TED Conversations

TED
  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States

TEDCRED 10+
TED Staff

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk

Please use this space to comment on the debate around Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk, as described here:

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/

+18
Share:

Closing Statement from TED

Thanks to all who participated in this conversation on TED's decision to move Rupert Sheldrake's talk from YouTube to TED.com. It was scheduled as a 2-week conversation, and has now closed. But the archive will remain visible here.

We'd like to respond here to some of the questions raised in the course of the discussion.

Some asked whether this was "censorship." Now, it's pretty clear that it isn't censorship, since the talk itself is literally a click away on this very site, and easily findable on Google. But it raises an interesting question about curation. Should TED play *any* curatorial role in the content it allows its TEDx organizers to promote? We believe we should. And once you accept a role for curatorial limits, you have to accept there will be times when disputes arise.

A number of questions were raised about TED's science board: How it works and why the member list isn't public. Our science board has 5 members -- all working scientists or distinguished science journalists. When we encounter a scientific talk that raises questions, they advise us on their position. I and my team here at TED make the final decisions. We keep the names of the science board private. This is a common practice for science review boards in the academic world, which preserves the objectivity of the recommendations and also protects the participants from retribution or harassment.

Finally, let me say that TED is 100% committed to open enquiry, including challenges to orthodox thinking. But we're also firm believers in appropriate skepticism, or critical thinking. Those two instincts will sometimes conflict, as they did in this case. That's why we invited this debate. The process hasn't been perfect. But it has been undertaken in passionate pursuit of these core values.

The talk, and this conversation, will remain here, and all are invited to make their own reasoned judgement.

Thanks for listening.

Chris Anderson, TED Curator

progress indicator
  • thumb

    Steve Stark 50+

    • +16
    Apr 2 2013: Well, with time almost up, I think the community here has spoken by more than 10-1 that Sheldrake's talk should reinstated. I doubt they will be but it should be noted that in three weeks nobody has been able to come up with much of an explanation for removing them in the first place. TED's science board's first attempt had to be crossed out and very little - nothing of substance - was put in its place. Thus it seems the talk was removed for either invalid reasons or reasons TED has not botthered to share with us. Here's the talk for anyone who hasn't seen it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

  • Ian Morris 10+

    • +9
    Apr 2 2013: Quick links:

    Mar 19 2013: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk (this page)
    http://goo.gl/q7U2k

    Mar 19 2013: The debate about Graham Hancock’s talk
    http://goo.gl/XOnL6

    Mar 18, 2013: Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take
    http://goo.gl/RL6T8

    Mar 14 2013: Open for discussion: Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake from TEDxWhitechapel
    http://goo.gl/AvMnk

    Mar 7 2013: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
    http://goo.gl/LB3PU

  • Ian Morris 10+

    • +24
    Apr 2 2013: With little time to go, this "Conversations" thread is showing about 2000 comments, about 20% more comments than the next highest thread (the one discussing Graham Hancock's talk with about 1655 comments), and nearly six times as many comments as the next highest thread with around 339 comments (on an unrelated discussion). The issue has definitely interested TED participants. Note that many individuals made multiple posts.

    The three most popular TED talks of all time, have (1) 15,480,019 veiws with 2937 comments (2) 10,741,137 views with 2425 comments (3) 10,311,697 views and 1287 comments. Two have been online for over fives years, the other for 18 months.

    Sheldrake's and Hancock's talks have been online for less than 4 months. There were also 1677 + 325 + 483 comments from previous combined discussions, making the average comment count (2000 + 1655 + 1677 + 235 + 483) / 2 = 3025 comments per talk.

    By this calculation, it makes both talks the post popular of all time by comment count. Popularity does not imply support or endorsement of their ideas.

    My personal estimate is that people oppose TED's actions by around 10-to-1 (I think it is actually more than this, as I found it difficult to find people who support TED, but wanted to be conservative). This does not necessarily translate into support for Sheldrake's and Hancock's ideas, only their right to be treated reasonably.

    Having read through the vast proportion of posts, my personal assessment is that the issue is not as clear cut as the science board and advisors would suggest, from which I hope that the necessarily actions will be taken.

