TED Conversations

TED
  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States

TEDCRED 10+

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

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 8 2013: Licence withdrawal aside (lets take this from another angle).

    Can someone provide me a list of the relevant research of the individuals which have been published as peer-reviewed papers, and if they haven't/can't, can it be explained exactly what the reason is for that, if one exists?

    I want to see what the determination on the subject is with the scientific community itself, as opposed to various sides outside of the peer-review level attempting to make that determination.
    thanks.
    • thumb
      Apr 8 2013: There is a long list of peer-reviewed journal articles associated with Targ. More than could be fit into one comment box. Some of Targ's papers have already been mentioned in the conversation (so read the rest of the comments).
    • thumb
      Apr 8 2013: Here's a list of the team members for the West Hollywood event:
      http://www.tedxwesthollywood.com/the-team/

      Here's a list of the scheduled speakers:
      http://www.tedxwesthollywood.com/speakers-3/speakers/

      Here's a memo from TED to the TEDx community regarding their view on bad science/pseudoscience talks at TEDx events:
      http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science

      An excerpt:

      Marks of good science:

      - It makes claims that can be tested and verified

      - It has been published in a peer reviewed journal (but beware… there are some dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t.)

      - It is based on theories that are discussed and argued for by many experts in the field

      - It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy

      - Its proponents are secure enough to accept areas of doubt and need for further investigation

      - It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge

      - The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification

      Marks of bad science:

      - Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth

      - Is not based on experiments that can be reproduced by others

      - Contains experimental flaws or is based on data that does not convincingly corroborate the experimenter’s theoretical claims

      - Comes from overconfident fringe experts

      - Uses over-simplified interpretations of legitimate studies and may combine with imprecise, spiritual or new age vocabulary, to form new, completely untested theories.

      - Speaks dismissively of mainstream science
      Includes some of the red flags listed in the two sections below
      • Apr 8 2013: You are very passionate about your views, Mr. Hoopes, but a consistent theme in your posts is to make a lot of declarative statements, but provide no proof that they apply in this case.

        If TED can't provide proof, and you, such a passionate supporter of TED can't provide proof, then the debate is effective over. Verdict: unpersuaded that TED acted scientifically and in good faith.
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2013: Short of having more information from TED staff, I don't see how this will move forward. I've got my opinions, but I'm not affiliated with TED, don't know any TED staff, and don't have any special insights into the decisions they've made. It may have to remain one of those mysteries, yet another subject for endless speculation and imaginative conspiracy theory. I don't doubt that that will continue to bloom, but I do doubt that it will ever bear fruit.
      • Apr 8 2013: There is no mystery here. TED has no evidence.
        • thumb
          Apr 8 2013: How do you come to that conclusion? Note that TED has said that the decision was not based on individual speakers but the program as a whole. Have you read this memo carefully? I think it may be the closest to background justification that you'll get. Given the nature of the West Hollywood program as a whole, it is no mystery to me why TED pulled its support.

          The memo TED sent to TEDx organizers:
          http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.