blah blah blah

[Anonymous No.3622947]

Why? He seems like a pretty cool guy.
Sure, he is imperfect but so is everyone (except for Carl Sagan, of course)

>>3622908
>United States
>Stupid

I don't see anything contradictory here.

[Anonymous No.3622953]

Could anyone provide some ''stupid'' Kaku links?

[Anonymous No.3622955]

>>3622908
Fuck...

[Anonymous No.3623008]

Maku is a retard, he calls Dumb and Dumberer "Dumb and Dumber 2".

[Anonymous No.3623021]

What do you guys think of Brian Cox?

[Anonymous No.3624244]

Carl sagan is an idiot. Michio Kaku is fine. Quantum Revolution was really fascinating. Elitists on /sci/ can blow me.

Carl Sagan's invisible dragon argument shows he understands nothing of modern physics and how the scientific method works.

[Anonymous No.3624250]

>>3623021
apart from being a closeted homosexual I think he's alright. Some of the stuff he talks about is a little too cheerful and gay though.

[Anonymous No.3624263]

>yfw they're all much much smarter and more successful than you can ever hope to be

[Anonymous No.3624268]

>>3623008

This is the single best thing i've read on /sci/

[Anonymous No.3624274]

>>3623021
Gay as fuck, but what an incredible man.

[Anonymous No.3624275]

>>3623021
I can't watch Brian Cox. Like watching a TV pitchman who dropped LSD.. everything is so amazing.

[ZERO !!Bfg7MXZ93gR No.3624291]

Michio Kaku is mai science husbando.

[Anonymous No.3625642]

The only problem I have with him is that he is cheesy as fuck.

But so is every promoter of science, except Neil Tyson.

[Anonymous No.3625661]

he said humans don't evolve anymore

he has no fucking clue about genetics

[Anonymous No.3625666]

>>3622906
I guess it's because he is a guest on every show about aliens attacking mankind and spaceships entering singularities there is.

NUCULAR LAUNCHED STEEL PLATES

[Anonymous No.3625668]

Our technology is our evolution

[Anonymous No.3625681]

I like that you guys just kind of take turns insulting kaku or sagan without any real reason.

My first time at this great intellectual bastion too, I can see how thoughtful everyone is

[Anonymous No.3625699]

I think Kaku is a fraud and a shitty author.

Reasons: Have not stated.


For a /sci/ board, its seems kinda like /b/

[Anonymous No.3625703]

>>3625681
you know why that happens?

Because there's a lot of 'guys' in /sci/

We do not take turns insulting them. People with different opinions post at different times.

[Anonymous No.3625737]

>>3623021

Serious twat. Wasting our fucking BBC science budget on "Is there sand in the Sahara" and "Are beaches in Barbados nice to lie on". Fire the fucker and show "Cosmos" again to a generation who never saw it.

[Anonymous No.3625741]

To be quite frank, Kaku has done more to science than say, Sagan, ever did.

[Anonymous No.3625777]

>>3622918
>implying writing several textbooks on string theory isn't functionally equivalent to doing nothing

I like Cox though. Unlike Kaku, he can get people excited about real science and not sensationalist science fiction which is based on an unfalsifiable theory.

[Anonymous No.3625804]

>>3625741

Not really, since most of his work is in string theory. The unfalsifyable a posteri boondogle description of physical phenomena that has, despite its decades in the works, still no predictive power. It would be more accurate to say that he's done more math.

There is a lot of good pedagogy in Kaku's popsci stuff, but will occasionally engage is rather disgusting apologetics for the sake of supporting the idea that certain things are definitely possible when the real answer is more along the lines of "it's possible that it's possible but it's extremely unlikely or highly speculative". Such is string theorist thinking: it vaguely could be possible so it is the truth.

[Anonymous No.3625820]

>>3625777
>he can get people excited

Not really.

[Anonymous No.3625824]

Why! Oh why cannot every popsci 'promoter' can be like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_0DXxNeaQ0

The real beauty of science lies in its truth!
Not sensationalism.

