(June 20, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 20, 2018 at 9:05 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It WAS difficult to take on board that you would spring a scientific method rant off my comment completely unselfconscious of the irony, but you ARE Drich, after all; and knowing that helped.

it's funny you see only irony here. I seem me using the scientific method to smash in your collective teeth here. meaning I am using your tool to shut you up.

Quote:it's funny you see only irony here. I seem me using the scientific method to smash in your collective teeth here. meaning I am using your tool to shut you up.

Quote:At TEDxWhitechapel on January 13, 2013, Rupert Sheldrake gave a provocative talk in which he suggests that modern science is based on ten dogmas, and makes the case that none of them hold up to scrutiny. According to him, these dogmas — including, for example, that nature is mechanical and purposeless, that the laws and constants of nature are fixed, and that psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible — have held back the pursuit of knowledge.

TED’s scientific advisors have questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions — indeed, several of the dogmas are actually active areas of science inquiry (including whether physical ‘constants’ are really unchanging) — and believe there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance, and claim that the speed of light has been changing. They recommended that the talk be should not be distributed without being framed with caution. Accordingly, we have reposted his talk here, with the above cautionary introduction. We invite scientists, skeptics, knowledge-seekers and supporters — and Sheldrake himself, if he’s willing — to view and discuss the talk.

Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation? Does Sheldrake accurately describe scientists’ beliefs and are his theories credible? What’s the evidence for either position?

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk

(July 26, 2018 at 4:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Quote:At TEDxWhitechapel on January 13, 2013, Rupert Sheldrake gave a provocative talk in which he suggests that modern science is based on ten dogmas, and makes the case that none of them hold up to scrutiny. According to him, these dogmas — including, for example, that nature is mechanical and purposeless, that the laws and constants of nature are fixed, and that psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible — have held back the pursuit of knowledge.

TED’s scientific advisors have questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions — indeed, several of the dogmas are actually active areas of science inquiry (including whether physical ‘constants’ are really unchanging) — and believe there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance, and claim that the speed of light has been changing. They recommended that the talk be should not be distributed without being framed with caution. Accordingly, we have reposted his talk here, with the above cautionary introduction. We invite scientists, skeptics, knowledge-seekers and supporters — and Sheldrake himself, if he’s willing — to view and discuss the talk.

Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation? Does Sheldrake accurately describe scientists’ beliefs and are his theories credible? What’s the evidence for either position?

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk

A number of people have criticized Ted Talks for effectively banning Sheldrake's talk and demoting it to, at the very least, second class status.  Aside from the credibility of Sheldrake's claims in and of themselves, Ted Talks actions seem to prove Sheldrake's point about intransigent conservatism in science.  Regardless of the validity of Sheldrake's claims, was Ted Talks doing the right thing by demoting the video, or were they simply taking a bad situation and making it worse?  What should the role of Ted Talks be in discriminating against some views and not others, and according to what criteria?

More on the background behind Ted Talks actions and the "TEDx" branded talks is given in the post Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take at TEDblogs.

(July 26, 2018 at 5:13 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(July 26, 2018 at 4:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A number of people have criticized Ted Talks for effectively banning Sheldrake's talk and demoting it to, at the very least, second class status.  Aside from the credibility of Sheldrake's claims in and of themselves, Ted Talks actions seem to prove Sheldrake's point about intransigent conservatism in science.  Regardless of the validity of Sheldrake's claims, was Ted Talks doing the right thing by demoting the video, or were they simply taking a bad situation and making it worse?  What should the role of Ted Talks be in discriminating against some views and not others, and according to what criteria?

More on the background behind Ted Talks actions and the "TEDx" branded talks is given in the post Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take at TEDblogs.

Or they simply don't want to be assosciated  with that load of utter navel gazing load of bollox.

(July 26, 2018 at 5:13 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Or they simply don't want to be assosciated  with that load of utter navel gazing load of bollox.

(July 26, 2018 at 4:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Quote:At TEDxWhitechapel on January 13, 2013, Rupert Sheldrake gave a provocative talk in which he suggests that modern science is based on ten dogmas, and makes the case that none of them hold up to scrutiny. According to him, these dogmas — including, for example, that nature is mechanical and purposeless, that the laws and constants of nature are fixed, and that psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible — have held back the pursuit of knowledge.

TED’s scientific advisors have questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions — indeed, several of the dogmas are actually active areas of science inquiry (including whether physical ‘constants’ are really unchanging) — and believe there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance, and claim that the speed of light has been changing. They recommended that the talk be should not be distributed without being framed with caution. Accordingly, we have reposted his talk here, with the above cautionary introduction. We invite scientists, skeptics, knowledge-seekers and supporters — and Sheldrake himself, if he’s willing — to view and discuss the talk.

Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation? Does Sheldrake accurately describe scientists’ beliefs and are his theories credible? What’s the evidence for either position?

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk

A number of people have criticized Ted Talks for effectively banning Sheldrake's talk and demoting it to, at the very least, second class status.  Aside from the credibility of Sheldrake's claims in and of themselves, Ted Talks actions seem to prove Sheldrake's point about intransigent conservatism in science.  Regardless of the validity of Sheldrake's claims, was Ted Talks doing the right thing by demoting the video, or were they simply taking a bad situation and making it worse?  What should the role of Ted Talks be in discriminating against some views and not others, and according to what criteria?

More on the background behind Ted Talks actions and the "TEDx" branded talks is given in the post Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take at TEDblogs.

(July 27, 2018 at 1:38 pm)Wololo Wrote: If you saw your life's work thrashed by an unlettered, moronic bullshitter (because that's what Sheldrake is) and then saw his garbage being spread by a group purporting to be an eminent and valuable spreader of knowledge, you'd kick up too.

Being about challenging orthodoxy doesn't absovle the TED group from doing basic research.  And when I can spot a fraud (me with no science training beyond secondary school) more easily than them, maybe they should reevaluate their mission.