  • Aaron McLeod

    • +19
    Apr 2 2013: Sheldrake is not advocating that we abandon the scientific method or deny ourselves the advantages that scientific inquiry brings, he is simply asking for a moment of introspection to evaluate our assumptions. Just becasue we hear what he has to say and take a moment to consider his perspective and his research does not mean that we believe everything he presents. We do not need protection from new perspectives on science.

    Let us not forget that the theme of this presentation was "Challenging Existing Paradigms and Redefining Values",
    not "Everything We Already Know and Are Completely Comfortable With Reiterated."

    TED.... lighten up. The precious edifice of science as a replacement for God is still intact.
  • thumb

    Jordan Burrill

    • +4
    Apr 2 2013: I've enjoyed this very much. Best Wishes to all!!!
    Jordan

  • CChaos CChaos 20+

    • +18
    Apr 2 2013: excellent response by Rupert Sheldrake on the TED/TEDx controversy.

    TED, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, you've been served!

    ------

    Dr. Rupert Sheldrake: I do see Chris Anderson’s point of view and indeed, I had a long conversation with Chris Anderson on the telephone. We got on perfectly well. I wasn’t particularly angry with him or anything like that. It was a reasonable conversation. They do have a point. There’s a lot of rubbish and there has to be some kind of filter. So I’m not against the idea of a filter but what I am against is the idea of applying the filter in a very partial kind of way.

    There are lots of things up on the TEDx website which are controversial. For example, there are a lot of talks by militant Atheists which a lot of people find controversial. A lot of people disagree with what they say and think they’re actually wrong in a variety of ways. But those haven’t been flagged up or put in the Naughty Corner. Those have been allowed absolutely free run on the Internet. They’re put up on the main website, talks by people like Richard Dawkins, for example.

    The difference here is that my talk was flagged up as being pseudo-scientific because Jerry Coyne didn’t like it. Well, Jerry Coyne is a very bigoted man who writes very loud-mouthed things on his website. I don’t take him very seriously. I mean, he’s a polemicist, a kind of Dawkins-type polemicist. So they pay a lot of attention to what Jerry Coyne and PZ Meyers said on their websites. If there had been a similar attack by, for example, Christian Fundamentalists on Dawkins they would have ignored it. But if it’s by scientific fundamentalists then they pay attention, and what’s more don’t just pay attention but dig themselves into a hole trying to justify this.

    read more: ~ http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrake-censored/

    • Time Walker 10+

      • +3
      Apr 2 2013: Marvelous. I look forward to listening to the whole thing. It will give me something to do when drop the hammer on this so-called debate in 20 minutes. Thanks for posting.

  • Brian Josephson

    • +1
    Apr 2 2013: John -- just to note that eventually I did see your comment and amended mine accordingly, as you have probably already seen.

    • John Campbell 10+

      • 0
      Apr 2 2013: Just saw it now. There are major problems with Akismet and it's likely your group's site has been marked as spam by unscrupulous bloggers. Since Akismet is so widely used, this is a real problem and if you need any help I'll be glad to assist with the problem in any way I can.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Steve Stark 50+

      • 0
      Apr 2 2013: All I've learned is that some hedges are stranger than others and some of the strangest are not the ones one might initially suppose.
  • thumb

    Jordan Burrill

    • +5
    Apr 2 2013: Hi Jim!
    I understand you frustration (I believe that is what you're feeling, if I'm hearing hearing you correctly). I see the entire debate here (and else where), as a natural process for an emerging science. We do have some wonderfully thoughtful responses by average folks like us, some gracious contributions by serious researchers - such as Larry Dossey and even Russel Targ! We have also been give lots of references to look at and consider. This kind of raucous food fight / debate will continue for years as the old paradigms make way for the new science. I know we've seen a few intensionally hurtful or disrespectful responses. But, this is what happens when belief systems get challenged and some begin to feel threatened. It's just human. I just have to reiterate my theme of personal, experiencial evidence for personal reality model building.
    The founder of Analytical Psychology, Carl Jung was asked in an intervue I saw 'do you believe in god? He paused for a moment and then said "No ... I don't believe, I know! How could such a well respected researcher say such a thing? He had experienced a massive heart attack and a full-blown near death experience. again, person proofs (which can be well beyond our current technology and symbolic language to communicate or test) is at the heart of this entire issue.
    Best Wishes
    Jordan

  • John Campbell 10+

    • +5
    Apr 2 2013: Since Mr. Pinter has referred to us as an army sent here by (_x__), why not just stick around after the debate is over? That ought to make him and some others happy. The forum software is excellent, and it looks like this place needs intelligent and articulate voices who don't pander to the pseudo-skeptics and prefer to think outside the box. By participating here after this debate, we can at least start topics of interest to us.

