TED Conversations

TED
  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States

TEDCRED 10+

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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 2 2013: Ben this paper on David Bohm is seminal thanks for sharing it. it will take a while to really digest them all.

    it contains some fantastic and lucid and really easy to read explanations.
    This side discussion here about the "field" and proof for psychic phenomena and telepathy and remote viewing lies in this one aspect.
    It sounds esoteric but it is simple
    If one is positioned as the "ME" - the limited entity- conditioned by prejudice or society- then one cannot access the extended non-local field and that is all that telepathy and remote viewing are intentional access of information with a protocol of communication and diligent process nothing more .Although natural intuitives have the ability without training.

    here is your link you just shared
    Richard Feynman agreed about Bohm: http://books.google.com/books?id=pobZMUmZbAEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=infinite+potential&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wmhaUcvVJ6WUiQKzzYDAAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=feynman&f=false

    why is this essential? it has a true foundation for exploration in quantum potential to explain some of the mysteries of the field.
    • Apr 2 2013: The relevant quote from the text you linked to is on p. 271:

      "When he mentioned his own lack of interest in the philosophical issues of science, one of the Ojai group, David Moody, joked, "Dave knows a little bit about both." Feynman became angry, saying "I can tell you one thing. David Bohm knows a lot more than a little about physics." Booth Harris, a teacher at the Ojai school, remembered Feynman saying, "You probably don't know how great he is," and noticed the considerable respect Feynman showed towards Bohm."

      And yes - I agree that Krishnamurti captured the essence of apophatic mysticism, and that this might open people up to things, with aspects that are not merely subjective (in the limited sense of the word - omitting any kind of proposed "mind of God" subjectivity), that they might otherwise not be opened up to. For me, engaging with such material produced an alteration that initially resulted in this log: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91194346/Start-of-log-%E2%80%93-week-of-11-1-2011-11-8-2011

      And then rather extraordinary things happened. You talk about conditioned psychological structures - these progressively began to dissolve. Other extraordinary things happened, leading to my statement about "aspects that are not merely subjective." And extraordinary things will no doubt continue to happen.
      • thumb
        Apr 2 2013: I helped break ground for the Krishnamurti school in Ojai.
        K's discussion with children were markedly more animated and fun than the ones with adults who K felt just could not get past thier conditioning
        Many of those dialogs are on youtube .
        Many argue that "Choiceless awareness" the true state of lucid awareness is not practical in the "real world" but it (open awareness) accompanies rational decision making and daily life easily with no conflict. the term they always used both K and David bohm was DIALOG DIALOG...Resepctfu mutual dialog.
        • Apr 2 2013: I would argue that it can lead to a much greater sanity - a clearing up of garbage and detritus. It helped me CURE (not merely manage), severe psychological wounds and turmoil - along with some other things alluded to above. With that, and a greater wholeness, I greet life much more fully.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.