TED Conversations

Michael Moore

Disruptive Physician, Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences


This conversation is closed.

When confronted with new ideas like the ones presented by Mina Bissell, how do we change our views in today's scientific establishment?

Today's scientific research is different than research of 100. 50, or even 20 years ago. The advances are generally more incremental, less understandable to non-scientists, and require an expensive research infrastructure. In addition, because of limited resources we often do not have the time or money to reconfirm results, resulting in less validated information being incorporated into our knowledge base. To me this is a similar situation that resulted in the scientific profession, the science journal, and the concept of peer review. Now, because of the explosion of science knowledge, and the idea that scientific knowledge can be proprietary, these structures/ideas are failing us...and revolutionary ideas like Mina Bissell's can pass us by because they are unrecognized.

Are we entering a new era where we need new models of how we validate knowledge? Do we just retain our trend to open information and hope the knowledge rises to the surface, or is there still a role for curation and peer review?

What are the kinds of skills that the "New Scientist" will need? Maybe just as important, what are the skills they will not need?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 10 2012: Human beings are reaching their limits in terms of truth, we're going to have to rely on machines/AI/some future technology to do truth validation for us. There is just too much and no single human being has the energy to deal with all the errors/lies and misinformation.
    • thumb
      Aug 10 2012: That is a very interesting concept, Bob. how do you see that happening specifically? That seems like a pretty big leap.
      • Aug 10 2012: Not really, we do it everyday - look at all the mundane tasks your brain automatically handles to avoid colliding with objects so you don't die. The basis for determining truth exists, someone intelligent has to come along and expose it to the heathens. i.e. someone like myself. I've been working on these problems for a long time. I don't believe in the false division the enlightenment and current scientific establishment created between 'objective and subjective'. The words have no meaning because everything takes place in reality, it's understanding and thinking clearly about their relationship to truth that matters and what kind of truths they represent (i.e. even false statements must be kinds of truth because they are made of physical stuff that exists). The problem is the human mind does not work like the enlightenment thought it did. i.e. getting truth out across status barriers, ego barriers, educational and social habituation is a monumental task. You can see this especially in politics.


        People on the frontiers of knowledge are mocked as outcasts because no one can understand them or others simply can't accept the new persons ideas because they have been taught wrong ideas about what truth is and the level of 'rigor' you need. i.e. they think they'd know truth when they see it, the reality is - the truth is mundane and often times highly non-obvious things that are plainly in view that no one perceives it's relevance. Things that are simple and mundane become powerful only when you figure out how they are related to everything else in the universe.

        We already rely on automated truth validation in many areas already - they are just so mundane everyone forgets it. Every time you do a google search for instance and you compare patterns there is something fundamental about that mundane process and how it relates to everything.
      • Aug 12 2012: "Mina Bissell is credited with the radical but increasingly accepted notion that phenotype can dominate over genotype in normal development and disease."

        Ms Bissell is elucidating in scientific terms what I have been attempting to discuss in terms of the gender gap between the male principle and the female principle. It is not "sour grapes" to report that two of my conversations and one coment have been taken down as-

        TED Comment Removal

        Dear John Allyn,

        We have received numerous complaints from other TED.com members concerning your recent posts, which center on promoting your views regarding women. Many of your posts are seen as hostile and aggressive, including the comment attached below, and this tone is not conducive to the kinds of civil and constructive discussions we want to host on TED Conversations.

        As one can see Ms Bissell has penetrated the defenses of the objective domain much more effectively than I have. She is demonstrating that the objective genetic domain is seriously modified and frequently trumped by the phenotypical domain of subjectivity. Of course a scientist will bristle at the use of the term subjectivity in an area which objective analysis is dominant.

        Elizabeth Pert, a respected scientist has documented the biological basis of phenotype expression in her book, The Molecules of Emotion. In her initial work she discovered the receptor site for cortisol on the cell membrane. She went on to discover that each emotion corresponds to a molecule which cells through out the entire body produce and have receptors for on their membranes

        Ms Bissell in her turn is introducing to science the expression emotional subjectivity has upon the structure and function of an organism. She of course does not use those terms or the scientific community would shut her down immediately. She is a woman, she embodies finesse.

        The reactions of the TED administration to my conversations and comments makes it rather obvious to me that I need to develop fines
      • Aug 14 2012: Yes it is a big leap in consciousness for one to integrate the objective with the subjective. It seems to me that is the next step to be made, integrating the sciences with the humanities.
    • Aug 11 2012: Truth is an ambiguous term which means something different to each person. From my point of view truth is just beginning to evolve out of a strictly objective model into an integration of the subjective and objective truths. One is qualitatively personal and the other numerically objective.

      The integration of the two leads to human life. The objective with out the subjective leads to machine life. Many prefer a machine reality because they fear their own feelings in subjectivity (cancer). Introspection is not the cause of introversion. It is an integral aspect of being human. It does not produce instant solutions to massive social problems. It leads one to ones humanity.

      Civilizations collapse due to the unconscious errors in their basic premises. We are in the latter stages of collapse and the great thinkers are attempting to think their way out of the impending doom while not defining and looking at the basic premisses.our society holds.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.