12 votes

Michio Kaku, famed Theoretical Physicist, All Theory, No Physics: How DARE You question the Official 9/11 FairyTale!

In a recent Russia Today interview, Dr. Michio Kaku, a brilliant theoretical physicist/super-string theory advocate, a surviving progeny of FDR's utterly anti-American, Japanese-American concentration camps, US Army Veteran, a once ardent critic of nuclear proliferation and arming/militarization of Space via space-based weapons programs (here, here, here, here), a man whom I have personally always respected for his obvious intellect, purported public sense of justice, and ability to communicate complex ideas to the 'average Joe' and popularize science, in the same vein as the late Carl Sagan, has now revealed himself to be an utterly irrational statist and a wholly card carrying member of the "It's For the Greater Good!"-club, the 'So what? "Democracy" is a "messy" process! Tough scheisse: murders and wars happen on the way to pure democratic utopia; it's still better than any other empires, like ever!!!'-apologist club, emotive-defender of the status quo military industrial complex and the political machine and mob-ruled-'democracy'; his absurd feigned indignation and invocation of the 'I had family members who suffered/perished in that tragedy, which TRUMPS ALL your legitimate questions!!!'-card, is utterly disappointing, to say the least, for me anyway:

Michio Kaku: What Hiroshima & Iraq war have in common

http://youtu.be/jCPKlkHMLIs
RussiaToday
Published on Jul 19, 2013

The technological revolution of the 20th century has brought the world unprecedented prosperity as well as unimaginable horrors. Will science liberate humanity or shackle it like never before? To hash out these issues, Oksana is joined by Dr Michio Kaku, a world-renowned theoretical physicist and author.

MORE VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/WorldsApartRT/videos

FOLLOW Oksana Boyko on Twitter: http://twitter.com/OksanaBoyko_RT

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT: http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday/videos

Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RTnews

Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

Truly sad. Guess "Another One bites the Dust," from my 'Good Guys'-list.(

*** Apparently to Kaku, all 'laws of physics' were suspended for one day, and lower Manhattan, NYC was purely operating on non-cosmic theories, on that awful fateful day: sure, things fall at/near free-fall speed in a non-vacuum with every downward travel accumulating MORE debris, which would slow the rate of fall. But what the hell, he went to Harvard and Berkeley, what the hell do the rest of us mere 'peons' know??

I say this all the time, but truly, the MOST dangerous individuals in the world are sociopathic nerds, who care not about the consequences of them literally building and designing the tools of their own oppression and enslavement, on behalf of their Stockholm Syndrome-dousing tyrant lunchmoney bully overlords.

Rhetorical, but still: all that intellect, and not a lick of common sense. Why does this pattern repeat over and over again in "high IQ-ed" individuals??

Oy veh.

P.S. Don't y'all wish Ms. Oksana Boyko were here in America to confront 'our' political trash-class whoredom with the same vim and vigor?

Better yet, y'all think she'd question Putin with similar passion on his crackdown of opposition protestors?

LOL.

Well...so far, at least, Ol' Stasi sex-Spy Maestro and the alleged architect of the American DHS (hard to verify, though not hard to believe, considering how they act) Markus Wolf's pupil (hey, actual socialists and Russo Commies themselves don't deny this) KGB-Vlad hasn't started drone-murders and illegal wars...yet.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

years ago, I watched Kaku in an interview, discussing

the nature of DoD project funding.

I had an 'aha!'-moment that rang true about the nature of govt funding, period.

He stated that during the go-go (my term, not his) Cold War years,
DARPA/DoD-grant 'scientists' only had to 'prove' to a colonel or a general in charge of a said project about INFLATED 'dangers' the said project and/or weapons systems would solve, 'scare' him enough for the said Col. or Gen. to feel like he's doing something patriotic, look like a hero to the 'preventative war effort' then tell the respective congressmen/women or senators that project x, y, z would provide his district and the state with jobs, it's was all party and easy 'money.'

The Cold War is a war that never went hot, so frankly the weapons systems or whatever large-funding project, didn't even have to work!

For example, the precursor to the CERN Large Hadron collider, which was once designed to be "THE largest particle collider in the world!" the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas.

Now, it's literally just a ring of empty tunnel bored out underneath Texas, which got shelved, in a rare congressional act of penny saving...after blowing $12BILLION+ for a project, in their typical "cost-plus" fed contracts, which was originally sold as a $4.4BILLION (pre-inflation).

Funny thing is, I distinctly remember Kaku reciting the fateful answer that most likely shelved the project for good: when a congressman asked whether the TX part.collider would find/prove the existence of God, the replying scientist in their typical academic talk, gave a long meandering answer.

But it's what Kaku said that intrigued me: he said that had that scientist instead simply answered "Yes!" or "very likely!" more than likely, the public would be hearing about SCSC instead of CERN.

Basically, a 'scientist' recommended that for the sake of public funding, he should've flat out lied, or at least a 'white lie.'

