This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Please use this space to comment on the debate around Graham Hancock's TEDx talk, as described here:
http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-graham-hancocks-talk/
Closing Statement from TED
Thanks to all who participated in this conversation on TED's decision to move Graham Hancock'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
Steve Stark 50+
Here's the talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNeXacXWJ6U
Graham Hancock 10+
Big ideas are at stake, much larger than the individuals involved. But the knowledge that a community of good-hearted, open-minded people are out there, ready to fight for the freedom of ideas is the best thing to come out of this.
Warmest wishes and deep appreciation
Graham
Barnard Voorhees
Barnard Voorhees
Julie Baxter
Steve Stark 50+
Julie Baxter
Barnard Voorhees
They make a thousand pilgrimages to the Hall of Science,
and add the suffix Ph.D to their names.
They wield their words bravely like a sword
and imagine themselves warriors.
In Truth, they have done nothing."
We should give John Hoopes credit for stamina if nothing else. At times he must have felt like an antelope in the veldt being attacked by hyenas. Even if his arguments were often weak, opinionated, full of logical and even factual errors, he held up well, A bellweather, described as that ball in spray paint that stirs the paint when the can is shaken.
As for "Ideas worth sharing"? This debate has touched into the most important matters of human existence.
From the beginning there are those among us who have sought answers to life's great questions. As humans we've gone through the available pharmacy, experimenting with whatever's on the shelf - drumming, whirling, breath techniques, singing, symbolic ritual - and yes, an enormous variety of psychotropic substances many of which can be found right outside your door - barley, Syrian rue, mushrooms, cacti, datura, even many common grasses. There are more powerful substances than Ayahuasca in use - Verola, Yopo. Toad sweat. The road is a confusing one, the rules largely hidden. Trails may appear promising only to lead to dead ends. . .or chasms. The strength and clarity of the travelers intent seems to be the crucial factor. It's said there are teachers who know the way. We all have our favorite guru, guide, professor, shaman or priest. Hidden schools. Unfortunately the real ones are far fewer than we might like . Yet it's not all BS. As for the role of science in the search, I'll let Einstein answer that - "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
Steve Stark 50+
Adrian Sutton 10+
This decision and its implications is the greatest one we have ever faced. The only comparison that comes to mind was when we came down from the trees and walked upright....... wasn't that the fist Genesis??
Its dogmatism and its self righteous belief, that it can impose itself on the sovereignty of others consciousnesses. That's whats driving us out of Eden and is the real serpent in the tree of life.
And isn't it just a little ironic that the legend of our origins not only is full of wonder and imagination but it warns us of precisely this? I suggest its resonance is spooky action at a distance.
Adrian Sutton 10+
I think we are already trough the door, I hope we are up to the job.
This decision and its implications is the greatest one we have ever faced. The only comparison that comes to mind was when we came down from the trees and walked upright....... wasn't that the fist Genesis??
Its dogmatism and its self righteous belief, that it can impose itself on the sovereignty of others consciousnesses. That's whats driving us out of Eden and is the real serpent in the tree of life.
And isn't it just a little ironic that the legend of our origins not only is full of wonder and imagination but it warns us of precisely this? I suggest its resonance is spooky action at a distance .
Keen Observer
Zoe S
I suggest for the sake of Ted's future credibility and transparency, that the names and allegiances of all the people who fund and send donations to Ted and their entire board of scientists be published to ensure that it is fair and representative of all views.
I believe this has more to do with politics, industry and profit than truth and 'Ideas worth spreading'. There are many facts of life and results that occur (especially in the field of health and consciousness) that are NOT proven with scientific double-blind studies either because of the subjective nature of our consciousness or due to the disinterest in these studies due to the fact they are non-profit producing for the industries that have the means to fund such studies.
It is important in this day and age that we move from scientific dogma and believing that something is non-credible if it cannot be proven with double-blind studies to embrace our ever-changing consciousness and higher intelligence so humanity can advance. After all, even after all these studies have been conducted and their results imposed on the public, most people including scientists are still only using less than 4% of the capacity of their brains.
CChaos CChaos 20+
"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/
John Hoopes
This rhetoric sounds awfully familiar. In fact, it's pretty much the same as the rhetoric that came from the "intelligent design" camp while Kitzmiller v. Dover was being argued.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
However, in that case, it was clear that the Dover Area School District lost.
