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
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
john stokes
Chris Anderson 500+
Signed, the Inquisitor. ;-)
Pandelis P.
I do not envy you at all...and the saddest thing is that you probably do not grasp the importance of what is happening right now for TED.
Gail . 50+
Juergen Nagler
We want TED to remain a neutral platform, not as an evaluator, judge, censor. This might Ba a turning point for TED, to remain progressive and broad-based or become narrow-minded and conformist.
bart van der Horst
Why is that? Perhaps a thourough scientific answer is wasted on the minds of these low IQ hordes?
You are an inquisitor indeed in this matter.
Perhaps now you understand how easy that is to take that role when you have some power.
It is interesting that you don't show any interest for any serious debate to uncover pseudoscience. You just base everything on here say.
I greet you mr Inquisitor who likes to be cynical to the demanding internet hordes.
I will spread your tone and tell that your idealism somehow seems to override parental control over children who are now hopping on a plain to south america to indulge in ayahuasca.
I also wish you much luck "since the new set of guidelines are active" with removing all the other talks that seem to enthouisast youngsters to their doom.
john stokes