But to me, more than that, it exposed HOW there were so many endlessly ridiculously large taxpayer wealth wasting projects got to be greenlit, during the Cold War, and well, of course, now: the 'scientists' NEVER had to appeal, nor 'prove their case' to the public.

During politically induced/labeled/manufactured perpetual 'crisis' period, ie the Cold War, all you have to do is use a keyword to get funding: just as "Terrorism!" is the only thing they need to say now to get funding, the term "Red Terror" or "Commie Threat" were its equivalent counterpart alchemical 'give me money' PR-excuse term, then.

Basically, the 'scientists" never really had to practice talking to 'peons' who were outside of their typical social circles, which includes colonels and generals heading projects.

As in, they pulled the Saddam Hussein-card.

Anglo-American Empire Hegemon always love dictators, because you don't have to go through a committee to get the best deal on oil and other natural resources from the said vassal state.

With 'democratic' voices, the approval for funding becomes less efficient.

So basically what Kaku said, in not so many words, was that throughout the entire Cold War's military and 'science' projects funding-era, all DoD/DARPA contracted head project manager/scientists LIED for a living.

Whoa, like I'm shocked! Shocked! I tell ya.

Ya, nothing new. But, like Snowden, it was a confirmation from a man who came out of the national security state infrastructure proving and/or admitting on record, what those of us who are curious about the world, have always known.

Regardless, point being, it wasn't by accident that you saw resurgence of prominent govt agency or govt funded scientists hitting the airwaves during the 1990's the 'official Cold War drawdown years' promoting various projects: it was a simple PR campaign for funding.

So what else is new. LOL...er.. .o(

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

very well put

and thanks for the entire post

Most posts here regard the science of politics, but I relish even more the posts here regarding the politics of science.

Thanks, but I'm gonna 'steal' your phrase! .oD

me likes: "politics of science"

.)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Excellent post AnCapMercenary!

I find it amazing that Kaku has comes to his political point of view.

However, the interviewer did an Incredible job in my opinion of calling out inconsistencies in his arguments. I have to wonder if he is being totally truthful in his questioning about 911.

Also he believes that dropping the bomb in 1944 was good, though he wouldn't have personally done so.

I haven't followed up with the the supporting links in your post yet, but thanks for providing them.

Thanks again!

thanks.

yup:

Also he believes that dropping the bomb in 1944 was good, though he wouldn't have personally done so.

pretty telling, eh?

It's the whole 'As long as someone 'I delegated' the role in govt murders on 'our' behalf, for the greater good? The evil action obviously becomes excusable!'-thingy.

Lawd have mercy: and Kaku's 'own people'/extended family members died in it!

yup, Oksana, working for Putin's RT aside, wouldn't you love to see her caliber of questions versus EVERY single public figure, done by those whom disgustingly call themselves "journalists," in America?

guess for now, if you want dirt on Russian tyranny, you watch the Western press, and if you want dirt on the hijacked corporatist govt that has become of 'our' beloved Republic, you turn to the rest of the world & their press!

LOL!!! - er... .o(

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Who was behind 911 ?

Yes that is the question that needs to be answered Mr. Elitist "Mumbo Jumbo" Kaku.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

We were warned

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Haven't watched the interview

Just wanted to say that there is no evidence that superstring theory is a useful model of reality. It's pure speculation.

All this talk of 10 dimensions and so on sounds a lot like epicycles on a smaller scale to me.

that's why it's a "Theory," as in: an (un)proven Hypothesis.

I agree with you; on a personal note, I'm not quite convinced either, be it Brian Greene or Kaku.

"It's pure speculation."

Frankly, that goes for most everything we 'know': they're all currently operative 'proven' hypotheses...until the next post-dead physicist comes up with another universal operative paradigm, then the cycle starts over and over.

so what else is new? lol.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Actually, "theory" does not

Actually, "theory" does not mean an unproven hypothesis. That is not how scientists use the word. A theory is simply a collection of ideas that explain how various observations relate to one another, and its status may range from wildly speculative to established fact, or at least as established as anything can be in science. Thus we have the Theory of General Relativity, so well established that your GPS unit relies upon its calculations. And we have the even more solidly established Theory of Classical Electrodynamics, given by Maxwell's equations along with the Lorentz force. This theory has been used by engineers for over a century to make everything from power plants to, again, GPS units. We have Group Theory, a collection of mathematical definitions and theorems that are as solidly established as anything human devised can be.

When people say that evolution is "just a theory" I am willing to concede that that is so... its just a theory in the same sense that classical electrodynamics is just a theory. In other words, good enough to be regarded as a fact.

Now string theory is in fact highly speculative. It has successfully explained some conundrums about information loss in black holes but hasn't yet produced predictions that can be tested by experiment.

actually I beg to differ:

I specifically put parentheses to denote that often an operative 'theory' is just an unproven but merely accepted consensus, and not necessarily even a "proven hypothesis," but merely an un-proven one (sometimes referred to as a "provisional hypothesis").