John Hoopes
Hanns Hörbiger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_H%C3%B6rbiger
Welteislehre ("World Ice Theory")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre
After all, it was supported by Chamberlain as well as the Ahnenerbe.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain
Ahnenerbe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe
Robert Andreacchio
you can take solace in the fact that you have opened the debate we must have to aid in ushering in a new scientific paradigm .The old paradigm has serious shortcomings that need redress . The Newtonian physics model is passed its use-by date . Objectivism and empiricism leaves no room for exploring subjective non ordinary states of consciousness that are valid tools for healing and teaching Debating over whats science and whats pseudoscience is an irrelevant distraction driven by the clash of academic egos ! Imbibing the Aya brew shatters your ego to a million pieces-a valid exercise for all skeptical rationalists that would see them switch sides quick smart! Calling Hancocks/Sheldrake's work pseudoscience is pejorative , The Ted board could be humble and plead ignorance and not pass judgement on these valid. Non ordinary states of consciousness provided by psychotechnological tools like Ayahuasca . Orthodox Scienc
empirical models / instruments arent advanced enough to measure consciousness or the subject/object split . Poppers theory of falsifiability is flawed or at best, past its use by date . Quantum physicist Prof. Amit Goswami argues convincingly in his doco 'The Quantum Activist ' the importance of ushering in a new scientific paradigm which address that to progress and become smarter science must start embracing the subjective . Professor Ben Shanons 'Antipodes of the Mind' is a comprehensive book on the ayahuasca experience , he went into the jungle an atheist but wasn't one when he came out!
David Llewellyn Foster
Part 2 is particularly eloquent and learned, a great discourse by a brilliant mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4
If TED's advisory board deem this high level of intellectual competence somehow inadequate, then I have nothing but contempt for their blinkered poverty of thought, and the sheer, perverse absurdity of the patronizing arrogance they are displaying in promoting such a skewed mental landscape.
Tant pis!
Comment deleted
Steve Stark 50+
Details are here:
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html
For the inside story on the fiasco, here is another member of CSICOP who resigned, Dennis Rawlins. It is a bit long and heavy-going but Rawlins' initial summary is worth quoting here for obvious reasons.
"I USED to believe it was simply a figment of the National Enquirer's weekly imagination that the Science Establishment would cover up evidence for the occult. But that was in the era B.C. -- Before the Committee. I refer to the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" (CSICOP), of which I am a cofounder and on whose ruling Executive Council (generally called the Council) I served for some years.
I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism. I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research."
http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html
John Hoopes
That's correct, Debbie. Far more accurate if I do, but not invalid or even incorrect if I don't.
"How do you know your secondary source has faithfully recorded your primary source?"
In scholarship, it's a judgment call based on other knowledge and the value of intuition (something that is ironically lauded in fringe and pseudoscience but disparaged when used in mainstream science--ironic.)
"Always work on a primary source if it is possible."
I would agree with that. However, someone who works on *only* the primary source and privileges it over critical material is likely to succumb to any inherent errors, fallacies, illusions, and propaganda it may contain. After all, we're only human. Before approaching any primary source, it is essential to consider it within in as complete and representative a critical framework as possible. Knowledge and scholarship progresses. At least, in many areas.
Adrian Sutton 10+
I think it was Jacque Fresco,who in conversation with Albert Einstein asked whether he believed in God? “Which one?” was Einstein’s reply. When he asked what Einstein’s views on reality were, he replied “It’s a matter of perspective”.
There is nothing wrong with skepticism or doubt but no amount of it can dismiss duly verified evidence or the perspectives it supports. To do this you must produce contradictory evidence.
Sheldrake and Hancock have been accused of skirting the line of science, sailing too close to the wind and looking at the blurred boundaries to form their hypothesis and ideas. As if this form of enquiry should justifiably disqualify their interpretations. I strongly disagree and argue this is precisely the approach that developmental science must adopt if it is to make any new advances.
For those who feel that this is a storm in a tea cup by some alternative movement and TED management has every right pull the discussions. Truth is not convenient, the only embarrassment and discomfort being caused is by TED’s Administration not willing to apply one set of standards equally. If they are not up to its task then they should resign and make way for others willing to do so. If they try and hide behind the title of authority then it must be removed from them. Failure to do so will only taint everyone else associated with the organization, reducing its profile to that of corporate soapbox.
Continued below .......
Adrian Sutton 10+
I hope the TED Fellows who have given us their ideas and time so generously, demand this of TED’s management and if the management fails to comply, they tar and feather them with scorn.
Unlike in our reality and free from its predatory bears, the salmon of ideas should be able to swim freely in the stream of knowledge. Allowed, unhindered to seek out fertile beds of inspiration. Then spawn fourth abundantly, the hatched fry struggling equally in the currents of understanding, to reach the sea of wisdom.
Simon Wood
PROOFS are the currency of mathematics, but Srinivasa Ramanujan, one of the all-time great mathematicians, often managed to skip them. Now a proof has been found for a connection that he seemed to mysteriously intuit between two types of mathematical function.
The proof deepens the intrigue surrounding the workings of Ramanujan's enigmatic mind. It may also help physicists learn more about black holes - even though these objects were virtually unknown during the Indian mathematician's lifetime.
