This conversation is closed.
Who feels that TED curation should include peer-review in order to maintain standards at a high level?
This talk is selected because it is recent and is representive of a small number of talks which turn out to be either pseudo-science or self-promoting (or both).
I hold TED in high regard for the global stature of the talks generally, the high moral standards of the projects being presented, and their technical / scientific rigour. In short, I trust TED. But the minority of 'fuzzy' talks is eroding that trust and reducing my interest in TED as a whole.
I believe that the TED screening process should be more rigorous and in particular should actively eliminate talks that :
a. have no clear basis in science (via peer review).
b. have no commercial agenda (e.g. a product or service aimed at the public which exposure via TED would help - e.g. a book).
In some cases the latter criterion may be hard to justify in the interests of spreading the TED message. But in no circumstances should both a. and b. be permitted in my view.
Do you feel I am being too sensitive/precious about the TED 'brand'?
Do you consider TED entertainment or education?
Do you trust the speakers on faith or do you research around a topic of interest?