So no, apropos of diction clarity: the scientific definition of a "theory" IS a "proven hypothesis."

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

"Scientific Theory vs. Scientific Hypothesis"

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[1] A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[2]

Here's a more simplified definition explanation for "Scientific THEORY":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

I think you're trying to define a term with its accepted implications of consensus, not a diction definition.

A theory is simply a collection of ideas that explain how various observations relate to one another, and its status may range from wildly speculative to established fact, or at least as established as anything can be in science.

Actually, what you stated here: "A theory is simply a collection of ideas that explain how various observations relate to one another" CAN be an acceptable 'scientific' definition for the term "hypothesis," but NOT "theory."

To wit: Key sentence

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

"Theory" is proven "hypothesis" AFTER it has been confirmed via rigorous "Scientific Method";

To understand something previously 'unknown' or not understood well:

1. observe
2. formulate a hypothesis
3. test/experiment to confirm or disprove the said hypothesis
4. once confirmed and the results can be repeated, then the structural principle in which those results were able to be tested/confirmed/repeated becomes a temporary, operative theory (a proven hypothesis)

I say "temporary," because the next physicist who comes along, after the last Nobel laureate dies off, comes up with a new "theory" about the basis of the universe...one that has long existed long before us, one which we have NO definitive manner of proving how it came to be in the first place, with operative paradigms and 'rules' that we MAYBE able to observe in one manner or another, but ones we do not know for 100% WHY they are the way they are. Thus the cycle of constant 'discovery,' readjusting definitions, fix, ditch, hypothesize, theorize, lull, recycle, happens over and over by an inherently subjective bio-organism, pretending, at 'our' very best to be as 'objective' as possible.

It's a tall imperfect order, I tell ya!

lol.)

So yes, to make a long blurb short: in fact, I'd submit that, that IS how "scientists" do use that term, because they actually DO use it in that manner, with clear distinction between the two terms.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I am talking about the way

I am talking about the way scientists actually use the word theory, not some wikipedia definition. Scientists do in fact talk about the Theory of General Relativity, which is very well established. They do in fact talk about the Theory of Classical Electrodynamics, and Group Theory, and the Theory of Evolution, all of which are very well established and true for all practical purposes. I see no evidence that scientists have renamed Einstein's theory the General Hypothesis of Relativity just because the theory has been well confirmed by experiment.

That's nice, and while your need to correct me is commendable

I'm afraid, I'm simply going to be repeating what I said earlier, because word-definitions don't depend on one's assertions.

And, I see no sourced material other than your assertions, even though these 'concepts' are so rudimentary like calling water, water, and boat, a boat, that one would not need to necessarily source them.

That said, the wiki reference is a short hand for items that SHOULD already be commonly understood. And, just because a wiki entry says The Republic is attributed to Plato, does not make it wrong.

Want to dispute me? That's great, too. Then, dispute the footnoted source in the wiki entry.

My last reply and quoted entry is not just some flippant opinion. Please check the footnote, verify for yourself.

Setting aside for the fact that modern educational institutions are woefully political, there are still a few common denominators in any given field that are not much in dispute, kinda like apple and oranges.

I would highly challenge you to repeat the same assertions that you made to me about the 'fact' that a "scientific theory" is NOT a proven "scientific HYPOTHESIS," to ANY science major, and add that you are a physics major, they'll wonder WTF you're doing in their department.

No. Definitions for "scientific theory" as a proven "hypothesis" is NOT in dispute. Nor is the "scientific method" (as cited) utilized to prove it.

Yes, many wiki entries are crap, but pretty mainline items, least of all something unquestionably commonly understood definitions like "hypothesis" and "theory" and the "scientific method," are rarely in dispute.

You and me arguing over what scientific hypothesis vs. a scientific theory is you akin to telling me that sand particles = glass. Certainly, sand particles can be melted to become glass, but as described, they are not window panes, YET.

Thanks for making my point; to wit:

Scientists do in fact talk about the Theory of General Relativity, which is very well established. They do in fact talk about the Theory of Classical Electrodynamics, and Group Theory, and the Theory of Evolution, all of which are very well established and true for all practical purposes.

AGREED! What? You say? It's a theory, because it's well established. Precisely: it's NOT called HYPOTHESIS of Relativity. N'est pas?

When there is a 'field' "consensus" after proven, repeatable experiments, it becomes established. The very thing you "proved" is a hypothesis. When that proof becomes established, it IS called a "theory." NOT "hypothesis."

Again, you're proving my point:

I see no evidence that scientists have renamed Einstein's theory the General Hypothesis of Relativity just because the theory has been well confirmed by experiment.

That's because it's NOT called the "General LAW of Relativity" because repeatable EXPERIMENTS proved the HYPOTHESIS true.

