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.

  • thumb
    Apr 7 2013: Josephson is a smart cookie.


    However, he is supportive of a theory for the "memory of water":


    Can a Nobel prize winner in physics support pseudoscience?

    Brian David Josephson

    What about chemist Linus Pauling and Vitamin C?

    Linus Pauling

    The Dark Side of Pauling and Vitamin C

    Vitamin C - The Linus Pauling Institute
    • Apr 7 2013: John, you seem to imagine pseudoscience is the topic and not the method. Thus you are associating science with current scientific findings and not the method of finding them. This is a very common misunderstanding and one you seem determined to promote. This is why I think anti-science advocates such as yourself do far more damage to science than a few people conducting experiments to see whether things you are ideologically committed to are true or not. That's the rough side of science - it sometimes exposes one's cherished beliefs as wrong - and your beliefs hold no special place such that they are exempt from investigation however much you might wish it was otherwise..
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2013: No, Amfortas. I am not mixing it up. I have been pointing out that there is a huge difference between beliefs of 0 > p > 1 and beliefs of p = 0 or p = 1.
        • Apr 7 2013: There is indeed a huge difference between any beliefs of things possible and beliefs of 0 > p > 1.
        • Apr 7 2013: Who needs p=1 or p=0 but mathematicians and control freaks? Above 4 or 5 sigma is generally accepted for proof in science, but not for psi, according to Dean Radin.
      • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 7 2013: That's very nice, Amfortas, but if someone were to draw a conclusion from your story, they would be committing a fallacy based on anecdotal evidence.

        Anecdotal evidence
        • Apr 7 2013: Calling for investigation or support is not conclusion, you mix this up. Still I can draw a conclusion from my personal evidence. I followed the story about the nature article, not knowing about Randi, but this looked suspicious. Now a few years later, as I know it works (from personal experience, in my case, like switching on a light bulb) even more so.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.