    Just a thought. I went to the trouble of registering, I might as well stick around. If we all just leave, Mr. Pinter would be very disappointed and we wouldn't want that, would we?

  • D S

    • +2
    Apr 2 2013: So, what happens when the clock runs out here? Conversation closes, no debates, and the talks remain in their sequestered space? Or are they just going to take them down entirely? Does TED plan on issuing another empty response, or are they just gonna forget about it and hope it fades away?

    • Amfortas Titurel 10+

      • +1
      Apr 2 2013: I guess we will see some more defensive statements, and they will keep the talks where they are now.

      • Time Walker 10+

        • +1
        Apr 2 2013: Isn't the original comment thread still open? The one that included both interviews. I don't think that one's timed. Just sayin' if people feel frustrated by their inability to express themselves here once it closed in... 13 minutes.

  • Dan Booth Cohen 10+

    • +6
    Apr 2 2013: On the 20th anniversary of Woodstock, Bill Graham participated in a forum about the lasting impact of the gathering in American society and culture. He was asked, "What is the single most important lesson learned from Woodstock." His answer surprised me, but I still recall it decades later. He said, "The most important lesson of Woodstock was the consumer products and media industries learned how big the hippie market was." Beforehand, the American mainstream thought the hippie culture was a tiny subset of American youth. They targeted their products and services to the more clean-cut, mainstream American Bandstand demographic. But when 500,000 kids showed up to Woodstock, it opened their eyes.

    Something like this may come from this debacle. TED will not change its decision nor address the substance of its error in public. The controversy will be buried to the best of its ability. TED is now revealed to be an instrument of mainstream corporate media and will conform to its taboos and prohibitions in service of their financial interests.

    However, the lasting impact of the ham-handed and unintelligible censorship may be the realization at the size of the market of educated scientists and professionals who have had direct experiences with psi phenomenon. They are no longer satisfied with the ill-founded criticisms that these experiences are illusory self-deceptions.

    This debate has revealed that the potential audience for Sheldrake's science is far larger than anyone knew. In this sense, TED's poor judgment may prove to their detriment as their brand becomes identified with Ideas Worth Suppressing/Corporate Infomercials Worth Spreading.

  • Amfortas Titurel 10+

    • +1
    Apr 2 2013: "John Campbell

    10 hours ago: The answer is Akismet, which is what TED uses. Apparently there is potential for abuse, and a few angry bloggers. The problem from what I can tell is a blogger can mark a legit comment as spam, Akismet then begins to learn that what is non-spam is spam, propagates this information to it's servers, and autodeletes comments on other blogs as well that don't wind up in a blogger's moderation queue. The following link is old but describes what we've been experiencing with the tcm site.

    http://growmap.com/akismet-deleting-comments/

    The problem is almost certainly not TED, so I apologize here for saying that it was. "

    So, let's hope this will be fixed soon.

    • Brian Josephson

      • +3
      Apr 2 2013: Almost certainly? I doubt it!

      In fact I did draw the issue to TED's attention quite some time ago, resending it as suggested by marking it URGENT, and nothing has happened. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

      However, I've since seen the part of JC's comment that A. didn't quote, so perhaps JC was correct. Once I got blocked from commenting in Nature's blog and eventually the web people were able to fix that. My blocking once from arxiv, removed when I complained about their 'system error' was something different in character, I believe -- arxiv's behaviour is more sinister and significant even than TED's. See

      http://www. tcm. phy. cam. ac. uk/~bdj10/articles/arxiv_correspondence.html

      • Amfortas Titurel 10+

        • +1
        Apr 2 2013: This seems to point to the possibility that TED did not initiate this, but they are somewhat sanctioning it now. Until the pressure would rise, so then they could simply withdraw and say it wasn't their intention.
    • thumb

      elan star

      • 0
      Apr 2 2013: Amfortas can you explain this detail more ?I would appreciate information on this. Thanks (Akismet)

      • Amfortas Titurel 10+

        • 0
        Apr 2 2013: This looks like there is a ring of blogging websites using the same software on their servers, and they cooperate in marking and blacklisting spam links. So, if some number of organised rogue sceptics would mark links to Professor Josephson's articles about "heretical science" and related issues as spam, it would automatically delete comments containing them, on all connected sites. But they shouldn't have a problem to fix this quickly!