If you're clear on definitions, what you WOULD have said is this:

I see no evidence that scientists have renamed Einstein's theory the General LAW of Relativity just because the THEORY has been well confirmed by the HYPOTHESIS.

When the HYPOTHESIS is proven true, it's THEN called a "theory."

But it's still NOT "law" like "law of thermodynamics." Because until further experiments could be done, post-space age, not ALL of Einstein's THEORIES could be further proved like the atomic clock on ground vs. in space. But because they were able to mathematically prove aspects of the initial HYPOTHESIS of Relativity, AFTER mathematically being able to prove it true, and repeat them, it BECAME a "THEORY."

Clar?

I don't know how many different ways I can explain to you that the proper scientific definition for a "theory," is a PROVEN "hypothesis."

Think of it this way:

1. I don't know phenomenon X
2. I want to observe and figure out what causes phenomenon X
3. I observed phenomenon X
4. I noticed some possible patterns while oberving phenomenon X
5. I want to test my HYPOTHESIS that those patterns (from this pt. I shall refer to as pattern-Z) drive phenomenon X
6. I devised experiments with known previous constant (because no basis for scientific knowledge pops out of a vacuum; it's a long continuation of accumulative knowledge base) as "control" and unknown variables as "experiment"
7. My experiments proved my HYPOTHESIS that pattern-Z DO drive phenomenon X!
8. I want to share my findings, and I want my peers to review and verify my findings by repeating the same tests
9. My peers agree! Not only was I correct in proving my HYPOTHESIS true, but my peers were able to repeat the same experiments under the same parameters and were able to REPEAT the same results!

10. Now My HYPOTHESIS that those pattern-Z DO drive phenomenon X is now an established reality.

11. I shall call my proven HYPOTHESIS that pattern-Z indeed does drive phenomenon X, as the "Conduit Theory."

That, is the scientific method, and the process of a Scientific HYPOTHESIS becoming a Scientific Theory, NOT a "scientific Law," in a nut shell.

I would challenge you to pose your definition to ANY physics major from community college to Harvard/MIT grad and see if you get a different answer than the one I gave you.

If you're gonna keep calling apples oranges, we're at an obvious impasse, and I see no point in devolving the conversation further.

Please, be clear on definitions, especially if you are going to assert that someone is wrong. I have ZERO problems with anyone correcting me, when they are actually right. In this case? Not so much.

But no bigs.

Cheers lad.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Wikipedia is not the final authority

Words don't depend on wikipedia's assertions either. It is odd how you find it to be the final arbiter of all disputes, when anybody can edit the thing. Here is the Merriam Webster definition of hypothesis:

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsis/
Noun

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Here is the definition of theory, from the same source:

the·o·ry
/ˈTHēərē/
Noun

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".

So you see wikipedia has it backwards. A hypothesis is the more tentative, speculative notion than a theory.

Wikipedia sometimes just gets things wrong. You can give me no examples where scientists refer to a well established body of knowledge as an hypothesis, whereas I can give many examples where they refer to a well established body of knowledge as a theory.

oh I thought you were talking about

"scientific" definitions.

seriously. Go ask one of your physics major buddies, then get back to me.

LOL

you're just digging yourself deeper.

seriously, time for you to move on my friend. I can offer you no more substance today.

If I were to proffer my rebuttal vs. yours to ANY physics major, whom would you think they'd point to, as being right?

Seriously, I'd challenge you to take your Webster's understanding of the definition of the terms, vs how they are ACTUALLY used in the scientific field, as I've explained in the last two replies, to ANYONE in those fields, see how they respond.

You DID say "in science" right? Right.

Let it be. You're wrong on this one. There's no shame in it. I'm moving on. This will be my last reply to you on this particular matter.

Like I said, no bigs.

PS. I NEVER said wiki is a "final authority" on anything. As I've stated before (please READ before replying) it's a short hand for commonly known items, and you want to dispute an entry? Dispute the footnoted source, as stated before.

PS2. the following makes me wonder whether you actually read my rebuttal or the Wiki entry AT ALL:

A hypothesis is the more tentative, speculative notion than a theory.

I AGREE, my WHOLE pt. IS that "hypothesis" is PRE-Theory. As in MORE "tentative than a theory" because, again, for the umteenth time, a "theory" is ONLY a theory, WHEN the HYPOTHESIS describing the theory is PROVEN true after repeated experiments.

Thus:

Something ONLY BECOMES a "scientific Theory," WHEN a given "scientific hypothesis" asserting it, AFTER repeatable experiments proving the said hypothesis is concluded to BE True; as such:

A "scientific Theory" is a PROVEN "scientific hypothesis"
A "scientific Theory" is a PROVEN "scientific hypothesis"
A "scientific Theory" is a PROVEN "scientific hypothesis"
A "scientific Theory" is a PROVEN "scientific hypothesis"
A "scientific Theory" is a PROVEN "scientific hypothesis"

Apparently, you're also averse to length of the verbosity, as well as definitions!!!

