Well, as I said, I could be wrong. I dont know. He just annoys me, and theres no getting around that. Also, I dont see how an analogy, in and of itself, can be at all useful. All you're doing is defining words in terms of other words, which is completely pointless. Yes, you can teach someone via an analogy; You tell them the analogy, and then point out every flaw in the analogy. Most things, however, are not like anything else (in this context). ie A Blue Jay looks like a Robin, except it's smaller and stouter. Also, its belly is white and it's back is blue. Finally, it has a little crest around it's head and a short, black beak. Kaku does not point out the flaws in his analogies.
I'm not sure you caught a point of mine, and a wish to re-iterate it: People who turn to pbs, science channel, discovery, or national geographic (as lately im finding the best stuff there), turn to that because they want to learn more about those things they already like. So, it is my opinion that any person in any of those shows should address the audience as if they have heard, for example, of 'black holes' before. If I decide to turn on a show about black holes, I have some idea of what they are.
Now, im not suggesting every program be graduate-level physics... but when was the last time you happened apon one that was? It's all idiot-level programming, and it shouldnt be that way. If you assume that the audience came into the show with some knowledge of the subject, you can get alot further. If someone happens on the show and doesn't know what a black hole is, I'm confident they can figure it out. If they can't, that person probably wouldn't be interested in the program if they did know.
And to be clear about Kaku's 'attitude': I dont mean he's purposefully condescending. I'm sure he doesnt know he's annoying in this regard. It's just the way he talks, and so I see him talking that way to everyone.
