LessBread,

It seems had I only quoted Kaku's book more in my post, you'd be pretty content :). Critique accepted. I felt I was addressing the people who have already read his books (i.e., most people interested in popular science) and letting them know that if their "BS Alarms" went off while reading that book, it's ok.

Quote:
It seems to me that your diagnosis applies more to television than to popularized science.

I picked TV shows in my posts here because more people are exposed to them which makes my arguments better understood, but my blog post actually quotes Kaku's book, and I was really thinking of two of his books in particular (Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds).

Quote:
If you do decide to take apart his book, can you do so using only knowledge available at the time it was written?

Of course. My entire post wasn't criticizing string theory, but the way the authors choose to present them. To quote myself, "... I’m not implying that particle physics or cosmology aren’t an important part of physics, but there are ways of presenting them that aren’t as condescending as those chosen by this new wave of pop science authors."

Quote:
Interviewees have no control over how their comments are edited and presented.

See Dmytry's reply. I think he summed it up for me.

Quote:
How do you know that he's [Kaku] a horrible teacher?

That's precisely what my blog post is about: about him being a horrible teacher of popular science (can't fault his graduate courses, never took them. He might be completely different when it comes to teaching trained physicists).

Quote:
As for your game designer in the class room example, I disagree that going on about b-splines and matrix decompositions would necessarily constitute name dropping or that it would be dishonest. I agree that it would be an inappropriate level of discussion for an audience of school children.
Whether it constitutes a kind of name dropping or dishonesty depends on other factors, for example, if the guy did not know what those terms meant but used them anyway in an effort to impress his superior social status on the children. If he knew what those terms meant, but used them because he didn't know how to express the concepts in ways accessible to his audience, that wouldn't make him dishonest. It would simply mean that picking him to explain game programming to school children was a poor choice.

So, according to you, he's either dishonest, or he's a poor choice. Could I have made it any clearer with my own words? That's precisely my criticism of Kaku (and many other authors).

The only point to note here is that our use of the word "dishonest" slightly differs. I believe that there's no way for a trained, intelligent professional to believe deep down he's really explaining something to a bunch of laypeople by using "b-splines" and "Q-matrices", so I call him "dishonest" simply by the fact that he's standing on the stage and using them nevertheless, and pretending that he's teaching them. If you're bothered by this use I'll find another word for it, but your own conclusion stands.

Quote:
Gamow? Do you mean George Gamow? Which book in particular?

The one I linked to in my previous post, 1-2-3 infinity.

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
LessBread:
assaf's critique of Kaku here is largely based on what Kaku wrote in his book.
I referenced youtube here because thats how you can see Kaku without buying a book. Furthermore, a honest scientist, if mis-presented by media, would have voiced some rebuttal, rather than continued to actively participate in media bullshit. It is entirely valid to base opinion on the tv programmes he appears in, as long as it is not his first and last tv program.

Dymtry, that's bunk. I trashed his rant against Kaku ten pages back. Only one complaint came from something Kaku wrote, the other 40 or so attacks were completely spurious.

Quote:Original post by assaf
LessBread,

It seems had I only quoted Kaku's book more in my post, you'd be pretty content :). Critique accepted. I felt I was addressing the people who have already read his books (i.e., most people interested in popular science) and letting them know that if their "BS Alarms" went off while reading that book, it's ok.

I wouldn't use the word content, but I would have taken your critique more seriously rather then seeing it as a rant, bs alarms or not. "It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that I regard as the essence of bullshit." Defining Bullshit

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
It seems to me that your diagnosis applies more to television than to popularized science.

I picked TV shows in my posts here because more people are exposed to them which makes my arguments better understood, but my blog post actually quotes Kaku's book, and I was really thinking of two of his books in particular (Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds).

Yes, well at least you stipulated that Kaku was speculating about "what might our reality mean". I think it's important to remember that television is biased towards the new. Book publishers too for that matter.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
If you do decide to take apart his book, can you do so using only knowledge available at the time it was written?

Of course. My entire post wasn't criticizing string theory, but the way the authors choose to present them. To quote myself, "... I’m not implying that particle physics or cosmology aren’t an important part of physics, but there are ways of presenting them that aren’t as condescending as those chosen by this new wave of pop science authors."

