TED Conversations

  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States


This conversation is closed.

Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.

For discussion: http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/01/a-note-to-the-ted-community-on-the-withdrawal-of-the-tedxwesthollywood-license


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 2 2013: i appreciate TED defining their brand and being consistent in its alignment to it. it's no different than my trust in companies that i buy food from. i know certain one's don't add certain ingredients which makes shopping easier. however, i recommend TED update is conceptual notion of its aim. for example, what is 'language of science'? science is a method, not a value set or a language or a community. can't determine the value of things. there seems to be a great confusion on the difference between a claim made by Science and a scientist. Science can never tell us anything of value — that's determined by humans and is in itself wholly unscientific. Technology is not science. Education is not science. Design is not science. Yes, they may USE science, but all science does is measure and and compare. it cannot make judgements.
    if you haven't studied philosophy, this may be difficult to understand. if Science has a language, it is mathematics. when you speak of 'scientific language', you're talking about a translation of a method mathematics into English with all its prose and poetry and rhetoric.
    i NEVER assume anything ANYONE is telling me is more than their interpretation of their perceptions. to reject "talks that present one spiritual view as the 'truth'" and then to say there is one scientific truth shows a philosophical bias of spiritually as relative and science as absolute— both become opinion when interpreted through humans

    my suggestions for improvement:
    •add both philosophers of religion and science to your advisory board
    •list the 'ingredients' of each talk — warning: this TEDx has may make unverifiable claims or states opinions as fact
    •allow more divisive talks. no teacher should be showing their class a talk they haven't previewed or not discussing the legitimacy of its claims with the class after. i WANT to here people make claims as truth, even spiritual, like they did in the old days instead of this modern 'everyone is right' rhetoric
    • Apr 2 2013: Listing 'ingredients' is a brilliant idea (so long as the terms for ingredients don't carry bias, such as listing 'woo' as an ingredient, or something. unfalsifiability is fine, as people should be thinking about that.)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.