  • Pandelis P.

    • +6
    Apr 2 2013: May this debate prove to be a historic event, and the starting point for new truly progressive forums for the advancement of thought and science. From tomorrow TED will be athing of the past for many people. Its people will surely regret their decisions and stubborness all these days. And of course its 'scientific comitee' will have to live in obscurity for many years to come. Each one fo its members will be trying to forget hie or her monumental ethical error by mumbling useless excuses to their friends and peers.
    I would like to send my greetings to all the unknown people who fought for freedom of ideas in here and to express my hopes of meeting them again in a more truly scientific setting.
    Bye bye guys!

  • CChaos CChaos 20+

    • +7
    Apr 2 2013: Rupert Sheldrake talks about his TED experience... btw, no response yet from TED on Sheldrake's debate challenge. go figure.

    "Dr. Rupert Sheldrake: I think this whole controversy and the people who have weighed-in in favor of TED’s actions do indeed confirm what I’m saying. These dogmas are ones that most people within science don’t actually realize are dogmas. They just think they’re the truth. The point about really dogmatic people is that they don’t know that they have dogmas. Dogmas are beliefs and people who have really strong beliefs think of their beliefs as truths. They don’t actually see them as beliefs. So I think this whole controversy has actually highlighted exactly that."

    ~ http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrake-censored/

  • Marianne Green

    • 0
    Apr 2 2013: Susan Blackmore, Paul Davies, David Deutch, Daniel Dennet (also on TED's board), Jared Diamond.... and i've only got as far as the D's.... Great link, Brian!

  • Amfortas Titurel 10+

    • 0
    Apr 2 2013: It becomes clear to me that to clarify matters, there is a need for much *more* research and debate in the phenomena, in cooperation by scientists, theoretical thinkers, psychics, sceptics and even stage magicians, but not less, as it is exemplified by these TED decisions. Positive as negative (no-go) results could have far-reaching consequences, they could if supported by science and everyone involved even help to save the world. It is so important that suppression of information and positive evidence, equally to possible fabrication is ethically unacceptable and should at least be widely reported and exposed. No small thing to invent some positive results (Rhine?). No small thing to (as suspected) blacklist highly regarded research websites. Maybe we can come to a consensus that this is simply unacceptable, unethical. There are also these little slips of accuracy... and the devil may be in the details. I will try from now on to hold up to high standards in regards. I think it is also not good to misrepresent one's own level of felt believe or trust in certain paranormal or sceptical claims and researchers. Something like a public oath could be developed, available to be taken and signed by researchers, by the heroes of truth, similar to the oath of Hippocrates for doctors. We must work together, here and in future research, for the truth, for this great endeavour to the benefit of all mankind!

    • Niomi Hill

      • 0
      Apr 2 2013: A public oath already exists, an oath which used to be required by doctors and some scientists:

      The Hippocratic Oath, simplified: DO NO HARM.

      Doctors and scientists, lawyers, and public officials are no longer required to take the Oath. While the oath is entirely symbolic, I have little doubt that those who refuse to take the oath (voluntarily) may have questionable ethical and moral values.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Jordan Burrill

      • +2
      Apr 2 2013: Hi !
      I agree. But, I think (as far as TED's willingness to participate in this raucous debate, as a longterm commitment), TED's 'science board' will need to invest in some additional, individual, personal tools for itself - as a body. I dont think the TED staff had ANY idea what a real, serious debate on science would really be like ... until now! I believe the TED staffers could gain these personal tools, should they dare to.
      so, they will need to gain the following tools, as I see it:
      1. Personal desire to read and research studies in these ares, for themselves.
      2. Real personal curiousity to let the evidence lead to where it goes.
      3. Personal, individual courage by each staff member to leave the virtual experience of reading, research, 'talking' and 'commercial' concerns ... to...
      4. My direct proposal to the 'science board' yesterday that they get personally involved - should they dare. This is where real, personal courage comes in. I respectfully asked the 'science board' to (invest)-igate by participation in the Monroe Institute's "Gateway" program. I did a version of this program years ago. It was a very important, perspective changing experience for me. It truly helped blow the remaining doors off my comfortable, secure and untested belief system. The experience gave me personal, experiencial evidence (as well as some skills/tools I still use today), to begin the slow, personal process of dismantling an untested, security-based model and replacing it with one that is organic and changable - to grow as I do - always subject to revision with new, well considered evidence.

      I've enjoyed all of this challenging conversation with everyone! Your imput has been especially enjoyable.
      Infact, you may wish to consider the "Gateway" program for yourself. I think you could handle it.

      We will have to wait and see if TED Talks can walk its 'talk'.

      Very Best Wishes,
      Jordan

      • Jim Ryan

        • 0
        Apr 2 2013: Debate? So who can you point to that has added to Sheldrakes talk or showed it wrong? From all I see, its mainly anger, with no real content. So where is the so called debate?

      • Jim Ryan

        • 0
        Apr 2 2013: You talk about Ted, but what do you offer, with respect to Sheldrakes talk. Do you show what in his thinking is wrong or do you add reason to his claims? The debate is still here!!!!!
        • thumb

          Jordan Burrill

          • 0
          Apr 2 2013: I think 'the jury is still out' regarding enough evidence for a firm conclusion as to the actual processses of psi. But my personal experiences (which you can read about at my site TrueAscensionLLC.com), convinced me something very real, 'tangible' and powerful is happening. Sheldrake's credentials and ideas are very worthy of exploration - if not hobbled by rigid paridigms, sheldrake's main point in his talk.
          Cheers and may the food fly!
          Jordan

  • Ian Morris 10+

    • +10
    Apr 2 2013: The "The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk" says that "TED’s scientific advisors [..] believe there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance"

    a. Sheldrake's talk praises science as a method, but criticises "science" as a belief system. So it is unfortunate, or ironic, that TED’s scientific advisors seem to follow the scientific "belief" system.

    b. "Little evidence" is not the same as "no evidence", In fact, most new ideas begin with "little evidence",or is it more accurate to say "some evidence".

    c. Sheldrake describes morphic resonance as a "hypothesis", not a theory, so not even he "believes" it.


    Whether or not you accept some of Sheldrake's ideas, he does come across as more scientific and reasonable than the TED scientific board and advisors.

  • Joanna Coleman

    • +8
    Apr 2 2013: How sad that TED believes asking challenging questions about mainstream science can endanger their reputation, audience and respectability. Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist with the courage to challege and explore what he believes have become unquestioned assumptions in his own community. And isn't that precisely what science should do?
    If a system of knowledge cannot constantly reappraise and question itself and its methods, isn't that where the danger lies?
    If TED truly believes in science as 'a process, not a locked in body of truth', then a lecture from a scientist questioning what he believes to be the 'locked-in' aspects of his own discipline is important and thoroughly, one would hope, in the spirit we have come to expect from TED. What a shame this spirit was driven down precisely by the locked-in mentality of their science board.

  • Brian Josephson

    • +9
    Apr 2 2013: Just to get another word in before the window closes ...

    Saying TED doesn't want particular videos to appear under TED's banner is one thing, but stopping visitors learning about specific non-pornographic material just because they object to the ideas expressed is censorship de luxe! I gave a lecture to a student group recently about this kind of thing; you can listen to that lecture, 'Heretical Science', at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/collection/664697 (not on our group's web server so it may not be blocked by TED). People interested in moving on from the present paradigm may also be interested in the symposium on 'Shifting Assumptions in Science', which you can find in the same list. We are currently working on developing John Archibald Wheeler's proposal that observer-participation is the fundamental creative mechanism in nature (see the very preliminary paper entitled 'Biological Observer-Participation and Wheeler's "Law without Law" ' in the physics preprint archive).

    • Amfortas Titurel 10+

      • 0
      Apr 2 2013: See below. It looks like I was jumping to conclusions. It may not be due to official TED action.

