RE: Kudo's to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku
April 13, 2015 at 12:07 pm
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2015 at 12:13 pm by Alex K.)
(April 13, 2015 at 11:54 am)Faith No More Wrote:(April 13, 2015 at 11:13 am)Alex K Wrote: Somehow, in the public domain, one usually only gets to see the most weirdly abstract ones, such as pure string theory people (Kaku, Greene) or quantum gravity (Hawking). That can skew the perception. Stellar evolution is, paradoxically, pretty down to earth in comparison.
Interesting. I've never actually seen Brain Greene, just read one of his books. Is he into woo like Kaku?
No, he's waaay better, and actually very reasonable for a String Theorist
He's just more prone to coming across as somewhat "out there" due to his typical topics such as quantum uncertainty and extra dimensions etc. Generally, I would make the bold claim that many pure string theorists are often not doing science in the strictest sense in their work, because they barely ever leave the hypothetical, and I think it shows (I've written papers with "string theory" in the title, so I can't really excuse myself entirely
. Working on the theoretical consistency of a model is not the same as dealing with testing of hypotheses and comparing to all kinds of experimental results to exclude models)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
