For years now, I've been finding Kaku's writing style (and speaking engagements) really sub par. Too, bad... because he had the potential to say and write so much more interestingly, I thought. His stuff is ... borderline ... condescending?
Kaku is certainly a far smarter person than I am, so I don't say this as someone who thinks he knows better.
But he's also made a career of talking about whatever random interesting/popular/flavor of the month topic there is in science, and over the years, and as someone who has a hobbyist level understanding of many of those subjects, it has seemed to me that he has a tendency for taking whatever the more "interesting" stance is on any particular subject, as long as it's even remotely defensible based on the body of evidence. Couple that with finding the same sort of condescending attitude you mention, and I've gone out of my way to listen to/read material from other sources.
A good example is the recent stuff over the JWST, age of the universe, larger galaxies than we expected, etc. For those that haven't kept up, basically, the JWST has been looking at some very old galaxies - some of the oldest we've been able to view. And we have a lot of computer models about how big galaxies should be early on in the universe, with these galaxies falling outside of what those models predicted. This has lead to a lot of sensationalist news about this imagery from the JWST disproving the big bang, and Kaku has joined in on this. But when you dig deeper, you find out that the disparity isn't huge... and even more damning to that narrative is that our more modern models done with significantly more compute power and able to have significantly more precision have shown these galaxies to be within the expected range. It's basically only a story if you ignore the past 6-7 years of work in this area.
I think it's a perfectly rational way for him to approach things - it's his interview appearances, books, etc. paying his bills, so I don't think he's wrong for doing this - just not my cup of tea.
I went through a phase where I (as a layman) consumed a lot of quantum physics YouTube content. My favorite people to listen to were Brian Greene, Roger Penrose and Leonard Susskind. If there is a video of one of them speaking for more than an hour, I've probably watched it. I also watched some videos with Michio Kaku, including one where he was on a panel with Penrose, and I got major "huckster" vibes from him. It felt like he was trying to sell me something. Maybe that's an unfair interpretation. But it seemed really obvious, especially when contrasted with the others.
I have a PhD in particle physics (and work in the field). So more than a layman's familiarity with quantum mechanics/field theory. I have no idea who this guy is; I know the name and for some reason I know he looks like a white-haired composer (I guess that's a publicist doing their job well) but other than that I literally have no clue. Is he a professor somewhere?
Similarly, I know the name Brian Greene; my grandma bought me one of his books when I was in highschool, which I never read.
On the other hand, I know very well who Penrose and Susskind are, familiar with their research, have met them both at normal academic events. So, n=1 but take what you will from that information...
CCNY, though I'm not sure how much he does for them these days.
My (very casual, could very possibly be wrong) understanding is that he did most of his significant research and paper writing in the 70s and 80s, with some in the 90s, before transitioning to mostly doing popular science writing and TV/Podcast/Youtube appearances in the 2000s through today.
Spot on, that's been my take on Kaku for the last fifteen years. The problem is, my local library keeps buying his books, to the exclusion of much better stuff. Einstein, Kaku, Feynman, Einstein, Kaku, Feynman....
I've found in academia in general, when someone is condescending they are also often provably but stubbornly incorrect. I suspect this is more than correlation, since a degree of humility is needed to learn deeply about particularly hard areas.
This is often correct here on HN, with the complication that some here think many complex areas are banal (e.g. architecture, social sciences etc) therefore no humility is needed at all.
Kaku's last book I've read and enjoyed was The Future of the Mind. However for the last ~5-7 years he often assumed what I call a toxic position in science: anything that's not canonical or "peer-approved" must be wrong, sometimes without even going into the disproving attempts. Then comes the unnecessary and really disgusting alarming when it comes to climate & AI. I respect him as a scientist, especially from a historic POV, but he dabbled to much into politics and popsci, and I for one was one of those people who looked at Kaku especially because he was not part of the cringy, popsci group.
Any recommendations on what is good to read in science, math, etc books meant for a general audience. For example, Song of the Cell was recently mentioned to me:
I'm a big fan of Carlo Rovelli's books. I don't know if loop quantum gravity is true, but if it is he provides very entertaining and understandable explanations of the ramifications if it does end up being correct. It will have interesting implications for time and human existence, and he isn't afraid to tackle the philosophical portions of it without getting preachy. The Order of Time is my favorite from him.
I second this. Helgoland was incredible. More physicists need to be taking relational quantum mechanics seriously. Not so much because it's true—whatever that would mean—but because so many physicists struggle with the intuition and find the interpretation so unsatisfying. Deep down, physicists are metaphysicians at heart, and they need to be shaken to their core if they find something like the many-words interpretation compelling.
Song of the cell is quite good, as are his other books. The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs is an excellent intro to paleontology. The Story of Earth is an excellent introduction to Geology.