      "John Campbell

      10 hours ago: The answer is Akismet, which is what TED uses. Apparently there is potential for abuse, and a few angry bloggers. The problem from what I can tell is a blogger can mark a legit comment as spam, Akismet then begins to learn that what is non-spam is spam, propagates this information to it's servers, and autodeletes comments on other blogs as well that don't wind up in a blogger's moderation queue. The following link is old but describes what we've been experiencing with the tcm site.

      http://growmap.com/akismet-deleting-comments/

      The problem is almost certainly not TED, so I apologize here for saying that it was. "

  • Marianne Green

    • 0
    Apr 2 2013: Are there alternatives to TED on anyone's drawing board? A 'uni-TED' which unites all those who have been dissed, marginalised and debunked by current scientific hegemony? Which unites those who welcome and celebrate open discourse? Which provides a platform and open forum for those who are confident enough in their own intellectual and intuitive repertoire to do their own research and manage their own filtering processes?
    This is obviously happening in an informal unstructured way - perhaps this is preferable to the structured TED format which, despite the best of initial intentions, appears to be heavily influenced by certain agendas.

    • Dan Booth Cohen 10+

      • +3
      Apr 2 2013: There are already multiple alternatives to TED. What they all lack is TED's corporate funding. TED's so-called Science Board is better seen as a Corporate Funders board. They have brought the hammer down on TEDx productions that teach about scientific research that subverts corporate business interests. They have no need to drill into the details of the qualifications of the speaker or the factual validity of the message. The topic of psi phenomenon is forbidden.
      • thumb

        Steve Stark 50+

        • +6
        Apr 2 2013: One of the things that comes out of this discussion is that the viewpoints and data TED are trying to suppress are getting out there anyway. That is, it is clear from the discussion that many here are very well informed about things that previously hardly anyone would have known. Thus the pseudoskeptics have had numerous peer-reviewed sources cited at them when they have claimed there is no evidence for whatever it is they are currently objecting to. This is in stark contrast to pre-internet days when only a few specialists would have had access to the data and someone in a debate would have been unable to just post a link showing that the denied evidence exists alright. Thus pseudoskeptics are now exposed at source and their only recourse, as seen here, are insults. This is an encouraging sign, and it means that TED's decision is of very little consequence in the long run. So TED can, if it wants, become a fully fledged member of the irrational-rationalist movement and never hold a talk that explores fascinating possibilities such as psi, etc, nor even anything that questions any of the dogmatic assumptions of the reductionist-materialist camp as they gradually lose control of science to the evidence. Thus science will be free, since it is too powerful a force for a small zealous band of fanatics to control, and ultimately, even if it takes a little longer, the truth (however strange that may be) will out.
    • thumb

      John Hoopes

      • +3
      Apr 2 2013: "Are there alternatives to TED on anyone's drawing board? A 'uni-TED' which unites all those who have been dissed, marginalised and debunked by current scientific hegemony?"

      Coast to Coast AM
      http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

      21st Century Radio
      http://21stcenturyradio.com/

      Whitley Streiber's Unknown Country
      http://www.unknowncountry.com/

    • Brian Josephson

      • +7
      Apr 2 2013: Alternatives? Try http://www.closertotruth.com/ . I don't know where their funding comes from but they have an impressive team of getting on for a dozen people involved in filming -- totally unlike that of UK TV I've been involved with where about 3 people (e.g. cameraman, interviewer and director) is about the most that are involved at the time. The spectrum of interviewees for Closer to Truth, which is a pretty big enterprise, ranges all the way from Charles Tart (altered states of consciousness, psi) to Steven Weinberg (who believes ESP is so improbable that it is not worth studying the evidence) -- beat that, TED!

  • Marianne Green

    • +10
    Apr 2 2013: This has been one of the most interesting and illuminating conversations I have read online. I must thank TED for this if nothing else. The unintended consequences of TED's actions appear to be reverberating far and wide - I have been following links provided by the many commenters here and not only revisiting the writings of David Bohm and others but also adding to my wish lists or actually buying books by Dean Radin, Russell Targ and others. The links to bloggers and authors such as Marcus T Anthony have also been inspirational and though-provoking and I have already bought two of his ebooks.
    This has been an exciting couple of weeks for me (and I should imagine a very productive and heartening time for Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock -TED's unintended consequences!)
    I've been having some great conversations with my husband - a retired science teacher - very much from the mainstreeam, reductionist perspective who greatly admires Richard Dawkins. He is now reading Sheldrake's Science Delusion with great interest and he shares my astonishment at TED's actions.