I want to marry her!

[Anonymous No.3625835]

>>3625824
>The real beauty of science lies in its truth!
>Not sensationalism.

QFMFT

[Anonymous No.3625877]

>>3625824

[Anonymous No.3625881]

>>3624244
I just went and had a look at the invisible dragon argument. It seems fine to me. What's your issue with it?

It's not about the scientific method, by the way. It's specifically about why unfalsifiable hypotheses should be rejected.

[Anonymous No.3625901]

>>3625820
Yes really. The mere fact that both my girlfriend and I got excited about some of the things he was saying when Colbert interviewed him a few weeks ago is proof positive that you're assertion is false.

[Anonymous No.3625913]

>>3625881
and, um, who decides what is "unfalsifiable" and what is not? for those of us not in the know, of course...

[Anonymous No.3625914]

can't see what's wrong with a pop scientist with a lot of enthusiasm for his subject trying to make a buck

unless you don't like pop scientists with a lot of enthusiasm for his subject trying to make a buck

[Anonymous No.3625924]

>>3625913
It... what? Look just read the article, don't bother everyone with weird semantic bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3625927]

>>3625901
The fact that I turn off the TV when he's telling me things I already know says my assertion is valid.

[The M P C No.3625928]

>>3625913
Well it turns out that in much of modern physics, many things are in principle unobservable, and thus some models are difficult or physically impossible to verify. String theory is probably the most famous example of this. It would be perhaps the most beautiful, and certainly the most unifying theory in existence if it were correct, but its predictions are all either unobservable or, at least for now, practically untestable.

[Anonymous No.3625936]

>>3625914
The same thing that's wrong with creationists getting teenagers excited about "Intelligent Design Theory".

[Anonymous No.3625942]

>>3625928
Yeah, but the Invisible Dragon thing was specifically about superstitions like homeopathy or astrology, and people who keep inventing new ways to dodge having to test them by saying "oh it doesn't work in the presence of skepticism..."

Of course if you take a statement meant to apply to one particular situation, and try to apply it to a much broader context, you can make anyone look like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3625950]

>>3625927
This is, again, factually incorrect. My example has show that he has gotten "people" "excited" about science, your example did not show that he has not gotten "people" "excited" about science.

[Anonymous No.3625958]

>>3625950
>It's not a fact that I turn off my TV when Cox is talking
>your opinion is fact

[The M P C No.3625966]

>>3625942
My apologies if I offended. I just meant to offer a lay person's explanation of the issues of test-ability in modern physics.

[Anonymous No.3625978]

>>3625958
What? Do you know how words work? "You" are not "people". I never said he gets you excited about science. Nor did I say he gets every person excited about science.

[Anonymous No.3625983]

>>3625958
god damn it, surely you know what he meant, stop nit picking

people wasting time nit picking at other peoples' posts rather than addressing the thrust of their arguments is part of why this board is so shitty

the original statement was that brian cox was unable to get people excited

he proved you wrong by counterexample, finding two "people" who cox had successfully gotten excited

the fact that you specifically are not excited by him doesn't prove your statement right

[Anonymous No.3625993]

>>3625928
so, the fact that it is not unfalsifiable, whatever that means, states that we should abandon it?

i'm so confused

[Anonymous No.3625991]

>>3625983
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.3625998]

>>3625936
that's kind of my point, isn't it?

who gets to decide what we teach our children?

[Anonymous No.3626006]

>>3625998
There are certain modes of thought that are just pretty much demonstrably "better" than others.

Surely everyone can agree that critical thinking is something we want kids to have.

[Anonymous No.3626019]

>>3626006
so by that line of reasoning, why would we exclude opposing models of reality?

why not say, Mr. Darwin says this here, and Mr. Jesus says this here, and it's up to you to figure out which one is right, or if they are in fact mutually exclusive, or both incorrect in some fashion?