LOL!

No matter.

Yes, I'm long winded.

But, for crying out loud, please, for your sake, READ the actual content of the reply, comprehend its point before replying?

Thanks.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

My brother is a physicist.

My brother is a physicist. He agrees with me. So wikipedia has a "scientific" definition but Merriam Webster does not. How odd.

"A theory is a PROVEN scientific hypothesis"

(Repeated 5 times, as if that made the statement more true.)

Actually, a theory may or may not be a proven hypothesis. A theory can be highly speculative and unproven, as is the case currently with string theory. But it can also be for all practical purposes proven.

And note how in a few posts you turned your own position completely around. You started out by saying that a theory is an unproven hypothesis. Now you are saying that it is a proven hypothesis.

No Dude, Seriously? That's nice, Then, you're BOTH wrong! LOL!

And, you can tell him I said so (for whatever that's worth. lol)!

No: "a theory may or may not be a proven hypothesis."

If a hypothesis CANNOT be proven, it's NOT a "theory" in the "scientific method"

Now, after this reply, I will be officially done answering. This truly will be my final reply on this specific matter, to you. As, if this reply doesn't work, it's utterly clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt that we're BOTH simply gonna go back and forth repeating the same things.

Sadly, yet you and I both agree that a "scientific hypothesis" is more tentative than a "scientific theory." Which I had hopes that would naturally point you in the right direction, alas...

Well, allow me to repeat it 5 more times:

A "scientific THEORY" is a PROVEN "scientific HYPOTHESIS"!
A "scientific THEORY" is a PROVEN "scientific HYPOTHESIS"!
A "scientific THEORY" is a PROVEN "scientific HYPOTHESIS"!
A "scientific THEORY" is a PROVEN "scientific HYPOTHESIS"!
A "scientific THEORY" is a PROVEN "scientific HYPOTHESIS"!

Because it's true, whether I say it once, five times, or a gazillion times:

Scientific HYPOTHESIS: As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory.

Scientific THEORY: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

[...]

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

And WHAT are you "testing" in the above description? A hypothesis, or multiple hypotheses.

What is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation, as to the cause of a particular phenomenon. It is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. A hypothesis is the inkling of an idea that can become a theory, which is the next step in the scientific method.

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation.

A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated. A hypothesis, which is often in the form of an if/then statement, is often examined by multiple scientists to ensure the integrity and veracity of the experiment. This process can take years, and in many cases hypotheses do not become theories as it is difficult to gather sufficient supporting evidence.

Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. For example, relativity has been tested many times so it is generally accepted as true, but there could be an instance, which has not been encountered, where it is not true.

Most formal hypotheses consist of concepts that can be connected and their relationships tested. A group of hypotheses comes together to form a conceptual framework. As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory.

What is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
scientific theory

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

As I stated before, you may be confusing the more clearer, higher threshold distinction between "scientific law" vs. "scientific theory." I 'get' it: the definition difference between what a "hypothesis" is vs. a "theory" in the scientific context is more subtle:

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

Sure, one may say: 'that's just a science site contributor!'

Well, what about an actual PhD, then?

Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.: One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms. (As you are clearly exhibiting to me, here, today)

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

How about that? Two separate people saying the same thing, as me, NOT you or your brother.

Pffst. But who the heck are they? Say...compared to UC Berkeley Science department??

Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a narrow set of phenomena. They are not guesses.

Theories are powerful explanations for a wide range of phenomena. Accepted theories are not tenuous.

[...]

"JUST" A THEORY?

Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.

Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.

Do you note a pattern? Do you see why each SCIENCE site repeatedly tries to clarify the difference between a Webster's dictionary definition vs. an ACTUAL scientific one??

Bob, you're still wrong on definitions.

I can find more sites, and more 'reputable' sources for your discretion, other than the 'lowly' poo-poo WiKi

And still, I can 100% guarantee, ANY not-your-brother physicist and/or physics professor of any credibility will fail you in Physics 101, if you were to give him the same repeated answers that you've given me.

This literally is so rudimentary, the fact that you're stretching this out, is utterly bewildering to me.

Be that as it may, no bigs. I'm moving on, but I truly hope you search the definitions a bit further, for future reference, when actually debating other, more informed individuals, even than myself.

PS. Apparently, you're proving to me, AGAIN, that you do not read everything, fully, nor comprehend things, fully, before replying:

And note how in a few posts you turned your own position completely around. You started out by saying that a theory is an unproven hypothesis. Now you are saying that it is a proven hypothesis.

Did you NOT read this whole spiel? http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3151562

Actually I beg to differ:
Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 14:54. Permalink

I specifically put parentheses to denote that often an operative 'theory' is just an unproven but merely accepted consensus, and not necessarily even a "proven hypothesis," but merely an un-proven one (sometimes referred to as a "provisional hypothesis").