So you find his style of presentation condescending? What about his style of presentation suggests a "patronizingly superior manner" of dealing with his audience? What about it suggests that he thinks his audience is composed of inferior persons? It seems to me that a criticism should be supported with evidence that pertains to the specific criticism. For example, Barbara Bush is condescending: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" (A Beautiful Mind). Lady de Rothschild is condescending: "Barack Obama went and called the people who have guns and cling to their religion bitter,... The people out - who are the rednecks or whatever - are bitter." (Rothschilds, Rednecks and John McCain). I think those women are condescending and there is the evidence that shows it.

Do you think that Kaku has simplified the concepts he presents to such an extreme degree that it amounts to treating his audience like idiots?

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
Interviewees have no control over how their comments are edited and presented.

See Dmytry's reply. I think he summed it up for me.

I didn't find the rebuttal argument as compelling as the continued participation argument. Such a rebuttal could easily go unheard. Continued participation indicates agreement which makes a better case.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
How do you know that he's [Kaku] a horrible teacher?

That's precisely what my blog post is about: about him being a horrible teacher of popular science (can't fault his graduate courses, never took them. He might be completely different when it comes to teaching trained physicists).

I didn't find your blog post compelling. It seems to me that you don't know that he's a horrible teacher, you just feel it.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
As for your game designer in the class room example, I disagree that going on about b-splines and matrix decompositions would necessarily constitute name dropping or that it would be dishonest. I agree that it would be an inappropriate level of discussion for an audience of school children.
Whether it constitutes a kind of name dropping or dishonesty depends on other factors, for example, if the guy did not know what those terms meant but used them anyway in an effort to impress his superior social status on the children. If he knew what those terms meant, but used them because he didn't know how to express the concepts in ways accessible to his audience, that wouldn't make him dishonest. It would simply mean that picking him to explain game programming to school children was a poor choice.

So, according to you, he's either dishonest, or he's a poor choice. Could I have made it any clearer with my own words? That's precisely my criticism of Kaku (and many other authors).

The only point to note here is that our use of the word "dishonest" slightly differs. I believe that there's no way for a trained, intelligent professional to believe deep down he's really explaining something to a bunch of laypeople by using "b-splines" and "Q-matrices", so I call him "dishonest" simply by the fact that he's standing on the stage and using them nevertheless, and pretending that he's teaching them. If you're bothered by this use I'll find another word for it, but your own conclusion stands.

I'm not saying he is one or the other, I'm saying what determines honesty is whether he's lying about what he knows. Let's drop the analogy and stick to the original case. Do you think Kaku is lying about what he knows? Do you think he's making statements that he knows are not true? Do you think he's making things up without concern for the truth? Or do you think that he's lying about his ability to convey what he knows in ways that are appropriate to the intended audience? The idea that a scientist could ramble on over the top of the heads of his audience is grounded in reality. To attack a scientist as dishonest based on that is not. I think there is a huge rhetorical difference between attacking someone for dishonesty and attacking them for their inability to convey what they know in a manner that is readily accessible to a mass audience.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
Gamow? Do you mean George Gamow? Which book in particular?

The one I linked to in my previous post, 1-2-3 infinity.

From 1947? As I wrote above, I think it's important to remember that television is biased towards the new. Book publishers too for that matter. As this guy writes, "Sadly, they don't make them like that any more." - "Gamow sets an impossible standard: delving seriously into cutting-edge ideas while respecting the reader's intelligence and keeping it entertaining." -- Pointing to Gamow reminds me of old people complaining about Elvis Presley and pining for the days of Glenn Miller, or today's old people complaining about Kanye West and pining for the Beatles.

Quote:
I wouldn't use the word content, but I would have taken your critique more seriously rather then seeing it as a rant

You do know it's filed under "rants"?

Quote:
Yes, well at least you stipulated that Kaku was speculating about "what might our reality mean". I think it's important to remember that television is biased towards the new. Book publishers too for that matter.

That still doesn't excuse any part of it. When presenting new, unverified material, caution and skepticism should be practiced. They're not, by any party, be it scientists or media.

Quote:
So you find his style of presentation condescending? What about his style of presentation suggests a "patronizingly superior manner" of dealing with his audience?

His "name-dropping", as described in my previous post.

Quote:
It seems to me that you don't know that he's a horrible teacher, you just feel it.

It suffices to read one of his books to know it (I've read two). The rant-ical nature of my post may have made it seem as though I just feel it.

Quote:Let's drop the analogy and stick to the original case. Do you think Kaku is lying about what he knows? Do you think he's making statements that he knows are not true? Do you think he's making things up without concern for the truth?