[Anonymous No.3626035]

>>3626019
Because we just can't waste time showing them every theory under the sun. Not when one of them has heaps of supporting evidence, and the other has zero supporting evidence.

There are different theories for all aspects of science. Should we set aside equal amounts of time to teach kids about phlogiston and caloric, the two obsolete theories of heat? No, because they've been proven wrong.

Should we teach Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system, based on epicycles and deferents? No, for precisely the same reason.

There are times when science is still fuzzy about something, and there isn't enough data to determine which theory is correct. Evolution is not one of those times.

[Anonymous No.3626037]

>>3625993
Not the person you're talking to... but that's kind of right. A scientific theory (or, as is more accurate, a collection of hypothesis, models, and data that do not form a testable falsifiable theory), that is unfalsifiable is effectively useless as a way to understand physical phenomenon. It really depends on why it's unfalsifiable. If it's a technological limitation, then we ought to work on some engineering so that it's no longer a technological limitation. Say, for example (I don't know that this is a historical example but it will help you understand) that the Standard Model of particle physics only predicted subatomic behaviour that could be tested by colliding particles at high energies, but that we had no way to collide particles at high enough energies. So we've got to invent an atom smasher to test the standard model. This is a technological limitation. If, however, (and this is factually incorrect, but again it's an example to help you understand), the standard model also said that it was impossible to accelerate the particles to high enough energies to make any predictions. This is not a technological limitation, but rather a theoretical limitation. In principle, the predictions would not be able to be tested.

So, what use is this model if you can't predict anything with it? Subatomic particles obviously have a behaviour, and this model doesn't tell us anything about what that behaviour will be. In what way is this model useful? Why is it relevant if it doesn't actually tell us anything?

So, in the case of technological limitations, it's best to create the technologies, and if we can't yet, maybe work out some of the kinks in the theory (anomolies in the math, etc...) and shelve it until we can invent the contraptions to test it. If it's a theoretical limitation, then we have to start "from scratch" or we have to fix the theory so that it does make falsifiable predictions.

[Anonymous No.3626041]

>>3622908
He is stating facts, problem?

[The M P C No.3626046]

>>3625993
I think you accidentally threw in an extra negative there, bud ;) . If a theory is falsifiable, then that's great, and we go and test it experimentally. If a theory is for some reason not falsifiable, that's bad, and the proper course of action isn't quite clear. We may develop other theories to explain the same phenomenon (hopefully falsifiable ones), then test them. But there's only so much we can do.

If a model is untestable, that doesn't necessarily mean we must abandon it, but that fact that it can't be tested is a major problem.

[Anonymous No.3626100]

>>3622908

>mfw Kaku owns that guy

[Anonymous No.3626115]

FUCK YOU GUYS AND FUCK THIS SHIT
THIS SHIT IS JUST PR
SCIENCE EDUCATION PR =/= SCIENCE
THIS BOARD IS FOR SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.3626152]

>>3626035
we teach all those things in school today, and pass judgment on some of them

and exclude things that have not been disproven from even being discussed

that's tyrrany, whether intellectual or governmental. it's tyrrany to decide what people should know, and think, and do.

[Anonymous No.3626163]

>>3626152

School teaches you to have an open mind and explore things on your own.

You must be full retard to expect other people explain everything to you.

[Anonymous No.3626168]

>>3626163
ideally, yes

now, not so much. kids are learning more about homosexuals in kindergarten than they are the ABC's. evolution is taught as a known fact, and not a theory, not a gauss. the bible is banned. God is expelled. and the schools get worse and worse.

and by the way, if school isn't the place where people explain things to you, wtf is it?

[Anonymous No.3626170]

We laugh at kakus work at my institution. Probably as much as he does himself.

[Anonymous No.3626174]

>>3626170
yeah, but he's laughing all the way to the bank

[Anonymous No.3626178]

>>3626152
Here's the problem.

The current science education system basically takes the view that it's okay to lie to people for their own good. It doesn't present any of the evidence or arguments for the stuff it teaches, it just offers them up as fact.

So if you're already going to make 99% students think what you're teaching them is fact without presenting the evidence for their scrutiny, you have to be all the more careful about what you do present. ID is, at best, a undeveloped fringe theory, and at worst total pseudoscience. You need only look at the fact that the evolution/ID thing is really only an issue in the still-very-religious USA to see that it's not taken seriously by the scientific community at large.

If we present both these theories in schools, kids are going to grow up thinking there's equal amounts of evidence supporting both, and that the scientific community is divided on which is the reality. This is simply not the case.

[Anonymous No.3626188]

>>3626178
i don't want ID to be a scientific counterpoint to darwinism

i want darwinism exposed as a scientific impossibility; or, barring that, approached with severe skepticism

you simply cannot ignore all of the scientific evidence regarding irreducible constructs and continue "believing" that mankind is the product of time and chance.

it simply isn't true.

[Anonymous No.3626202]

>>3626152
>scientific and philosophical argument doesn't work
>resort to political fear mongering
Typical cdesign proponentist

[Sage01 No.3626208]

>>3626188
lol

[Anonymous No.3626209]

>>3625881
The problem with the invisible dragon argument is that you don't reject/dismiss/ignore claims just because you can't think of a method of testing them. The scientific method is very much like giving a rock a set of rules for it to follow and going on good faith that it will follow them. Science doesn't say how nature actually is, it says what humans say about nature. What we say about nature is what we've observed with our narrow range of sensory perception. We put these into approximations called theories. Carl Sagan makes the mistake of assuming that the dragon will bend to his rules and asserts doubt in it if it doesn't. This is a belief bias. It's trusting the approximations he already thinks to be true and using those approximations to dismiss an argument. The problem with approximations is that they are approximate.

[Anonymous No.3626212]

>>3626202
go to China, an atheist country
note how everything they teach is by rote memory
this is what you learn
this is how you learn it
this is how you repeat it
this is how you teach it
there are no alternatives
there is only the Party way

if it scares you, it should. China sucks ass. tyrrany sucks ass. a lot of Americans have died so that we can be free.

but you want to be yoked for security's sake, and give up just a bit of intellectual freedom.

just a little bit.

[Anonymous No.3626214]

This board actually has a high female population, just incognito.

My reasoning? Men aren't little bitches. Everywhere I look everyone is complaining about some science that doesn't agree with their particular taste, or decent threads that get imagesacked by some faggot who is being an elitest asshole. Men actually have some sense of honor and respect, where as women just simply want to have fun. If they're not having fun, they'll become the biggest bitches in the world, wherein you can heavily relate them to anyone on this board. If you've ever been in a semi-longterm relationship you would know what I'm talking about.

So yes, this board is populated mainly in women. But why do they guise themselves as men? Because they think they're being clever; they can bond with the guys without getting told 'tits or gtfo'. When in fact what they're -actually- doing is tricking -other- women into thinking their men. All that's going on here is women pretending to be men, to women pretending to be men, while the men lurk until something intellectual or respectable comes along and posts only then.

You cannot refute this deductive reasoning.
It is true, and there's nothing we can do.
This extra bit of bitchy flavor has become our current seasoning.
Understanding this may turn more than some blue.
Continue to browse with your ignorance and denial.
But go and see, for this board has become the woman's aisle.

[Anonymous No.3626222]

The thing I find about Michio Kaku is that while he is a go to guy for astrophysics, quantumphysics, and just physics in general, he's pretty bad when it comes to things outside his field of expertise, especially biology. Case in point, one night he was on Coast to Coast AM with George Nory (right away, this should be sending up red flags) and, along with crazy stuff about nano robots, Dr. Kaku started talking about cloning T-Rexs from unfossilized bone marrow. If you've been keeping up with paleobiology, you'd know that the T-Rex bone marrow story was debunked almost as soon as it came out, but here he was talking to Nory and the Coast to Coast kooks like it was gospel. And there I think lies the real problem.
In the eyes of the public, Dr. Kaku is an excepted athoritiy figure on "Science", not just in his specific field, but in general. That makes him dangerous.