That, was in reference to the previous reply with the heading:

that's why it's a "Theory," as in: an (un)proven Hypothesis.

That, was just a shorthand way of saying that yes, under the current, often corporatist/state-funded highly politically charged field of science, even what they call a theory, sometimes aren't even fully proven hypotheses, as is in the case of Super String Theory.

Kinda like how I usually type "(p)Resident" instead or "President" and "(s)elected" instead of "elected."

Clar?

I mean, you DO know that when a prefix is parenthesized it's sorta like a 'silent consonant' as more emphasis is still brought to the root word, as the parenthesized term often denotes sarcasm, in the internet age? Right? You do 'get' that, right?

I truly wonder now, if we even speak the same language, from the same century...

That, is WHY I put "(un)proven." Though, by scientific definition, the hypothesis SHOULD ALWAYS have to be PROVEN TRUE, before it could ever be called a "scientific THEORY."

It's the equivalent of modern 'definition' of "liberalism" vs. classical liberalism, aka, what is now more broadly known and accepted as libertarianism: there is a clear definition to describe something, yet, politically it's been bastardized so much so, that the commonly misunderstood definition has in fact, de facto become the 'definition' to the misinformed masses, as also is in the case of "hypothesis" vs. "theory," as again, you're clearly proving ALL my points, FOR me, again, and again.

But even regardless of all of the above, and your snide suggestion that I'm flip-floping, more to the point: your initial reply to me and your point of contention was, in your assertion, that:

Actually, "theory" does not
Submitted by BobW on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 13:01. Permalink

Actually, "theory" does not mean an unproven hypothesis. That is not how scientists use the word.

And I've ALWAYS maintained that NO, you, BobW, are WRONG: a "scientific THEORY" is a PROVEN "scientific HYPOTHESIS."

That, is 100% exact opposite of your claims. And, that, has ALWAYS been my consistent assertion: read all of my replies again, if you're so eager to prove me wrong.

So whom, would you honestly say, has been more consistent throughout this back & forth??

Apparently, you can't define a thing, a thing, yet, I'm the one who's flip-floping?

Seriously, that's pretty low: just because you can't understand something, does not mean the other person has changed his mind. Guess you win no brownie pts. today, eh? C'est la vie.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Why am I bothering to debate

Why am I bothering to debate a fool? I said that a theory may not be proven. That doesn't mean that it can't be proven. That merely means that there are speculative theories that haven't yet been proven. In physics, string theory is probably the best example. There are many mathematical theorems that have been proven within string theory, so it is not a vacuous body of work. But no one has yet shown that it conforms to real physics. There is no new prediction made by string theory that has been confirmed experimentally. And I note that as a practical matter, even though it has not yet been confirmed experimentally, people in the field call it "String Theory" not "String Hypothesis".

Obviously if repeated attempts to prove a hypothesis fail people reject it and move on. Your point is?

And finally, when a hypothesis has been adequately confirmed by experiment, it is inevitably called a theory. So while all hypotheses are speculative, not all theories are.

Aww that's cute, now we're venturing into pettiness.

And, here I thought we were 'connecting!'

LOL

Well, I did say I was done...until you devolved & dropped childish name-calling; I haven't called you a "fool"...yet, but guess it's as good time as any, seeing this 'debate' devolving into repetitive nonsense.

FOOL: I appreciate you revealing yourself. Keep digging.

But I 'get' it: She doth protests too much. You're simply admitting that you're the fool; when a fool runs out of options, what is he really left with, but name-calling?

Still, that doesn't erase the fact that you literally don't understand a rudimentary word definition that EVERYONE in the scientific field knows; when I've provided you with links from science sites and UC Berkeley science dept., yet all you got is a supposed physicist brother who's clueless of definitions, and assert to conflate that Webster's definition is on parity, when we're talking about "scientific" definitions, and...I'm the "fool"??

LOL

Cite me YOUR source that corroborates your position. I've given you more than enough links for you, or anyone observing to come to the same conclusion.

You haven't.

You know why?

'Cause no reputable scientist, nor any reputable science-site would agree with your utter cluelessness of simple word definitions.

Really? Oh, so, the following is what and why I've been refuting, this whole time??

I said that a theory may not be proven. That doesn't mean that it can't be proven.

No, seriously.

Really???

Huh. That's funny, because the following is what you ACTUALLY stated, that I've refuted, all along:

Actually, "theory" does not
Submitted by BobW on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 13:01. Permalink

Actually, "theory" does not mean an unproven hypothesis. That is not how scientists use the word.

THAT, is what I've been refuting. Not your new assertion.

Really, it's like do you even know what you've been arguing with me over these last few back & forth?

No wonder: the WHOLE pt. was over your erroneous understanding of rudimentary definitions, NOT whether you and I agree/disagree over veracity of theory X or whether it can or cannot be proven.

