TED Conversations

  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States


This conversation is closed.

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:



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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • Mar 22 2013: Lime Crime, so far your posts have mentioned Brain Dunning a political materialist , Richard Wiseman CSI fellow (i.e. political materialist group), Sam Harris a political 'New Atheist' and Steven Novella CSI fellow (i.e. political materialist group) .

      Do these people really represent the views of most scientists? Science is method of new discoveries, not a political materialist world view.
    • Mar 22 2013: LOL so Materialist Atheists Vs Scientist and free thinker. So much for a debate about science. Seems more like a religious debate to me.

      And still Rupert would smash them to pieces.
    • Mar 22 2013: I'd actually quite like to hear Harris' opinion regarding Sheldrake, as I understand he's not as rigidly dismissive of 'psi' as some of the other hardline materialist / atheistic types. I also know that he thinks very highly of psychedelics, so he'd be enthusiastic regarding Hancock's talk, at least towards the Ayahuasca and drug war part of it.

      I respect Sam, I don't put him in quite the same category as, say, James Randy, or Coyne, so I'd be really interested in that particular debate.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.