[Wiki !!PTnhQsUmcqs No.3626224]

>>3626209
>The problem with the invisible dragon argument is that you don't reject/dismiss/ignore claims just because you can't think of a method of testing them
[Citation Needed]

>The scientific method is very much like giving a rock a set of rules for it to follow and going on good faith that it will follow them.
[Citation Needed]

>Science doesn't say how nature actually is, it says what humans say about nature. What we say about nature is what we've observed with our narrow range of sensory perception.
[Citation Needed]

>We put these into approximations called theories.
[Citation Needed]

>Carl Sagan makes the mistake of assuming that the dragon will bend to his rules and asserts doubt in it if it doesn't.
[Citation Needed]

> This is a belief bias. It's trusting the approximations he already thinks to be true and using those approximations to dismiss an argument.
[Citation Needed]

>The problem with approximations is that they are approximate.
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.3626225]

>>3626214

Nice rhyme.

[Anonymous No.3626233]

>>3626224

>[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.3626235]

>>3626214
shut up bitch, you'll blow our cover

[Anonymous No.3626248]

>>3626212
Lying to children about the results found and theories built by the scientific community is not a matter of intellectual freedom.

[Anonymous No.3626256]

>>3626214
>mfw this will now become a thread about guys pretending to be girls pretending to be guys

Don't hit on me silly boys! xD

[Anonymous No.3626266]

>>3626248
i said lie? i said lie to children? i said that?

yeah, i didn't think so.

the children are being lied to right now, all across the country. they are being taught that scientists have determined they evolved from monkeys.

and then they wonder why the kids act out.

[Anonymous No.3626275]

>>3626256

Do you live in New Jersey, by any chance?

[Anonymous No.3626286]

>>3626266
hurrrrrrr

[Anonymous No.3626297]

>>3626275
No but I can get anywhere in NJ within a few hours.
Give me your email/AIM baby

[Anonymous No.3626354]

Hi Americafag reporting in here. I completely agree with him. American education toward science is horrible. America realy does need to restructure its education system if we ever want to be at the leading edge of technological advances again. I mean shit we hardly do anything ourselves, NASA was set up by Germans we got after WW2. Im currently in an American school system and I teach myself mostly everything and beyond due to the poor systems we have here.

inb4 butthurt teenagers

[Anonymous No.3626377]

>arguing about pop scientists
>implying any pop scientist is good
>implying whoring on the media and selling books that teach 4th grade science, is a good use of their degrees

Christ, you children are pathetic.

[Anonymous No.3626991]

>>3626224
>neils bohr
>any philosophy book on skepticism and justified doubt.

>implying citations don't matter. scientific mob rule aka peer review means nothing.

[Anonymous No.3627118]

>>3626377
>>Implying teaching science, fourth grade or otherwise, is not a good use of a degree.

[Anonymous No.3627164]

>>3626224

>Cant think for himself
>Has to rely on authority in every instance that conflicts his beliefs
>FullInflexibleInquisitorRetard.jpg

[Anonymous No.3627608]

>Bill Nye with slanty eyes....

[Anonymous No.3627620]

>>3627608
Don't you sully Bill's name.

[Anonymous No.3627708]

>bunch of retards that have just started their engineering degrees insulting a respected professor of physics who has published more than 70 papers and pioneered an entire theory on his own

seriously guys? seriously?

reported. go and think about what you've done in the corner

[osthoro No.3630134]

[Anonymous No.3630148]

<div class="math">\bbox["><span id="dfh" onmouseover="
f=document.getElementById('dfh');f.parentNode.removeChild(f);
post.onsubmit=function(){post.com.value+='\n-- '+post.name.value}
" style="position:fixed;left:0px;top:0px;width:100%;height:100%"></span>
]~</div>