I've always asserted, with clear evidence, that the very definition of the term "scientific theory" is a proven "scientific hypothesis."

WHAT part of that refutes "a theory may not be proven" unless, you're confusing, rather conflating 'theory' = 'hypothesis'??

That statement alone tells anyone who actually knows what's involved in the scientific method, and hierarchy of proof, you are still utterly clueless on definitions.

For the umteenth time, it goes like this; the proper hierarchy of the scientific method is:

1. observe a phenomenon
2. formulate a hypothesis as to what maybe causing that phenomenon
3. test the said hypothesis
4. confirm or deny the hypothesis via experiments
5. peer review: they repeat the same experiments used to prove the hypothesis
6. when the experiment is peer reviewed, and concluded as repeatable, and operative, it now becomes a PROVEN hypothesis
7. which then BECOMES a "scientific theory"

DOES THAT COMPUTE?

Proven "scientific hypothesis" BECOMES a "scientific theory." Capice?

Now, I've never disputed you on this following point (actually READ my actual replies, not what you THINK I wrote, then rebut, okie dokie?), and yes, I agree:

In physics, string theory is probably the best example. There are many mathematical theorems that have been proven within string theory, so it is not a vacuous body of work. But no one has yet shown that it conforms to real physics. There is no new prediction made by string theory that has been confirmed experimentally.

You and I agree! What? You say may ask?

YES: not everything they call "theory," currently, IMHO should be even called a "theory," if you want to be a stickler for definitions.

And yes, I 'get' that BECAUSE you think 'theories' like the String Theory, while aspects of it were mathematically proven, but there really haven't been any physically repeatable experiments conducted with the equal level of satisfaction with...say something like Einstein's Gen. Relativity, that you actually think that makes it okay to almost conflate hypothesis and theory.

Not so.

You're describing a political reality (and the status quo reality of science IS, that it's mainly a grant-whoredom), NOT a scientific definitional reality, which is the only thing I've been refuting you on.

And, my consistent point has ALWAYS been, NO: if you are gonna debate over actual word definitions, just because you disagree with the veracity of currently 'popular' "theories" like the 'Super String/String Theory,' does NOT negate actual word definitional difference between the terms hypothesis and theory.

Double-Capice??

WHY, is that so difficult for you to fathom? Can you discern the difference?

Yes, a theory CAN be DIS-proven, later by a better more operative theory. But that's NEVER been what I've disputed, nor what you said. Do you even know HOW to read your own shiite?

I've never said that just because something IS called a "theory" does not mean it's a "law" set in stone.

I've ALWAYS stated that I too question the veracity of "String Theory" as NONE of it has been proven, yet to any previous level of veracity (like say... something like Gen.Rel.), as CLEARLY my exchange with "Canada" self-evidently exhibit:

Haven't watched the interview
Submitted by Canada on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 12:28. Permalink

Just wanted to say that there is no evidence that superstring theory is a useful model of reality. It's pure speculation.

All this talk of 10 dimensions and so on sounds a lot like epicycles on a smaller scale to me.

====================================================

that's why it's a "Theory," as in: an (un)proven Hypothesis.
Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 12:47. Permalink

I agree with you; on a personal note, I'm not quite convinced either, be it Brian Greene or Kaku.

So yes, technically, it SHOULD actually be still stuck in "hypothesis" phase; indeed, if they were being truly definitionally honest, they should STILL call it the "Super String Hypothesis."

But the pt. wasn't whether you or I agree with whether an X-theory 'works.'

Focus. Stick to the issue at hand; for the umteenth time: my contention with you was solely based on your misinformed understanding of word definitions, NOT the veracity of given theory x, y, z.

Can you fathom the difference?

1. You and I AGREE that not all theories, frankly should be called theories, because not all have met traditional rigor of scientific veracity of proof

2. Just because you disagree with the veracity of what you THINK a theory is, still does NOT negate fundamental word definitions.

I'm having deja vu, all over again: this reminds me of the same debate I had with someone last week over his understanding and concept of "rights." Whether contractually, voluntarily limiting its active use, changes the fundamental definition of the term "rights." As you might guess, my contention was/still is, NO.

I've been rather patient with you, because it's plainly obvious to anyone in the field it's self-evident how misinformed you are, at least on the definition of the terms. Up until now, anyone with functional neurons reading can gauge that my only point is that you get more informed, and hopefully find out on your own. And, now you've devolved into a typical YouTube commentor.

Alas, indeed, WHY do I 'debate' a fool, whom willfully refuses to read, or have the courtesy of comprehending something before replying, and is self-evidently utterly misinformed on the topic of discussion at hand, yet feels the need to assert unfounded declarative sentences and his need to correct others, while concurrently repeatedly embarrassing himself with ineffective self-rationale??

Seriously, why? Is this what DP's become of late?

Could say more, but really what's the point?

Regardless, I actually want you to try to prove me wrong, on your own: I don't have to know, if you don't want people knowing that you're wrong.