If you want to play the word game, dishonest stands for 'not honest or fair'. When you stack up a layperson interested in physics against speculations (without pointing them out or explaining how outrageous they may be), technical jargon and weak analogies, little proof and no critical thinking, yes, you are being dishonest. You are not giving him a full or balanced picture, and you are presenting him with concepts that are way beyond his or her level of understanding. You're unfairly misusing that person's trust in your authority to pass on information that would've met with opposition had you been faced with an educated physicist. That's dishonesty.

I understand your semantic nit-pickings, since wording is important, but if you feel I've misused a word, why don't you suggest an alternative, assuming you understand what I'm trying to convey?

Quote:Pointing to Gamow reminds me of old people complaining about Elvis Presley and pining for the days of Glenn Miller, or today's old people complaining about Kanye West and pining for the Beatles.

Is that a personal insult - trying to call me old (or fixated)?

Do you think that grants your point any validity, instead of just arguing the point itself? You've asked for an example, I gave you one that's well established as a classic of popular science, to avoid debating it.

For someone who's so keen on not judging a book by its cover and on insisting my criticism of Kaku's books isn't supported because of my lack of quotes from it, you seem to be trigger-happy when it comes to trashing Gamow's book without referencing its content, simply because it's old. On an aside: you insist we should judge books according to the time they were written - well, do it! The title, "1-2-3 Infinity: Facts and Speculations ... ", should give you an idea of how balanced and cautious Gamow is.

Yes, popular physics HAS been taking a shift for the worse in recent decades, from active to passive, from the everyday to the magnificent, from concrete to mystical. Physicists used to build radios when they were kids, learning first-hand about electricity and electronics; now they are fed facts and speculations by books and authorities - authorities such as Michiu Kaku, which take a worrying amount of liberty with what they pass on as science, and with the way they pass it on, to their untrained readers. Physics has become more mathematical and abstract, with techniques far removed from everyday knowledge (connections on manifolds, topological algebra and whatnot) - this should prompt its communicators to exercise even more caution. Instead, my observations are the complete opposite. The weirder science becomes (which is ok), the weirder popular science becomes (which isn't).

However, popular science gems are to be found regardless of year (there was a lot of crap back in the 50s as well). For example, Singh's book is great (hated his Fermat book). Sagan's book from 1985 is pretty good. here's one of the worst books out there. Feynman is the most honest guy out there, read his high-level book for laypeople to get a grasp of how to talk about big things without being condescending. Here's one of the finest popular math books I've ever read. Another great pop science book. A beautiful popular astronomy book, great for adults too. Another good (but not great) book. I'm not really keen on astrophysics and string-theory popular (or professional) science books, but this one is pretty good.

Quote:Original post by Dmytry

Quote:Original post by LessBread
Dymtry, that's bunk. I trashed his rant against Kaku ten pages back. Only one complaint came from something Kaku wrote, the other 40 or so attacks were completely spurious.

If you ask me, I trashed your rant about his rant against Kaku. Opinions differ [grin]

But you did no such thing.

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
Lets say, Kaku's media presence and books are of quite consistent quality. Or you disagree and want to say his books are great and his media presence is bullshit?

From what I've seen they have a consistent quality.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
I wouldn't use the word content, but I would have taken your critique more seriously rather then seeing it as a rant

You do know it's filed under "rants"?

Yes.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
Yes, well at least you stipulated that Kaku was speculating about "what might our reality mean". I think it's important to remember that television is biased towards the new. Book publishers too for that matter.

That still doesn't excuse any part of it. When presenting new, unverified material, caution and skepticism should be practiced. They're not, by any party, be it scientists or media.

Media executives aren't going to let such concerns interfere with their ability to profit from entertainment based commerce.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
So you find his style of presentation condescending? What about his style of presentation suggests a "patronizingly superior manner" of dealing with his audience?

His "name-dropping", as described in my previous post.

You provided no examples of Kaku name dropping. You described a fictitious scenario about a guy explaining game programming to school children. You're making a classic straw man argument. If you think the snippet cited in your rant counts as an example, it might, but there's no telling from that information alone. There's no page numbers, no way to quickly check if that's all Kaku writes about compactification.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:
It seems to me that you don't know that he's a horrible teacher, you just feel it.

It suffices to read one of his books to know it (I've read two). The rant-ical nature of my post may have made it seem as though I just feel it.

Yes, well, the rant and your responses here convey how you feel about the matter, but the absence of specifics in your criticism continues to indicate that you don't know, or that you're prone to elevating what you feel to the level of what you know. You read two of his books therefore you know it. That assessment strikes me as subjective.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:Let's drop the analogy and stick to the original case. Do you think Kaku is lying about what he knows? Do you think he's making statements that he knows are not true? Do you think he's making things up without concern for the truth?

If you want to play the word game, dishonest stands for 'not honest or fair'. When you stack up a layperson interested in physics against speculations (without pointing them out or explaining how outrageous they may be), technical jargon and weak analogies, little proof and no critical thinking, yes, you are being dishonest. You are not giving him a full or balanced picture, and you are presenting him with concepts that are way beyond his or her level of understanding. You're unfairly misusing that person's trust in your authority to pass on information that would've met with opposition had you been faced with an educated physicist. That's dishonesty.

That's well put, but, unfairness constitutes a minor aspect of the meaning of the word dishonest. The major aspects pertain to fraud and deception. It's a convenient word to use to smear someone. To call someone dishonest solely for using jargon and weak analogies, is unfair to the person targeted, and thus is dishonest according to your usage.

How does the layperson come to be stacked up against the expert anyway? That phrasing suggests a conflict and frames the issue in a completely different light.

Where are the examples showing that Kaku does that, starting with the absent warnings that his explorations are speculation?

Quote:Original post by assaf
I understand your semantic nit-pickings, since wording is important, but if you feel I've misused a word, why don't you suggest an alternative, assuming you understand what I'm trying to convey?

I don't know what you're trying to convey exactly. I asked questions to clarify but instead of answering them you went off on a jab conflating unfairness with dishonesty. Perhaps you're angry with Kaku for a perceived abuse of trust.

Quote:Original post by assaf

Quote:Pointing to Gamow reminds me of old people complaining about Elvis Presley and pining for the days of Glenn Miller, or today's old people complaining about Kanye West and pining for the Beatles.

Is that a personal insult - trying to call me old (or fixated)?

It wasn't meant as an insult, merely a subjective observation.

Quote:Original post by assaf
Do you think that grants your point any validity, instead of just arguing the point itself? You've asked for an example, I gave you one that's well established as a classic of popular science, to avoid debating it.

I argued the point in the parts you've excised. "They don't make them like that anymore" isn't sufficient reason to stop making them, imo.

Quote:Original post by assaf
For someone who's so keen on not judging a book by its cover and on insisting my criticism of Kaku's books isn't supported because of my lack of quotes from it, you seem to be trigger-happy when it comes to trashing Gamow's book without referencing its content, simply because it's old. On an aside: you insist we should judge books according to the time they were written - well, do it! The title, "1-2-3 Infinity: Facts and Speculations ... ", should give you an idea of how balanced and cautious Gamow is.

I haven't trashed Gamow's book at all. Pointing out the original date of publication and noting that television and the book industry are biased towards the new does not constitute trashing, let alone, a trigger happiness for trashing. Furthermore, I cited a physicist who offered the highest praises for the book. Clearly you're easily excitable and prone to exaggeration.

Quote:Original post by assaf
Yes, popular physics HAS been taking a shift for the worse in recent decades, from active to passive, from the everyday to the magnificent, from concrete to mystical. Physicists used to build radios when they were kids, learning first-hand about electricity and electronics; now they are fed facts and speculations by books and authorities - authorities such as Michiu Kaku, which take a worrying amount of liberty with what they pass on as science, and with the way they pass it on, to their untrained readers. Physics has become more mathematical and abstract, with techniques far removed from everyday knowledge (connections on manifolds, topological algebra and whatnot) - this should prompt its communicators to exercise even more caution. Instead, my observations are the complete opposite. The weirder science becomes (which is ok), the weirder popular science becomes (which isn't).

I think that reflects the media industry's bias towards the new. Kid physicists today build robots. [grin]

Quote:Original post by assaf
However, popular science gems are to be found regardless of year (there was a lot of crap back in the 50s as well). For example, Singh's book is great (hated his Fermat book). Sagan's book from 1985 is pretty good. here's one of the worst books out there. Feynman is the most honest guy out there, read his high-level book for laypeople to get a grasp of how to talk about big things without being condescending. Here's one of the finest popular math books I've ever read. Another great pop science book. A beautiful popular astronomy book, great for adults too. Another good (but not great) book. I'm not really keen on astrophysics and string-theory popular (or professional) science books, but this one is pretty good.

Thanks for the list.