    • Waldemar Mrozinski

      • +1
      Apr 2 2013: Marianne, you expressed beautifully exactly what I have been thinking. Perhaps TED will now redeem itself after this slap on its wrist by reposting Rupert and Graham's talks together with an apology, and allow TEDx WestHollywood to go ahead?

      The prevailing, predominantly materialistic world view of modern science has become almost a religion in itself with its high priests jealously guarding their positions of power (and sources of funding, no doubt). Restriction of scientific enquiry to that which is revealed by the five physical senses effectively limits the scope of investigation. Who knows what could be discovered through common sense, sixth sense or even what may seem at first sight to be nonsense?

      Einstein had this quote framed above his desk at Princeton:
      "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

      It's not my style to rely on the quotes of others but Einstein came up with so many gems, some are worth including. Had he given a TEDx talk including the following, would it have been relegated to the "shame bin" as pseudoscience?

      http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

      And here's the daddy of them all:

      "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious.  It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of all true art and science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed."
  • thumb

    elan star

    • +1
    Apr 2 2013: Dalai lama  UNIVERSE IN A SINGLE ATOM

    http://www.smilesbook.com/Data/The%20Universe%20in%20A%20Single%20New%20Atom%20CD%201%20of%203.mp3
    http://www.smilesbook.com/Data/The%20Universe%20in%20A%20Single%20New%20Atom%20CD%203%20of%203.mp3
    http://www.smilesbook.com/Data/The%20Universe%20in%20A%20Single%20New%20Atom%20CD%202%20of%203.mp3
  • thumb

    elan star

    • +3
    Apr 2 2013: On of the main problems was "either or thinking"
    'Classical Physics works for what it works for but not for the extremely small the particle and the wave

    Here the "OBSERVER effects the observed.

    in personal experience this translates as "The Observer is the observed"
    Krishnamurti used Bohm's term paraphrased "You are the World and the World is You"

    • Ben Steigmann

      • +3
      Apr 2 2013: I wrote before on how such "quantum" phenomena occur on macro-events as well - thus challenging the materialist predicate. See this for more: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0202158

      See also and especially this item:: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

      I think it's important to view that in light of other information presented here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R32DEEY27DH8J6/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0770436706&cdForum=Fx331MZOPIFPR1D&cdMsgID=Mx28JY1QZOCITBM&cdMsgNo=13&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3FGGFGBW1I8QU&store=books#Mx28JY1QZOCITBM

      you stated: "in personal experience this translates as "The Observer is the observed"
      Krishnamurti used Bohm's term paraphrased "You are the World and the World is You""

      I would argue that this is certainly true psychologically, and that there arises physical effects from that - a freeing up of tensions - and possible intention based action at a distance as well, as the "broadcast signal" becomes more coherent. It's a theory I have relating to personal experience that the Amazon link provides some basis for.
      • thumb

        elan star

        • +1
        Apr 2 2013: Ben said,..."and that there arises physical effects from that - a freeing up of tensions - and possible intention based action at a distance as well, as the "broadcast signal" becomes more coherent."

        i would add that this is the key element of manifesting anything
        i.e. relaxed state of awareness- intention-embodiment.......

        you said ""broadcast signal" becomes more coherent." this is the key to all telepathy and remote viewing.. the field has all data and it is accessible with protocol and focus and intention

        • Ben Steigmann

          • +1
          Apr 2 2013: Or, for what you describe, perhaps there is greater receptivity - that is another way of looking at it.
  • thumb

    elan star

    • +5
    Apr 2 2013: I have read Ruperts new book (listned to the audiobook) over 12 times now and I "get" every principle he discusses it is not dogma it is not anti science it is not radical or challlenging it is rather humorous and very much in the spirit of lovely enquiry. I doubt that anyone in the TED community has even read it skeoptic or non skeptic. Download it from Audible.com as an audiobook and have fun. Sheldrake only asks us gently to ask some questions and see some basic discrepancies he supports it with factual information...and as far a telepathy goes. anyne that has not read the data in the many hundreds of books and thousands of scientific papers on telepahty and related sciences is in the dark ages. We cannot expect others to respond ro reason but we can inform ourselves as a commmunity adn learning is a fun process not a laborious one.
Load more comments…