Born in 1887 in Erode, Tamil Nadu, Ramanujan was self-taught and worked in almost complete isolation from the mathematical community of his time. Described as a raw genius, he independently rediscovered many existing results, as well as making his own unique contributions, believing his inspiration came from the Hindu goddess Namagiri. But he is also known for his unusual style, often leaping from insight to insight without formally proving the logical steps in between. "His ideas as to what constituted a mathematical proof were of the most shadowy description," said G. H.Hardy (pictured, far right), Ramanujan's mentor and one of his few collaborators.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628904.200-mathematical-proof-reveals-magic-of-ramanujans-genius.html
Kristen Jones
The field experiments he refers to are interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqdcdky9wR4
Julie Baxter
Larry Dossey
I was scheduled to speak at the West Hollywood event. But my scientific credibility was questioned by TED's science advisory board in their decision to withdraw support and revoke the license of TEDxWestHollywood.
I’ve lectured at dozens of top-tier medical schools and hospitals all over the U.S. for two decades. Although my colleagues don’t always agree with my points of view, this is the first time my scientific credibility has ever been questioned.
My TEDx talk would have dealt with the correlations between spirituality, health, and longevity, for which there is immense evidence; and recent experimental findings that point toward a nonlocal view of consciousness for which, again, there is strong and abundant support. In view of our lack of understanding of the origins and destiny of consciousness, and considering the demographics of the TEDx followers, I thought this information would have been of considerable interest.
As a board-certified physician of internal medicine, former chief of staff of a major hospital, author of twelve books and scores of papers on these subjects published in peer-reviewed journals, a recipient of many awards, a frequent lecturer at medical schools and hospitals, and executive editor of the peer-reviewed journal, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, I’d be interested in knowing from TED where I came up short.
“A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, it is an opportunity,” Whitehead said. It should not be a reason for censorship.
CChaos CChaos 20+
I've taken the liberty of posting your response on this thread too.
Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license. | A conversation on TED.com ~ http://www.ted.com/conversations/17348/discuss_the_note_to_the_ted_co.html
too bad the TED Science Board is comprised of anonymous members. in any case, I'd be interested to see an official response from TED. if the Sheldrake/Hancock threads are an indication, I doubt that TED would be capable of providing a sound and reasonable justification for explicitly pointing to Russell Targ, Larry Dossey, and Marilyn Schlitz in their decision to revoke TEDxWestHollywood's license.
Eugene Pustoshkin
Geoff Fitch
Kerry Rowberry
Thanks for sharing the link to my TI page John. Although i rarely visit that site and only originally joined in the hope of finding research participants. The blog I promote on there is no longer available as I was concerned about legal ramifications.
You can find out more about me via my website www.kerryrowberry.co.uk or search for me on facebook. I will happily add people providing i get a little message of introduction. I am kerry_rowberry on twitter.
if anyone here is from the UK and has been involved with ayahuasca, Kambo/sapo, and salvia (chewed not smoked) use and would like to be interviewed anonymously for my research please do get in touch. I am looking into the cultural aspects of amazonian shamanism withing the UK. i consider four main areas of interest beliefs, motives, impact and value. I am particularly interested in the migration of cultural phenomena into a starkly different cultural landscape.
Waldemar Mrozinski
Thank you, everyone.
CChaos CChaos 20+
----
Russell Targ speaks out
“In cancelling the TEDx event in West Hollywood, it appears that I was accused of ‘using the guise of science’ to further spooky claims (or some such),” said physicist Dr. Russell Targ in “The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk” on TED Conversations. (Targ was/is scheduled to speak on “The Reality of ESP: A Physicist’s Proof of Psychic Abilities” at ExTEDWestHollywood.)
“People on [the TED Conversations] blog have asked what I was going to talk about . That’s easily answered. I was co-founder of a 23-year research program investigating psychic abilities at Stanford Research Institute. We were doing research and applications for the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Air Force and Army Intelligence, NASA, and others.
“In this $25 million program we used ‘remote viewing’ to find a downed Russian bomber in North Africa, for which President Carter commended us. We found a kidnapped U.S. general in Italy, and the kidnap car that snatched Patricia Hearst. We looked in on the US hostages in Iran, and predicted the immanent release of Richard Queen, who was soon sent to Germany. We described a Russian weapons factory in Siberia, leading to a U.S. congressional investigation about weakness in U.S/ security, etc.
“We published our scientific findings in Nature, Proc. IEEE, Proc. AAAS, and Proc. American Institute of Physics. I thought a TED audience would find this recently declassified material interesting. And no physics would be harmed in my presentation.”
~ http://www.kurzweilai.net/ted-removes-tedxwesthollywood-license-speakers-failed-to-gain-scientific-acceptance
John Hoopes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychology_of_the_Psychic
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1573927988
CChaos CChaos 20+
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfBqFB_hdoA
John Hoopes
Occult Chemistry
http://books.google.com/books?id=6L_79_pT2UEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
John Hoopes
http://www.google.com/landing/nose
Amaya Amaya
John Hoopes
Amaya Amaya
John Hoopes
http://www.ted.com/pages/about
Whoever starts an "alternative TED" for spreading fringe ideas will have a goldmine. Here's a free idea for the new brand: CRED.