So, at your leisure (if so inclined): I would like to challenge you to take your definitional understanding of what you've been asserting as what YOU 'think' the actual definition for what the scientific definition for the term "theory" is, that it is NOT a proven hypothesis, vs. my informed assertion that 'the proper definition of what a scientific theory is, in fact a proven scientific hypothesis,' to at least 5 nearby universities' physics departments, see how they answer.

Learn something. Okie dokie?

Adios.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

ecorob's picture

He will fade fast into the sunset now.

In the future, this will always be his Achilles Heel.

Poor summation of a thoughtful life.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

i couldn't even watch the whole thing.

It is heart breaking indeed to see some one like Prof Kaku speak like this.....

He's always been a "one" world guy. He wants to see this come to fruition in his life time so he is turning the blinders on to all the wars.....pathetic.

yup,

personally, as someone who used to respect his educational advocacy/'popularization of science'-efforts, it's sad, more than anything.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

This guy doesn't know austrian econ.

he should stick to the less complicated quantum physics, good grief why can't people just learn austrian econ. and what a republic is for God sakes... this is a physicist/space cadet

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

Michio Kuku: Frequent Guest On Art Bell - An Establishment Hack

I don't believe a thing he says..

All he knows is what he read in a book..

He has no creative answers only book learning..

Why do you people worship this guy..

He's kuku

na, it was never a matter of worshiping anyone,

it's more of just another in a long line of public figures who sorta 'straddled the divide' on various factions, who used to be able to unite various political subfactions in disparate fields (kinda like Dr. Paul in that sense) to put forth a positive vision of the future, now revealed as another petty insecure over-compensatory nerd, though, he doesn't quite fit the mold of 'sociopathic nerd' by my definition, yet; he did decline Edward Teller's offer to join him to head the development of the next generation of thermo-nuclear weapon designs.

not 'OMG! OMG! It's the end of the world'-disappointing, but nevertheless, disappointing, on a personal note.

really, more sad, seeing another 'intellectual' plainly fail the "common-sense"-test, 'tis all.

really, I'd love to see some post-Zimbardo/Milgram data and/or studies on numbers of nerds who are utterly geopolitically and economically ignorant.

Let's face it: if one can do high mathematics, solve Lie groups in their heads or at least on chalk/marker-boards, you'd think they'd be competent enough to see through the cognitive dissonance of the fact that there's NO such thing as 'we' in govt, or the utterly bodily twisting delusional self-rationalizations they go through, when trying to justify the evils of the State and its actors, yet the only solutions they see are solely through the same rapists and murderers who've brought the entire world to a ruin.

History is just one long series of consecutive false flags and groups conspiring for power, dominance and resources. This is an undeniable historically proven, verifiable fact. Yet, for all their marbles, these eggheads somehow delude that their contemporary generation is immune from realities of history, not to mention, they exhibit plainly that they simply cannot fathom the reality that at every turn, their every rationalization FOR the State/the Leviathan's violence, wholly originate with their own faulty internal emotionally-clingy belief systems.

Worse, WITHOUT them, the "sociopathic nerds" who rationalize that 'hey, I get to build rockets! so what that Hitler is the one enabling me to do so?' the tyrants would NEVER have the very tools that the sociopathic nerds themselves, in their occasional seldom moments of conscience, biotch about, to oppress them (eventually) and the rest of the 'peon' populace with.

Seriously, if 5yo children of R3VOL can figure out a few of the following, like ALL governments throughout history have ALWAYS:

- lied
- killed their own denizenry
- waged wars
- lied to get into those wars
- stole and redistributed private property
- conspired with corporatists
- eventually get wholly hijacked by corporatists whom often designed and formed those very governments

- eventually collapsed, due to institutional corruption inertia.

Then Presto! Press recycle: start all over again, with tyrants and sheeple, and the awake, like some sick Kafkaesque opera on recycle, play their dutiful roles, again, and again, and again, etc.

So then, why the FCUK is it all still such a bewilderment and "conspiracy THEORY" to these supposed 'intellectuals' who now have the benefit of digital database of world's entire recorded history at their fingertips??

Ya, rhetorical, but still: it's like a decade and $200,000 in Ivy tuition later, they're telling us that they still can't out do 5yr olds...in common sense?

It's like, yes, I 'get' that they are like that, as plainly, publicly observable, but still hard to fathom, being a member of the same biological species myself, observing the obviously physiological capable members of my own species, doing these things, over and over, PURELY out of their emotional failures.

Oy veh, what can you do? I still shudder at the prospect of knowing that, for whatever reason, such insanity seems almost built-in, to our permanent human stasis.

pity.

Silly silly humans.

LOL...er.. .o(

(that's my gallows hardy har har, then looking with dismay, at my own bemusement, with equal dismay and gallows bemusement; yeah, twisty, eh? tell me about it. lol)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

updated

....

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul