Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I can't think of a kind response, so I'll leave you to it.

[Amarok]

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.

Your not using any tools your are a tool

[Angrboda]

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.

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

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

[Jehanne]

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.

He makes claims that effectively appeal to phrenology as being "valid science", namely, the constants of nature (such as 'c', the speed of light) are changing because Galileo, once upon a time, using lanterns, thought that it could be "infinite".

[The Grand Nudger]

"and then.......magic occurs........"

[vulcanlogician]

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

I must admit, I'd take Sheldrake's criticisms more seriously if the man wasn't tied to parapsychology. I think it's healthy praxis to criticize science (to keep it on track), but I think I'd be more receptive if those criticisms came from a skeptic... rather than someone pushing ideas that (quite frankly) fall outside the purview of scientific investigation.

[GUBU]

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.

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.

[Angrboda]

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.

First of all, Sheldrake is not unlettered. One can impugn his arguments and sources, but he is far from an ignorant schmuck throwing ignorant shit at the wall to see what sticks. You can fault the arguments and conclusions, but hardly on the basis of his scholarship.

Second, since you didn't read the accompanying material, I will point out that his talk was part of a TED initiative in creating self-organized TEDTalks, some 200 of which were subsequently posted to the TEDTalks website. Sheldrake's video was flagged by others for some of the relevant issues, and TEDTalks responded to those complaints as they have.

As they say, the rest is history.