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.
Antonella Broglia 500+
bohemian groover
When they made a concession (after complaints), they prefaced it with lies about the talks. Lies that they eventually retracted. And so far no apology has been issued.
That's an odd way of defining integrity.
Chris Anderson 500+
The reason that paragraph is in there is precisely because we intended from the start that we would NOT censor the talks. It's a pity there's so much disinformation out there.
bart van der Horst
They are on vimeo now, but they are restricted so they don't show up in vimeo's search engine. When you search for a video on google which is on vimeo, google shows this video in an excellent way but because of your restriction on this vimeo channel that possibility is supressed.
Which means it is being censored.
Check your dictionary mr Anderson.
Haley Bourke
Chris Anderson 500+
Er.... but if you actually try googling "Graham Hancock TED Talk", it takes you right to the blog post featuring his video. It really is time to drop the censorship claims. You can criticize us for slapping a watch-with-care warning on these talks. But censorship it ain't.
Steve Stark 50+
Are you going to say anything about how the initial analyses of Sheldrake and Hancock's talk came to be published, and are you going to apologize to these speakers for any distress and/or damage to their reputation it may have caused?
Swati T
What is inexcusable is TED's persistent denial that they actively tainted the reputation of these two speakers.
Best part...no apology was offered. Neither privately nor publicly. None.
THAT is what the real issue is.
THAT is what TED refuses to address.
bart van der Horst
There was a very clear response from TED
what exactly was wrong about mr Vieira's talk
Why are you refusing to clearify exactly what is wrong with the talks of Mr Hancock and mr Sheldrake?
Why don't you make a statement like TED did with Jim Vieira in 2012.
Why isn't there a list with references with timeframes in which is pointed out where the Speakers are plain wrong?
Why are you doing this? Why don't you just explain expose the pseudoscience in a very clear way so we all know what we are looking at.
All TED is saying: "Well it is pseudo science because eh... it is!"
Why in Gods or Science name do you think that that will do?
Why won't you give a thourough answer mr Anderson? I really really do not understand this and I am not the only one, and it is not because I am stupid.
I just want to know why TED is convinced why these talks are pseudoscience!
Steve Stark 50+
So here we are, you asked a question about Hancock's talk, and the answer is that the science board got it wrong again. What would you have us, who are interested, do for the next 13 days?
bart van der Horst
Pandelis P.
Because in a way you tricked the community in believing that you were a truly open forum. And open forums have the selfrespect and the sense of responsibility not to behave this way. From now on you will be respected as a media company, with specific strategy and agenda. Good for you, but in the end, when the curtain falls, deep inside all of you there will be regret...
Lewis Smart 20+
The backlash has to do with judgement and criticism of that curation.