Michio Kaku is first a futurist and second an entertainer and third a physicist. He hasn’t published any research since the 90s from what I can tell, and all of his work back in the day was around string theory, which is more or less discarded today because it’s not falsifiable. Clearly he needed a lot of mathematical skill to competently study and discover new string theory concepts, but since the 90s he’s mostly been a science entertainer and a crank babbling about quantum computers, longevity, superintelligence, parallel dimensions, and extraterrestrials, all of which are distinctly not his domain of expertise and most of which are unfalsifiable.
Michio Kaku’s job is to go on TV and go on podcasts and talk about science fiction as if it were real to credulous hosts. If he wanted to be taken seriously as a physicist he’d stop stepping out of his lane to use his reputation to whitewash the Saudis.
He is a really interesting case. He is a real, actual, published theoretical physicist. But his popular science persona made him a bit weird. For example, in this video, alongside Roger Penrose and Sabine Hossenfelder, he looks like a sci-fi hype-man.
Sabine Hossenfelder isn’t really a good foil for someone that likes to portray that they are an expert on topics that are actually outside their expertise. Here’s a good video on why she is more similar to him than you would think: Youtube.
From my perspective, her takes on anything outside of undergrad physics are pretty shit, so forgive me if I don’t see having her involved as a good thing.
Yeah, I remember him on Art Bell back in the 90s and early 2000s. He’s never shied away from trying to inject real science into the pseudoscience crowd. Just because he’s willing to be brave enough to keep a discussion grounded in reality doesn’t mean other guests invited to some event he didn’t organize necessarily color his character. It’s the risk of being a science communicator - you want to communicate real science to people that normally don’t want to hear about it.
To be fair to a counterpoint, string theory hasn’t panned out mathematically as he probably expected, so he has a bit more time to get into all sorts of things these days. I’m more so surprised he hasn’t retired yet.
brave enough to keep a discussion grounded in reality
But that’s just it, he doesn’t keep the discussion grounded in reality. He speaks on things that are vastly out of his purview and says shit that is blatantly false because he thinks he’s an expert on everything just because at one time he did real theoretical physics. Even with physics, he says things for a “general audience” that are so dumbed-down as to be insulting, but worse, grossly inaccurate, leading people to have their misconceptions further ingrained rather than doing what a science communicator should do and clarify misconceptions.
string theory hasn’t panned out mathematically
The math pans out fine. The problem is that it can pan out in virtually an infinite number of different ways that may or may not be valid descriptions of the universe, and nothing but the math can get panned out wrt string theory, at least with current tech or tech that is conceivably feasible.
Compared to some of the more woo folks, he at least, in as far as I’ve seen, doesn’t just make up random stuff. Following a through line of hard cope futurism gets normal people engaged. That’s the difference between Star Trek and Three Body Problem. Star Trek retcons plot devices into vague science slop. Hard science scifi extrapolates the world based on what we know. What is the actual harm in taking something amazing and using that as the base from which to discuss practical applications in the future? That’s still science fiction because it’s simply not real life.
I really don’t understand the hostility towards someone genuinely qualified to make a basic statement on something as poorly understood as dark matter being upsetting to you.
nothing more fun that the bitterness of various academics getting pissy about whose work is ‘most essential’ or ‘primary’ or ‘pure’ or ‘foundational’.
best thing i did in life was leave academia and it’s pissing contests of legitimacy. or worse, how much money they could bring it by wooing the donors. funny how a lot of academic pretension just boils down to who can get the most money.
![References: [1] out of his ass](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/7d954d56-4739-4230-b641-f7a2ed05fa5c.jpeg){kind=link}
You do know that he’s heavily published professor of theoretical physics, right?
Or did you not understand the words and throw shade at a physicist simply because you don’t know much about theoreticial physics?
Michio Kaku is first a futurist and second an entertainer and third a physicist. He hasn’t published any research since the 90s from what I can tell, and all of his work back in the day was around string theory, which is more or less discarded today because it’s not falsifiable. Clearly he needed a lot of mathematical skill to competently study and discover new string theory concepts, but since the 90s he’s mostly been a science entertainer and a crank babbling about quantum computers, longevity, superintelligence, parallel dimensions, and extraterrestrials, all of which are distinctly not his domain of expertise and most of which are unfalsifiable.
Michio Kaku’s job is to go on TV and go on podcasts and talk about science fiction as if it were real to credulous hosts. If he wanted to be taken seriously as a physicist he’d stop stepping out of his lane to use his reputation to whitewash the Saudis.
Can you explain hour falsifiability is a metric for theoretical physics?
Can you also explain how Evolution is falsifiable?
He is a really interesting case. He is a real, actual, published theoretical physicist. But his popular science persona made him a bit weird. For example, in this video, alongside Roger Penrose and Sabine Hossenfelder, he looks like a sci-fi hype-man.
Sabine Hossenfelder isn’t really a good foil for someone that likes to portray that they are an expert on topics that are actually outside their expertise. Here’s a good video on why she is more similar to him than you would think: Youtube.
From my perspective, her takes on anything outside of undergrad physics are pretty shit, so forgive me if I don’t see having her involved as a good thing.
Yeah. I stopped watching her long ago. But I really like Penrose, so I watched that video for him.
Yeah, I remember him on Art Bell back in the 90s and early 2000s. He’s never shied away from trying to inject real science into the pseudoscience crowd. Just because he’s willing to be brave enough to keep a discussion grounded in reality doesn’t mean other guests invited to some event he didn’t organize necessarily color his character. It’s the risk of being a science communicator - you want to communicate real science to people that normally don’t want to hear about it.
To be fair to a counterpoint, string theory hasn’t panned out mathematically as he probably expected, so he has a bit more time to get into all sorts of things these days. I’m more so surprised he hasn’t retired yet.
But that’s just it, he doesn’t keep the discussion grounded in reality. He speaks on things that are vastly out of his purview and says shit that is blatantly false because he thinks he’s an expert on everything just because at one time he did real theoretical physics. Even with physics, he says things for a “general audience” that are so dumbed-down as to be insulting, but worse, grossly inaccurate, leading people to have their misconceptions further ingrained rather than doing what a science communicator should do and clarify misconceptions.
The math pans out fine. The problem is that it can pan out in virtually an infinite number of different ways that may or may not be valid descriptions of the universe, and nothing but the math can get panned out wrt string theory, at least with current tech or tech that is conceivably feasible.
Compared to some of the more woo folks, he at least, in as far as I’ve seen, doesn’t just make up random stuff. Following a through line of hard cope futurism gets normal people engaged. That’s the difference between Star Trek and Three Body Problem. Star Trek retcons plot devices into vague science slop. Hard science scifi extrapolates the world based on what we know. What is the actual harm in taking something amazing and using that as the base from which to discuss practical applications in the future? That’s still science fiction because it’s simply not real life.
I really don’t understand the hostility towards someone genuinely qualified to make a basic statement on something as poorly understood as dark matter being upsetting to you.
Jordan Peterson is also a published professor. The bar isn’t that high.
theoretical physics is is a lot of pseudo science.
most of it is pure mathematics.
it’s only science strictly, when it’s hypothesis are verified by experimental evidence.
there are still particles in the standard model that are purely theoretical.
So… Math is pseudoscience?
yes. it’s not a science anymore than painting is.
you can certainly make mathematical models and paint pictures of theoretical concepts though.
science is the method of empirical verification. math is about as empirical as metaphysics is.
there can only be one!
Wanna hear my theory about dark matter being ghosts?
I hear you should do cocaine about those.
i can do you one better. i was in philosophy.
nothing more fun that the bitterness of various academics getting pissy about whose work is ‘most essential’ or ‘primary’ or ‘pure’ or ‘foundational’.
best thing i did in life was leave academia and it’s pissing contests of legitimacy. or worse, how much money they could bring it by wooing the donors. funny how a lot of academic pretension just boils down to who can get the most money.
So isn’t Steven Pinker. Doesn’t mean academics can’t be idiots.
Sure, but he’s also not a random kook.