Mar 21 2013: I actually believe that some good is going to come out of this mess. It has sent a clear message to the “skeptical” community, that their attempt to police human knowledge is doomed to failure. This vocal group of activists are the modern equivalent of “curtain twitchers” – people who spy on their neighbors and constantly call in complaints to the police. The modern skepticism cause is inherently unpopular because most decent people view this type of behavior as a bit nasty. The skeptics were ignored while they kept their activities under the radar, but now that they are more actively working for censorship of ideas they can expect a backlash.
Mar 21 2013: The fact that TED took this action in the first place has tarnished their image. By refusing to put things right, they are doing irreparable damage. The outrage against TED is increasing, and all the only benefit of their actions has been to introduce the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake to an even wider audience - I doubt that this was their original intention. TED needs to take immediate action to salvage their reputation while there is something left to salvage. They are deluded if they believe that they are too big to fail.
Mar 21 2013: Jerry Coyne is too busy trying to find new controversial titles for his posts, so that he can get a few more hits for his blog. The nice thing about his audience is that they rarely read much more than the title of his post - which is just as well really because he likes his fluff in large doses.
PZ Myers is all about drama and hand waving, but he will run a mile when asked to defend his position. He automatically deletes any comments on his blog that question his ideas. He tends to prefer drive by shootings because he would never cope with a real debate.
Mar 21 2013: The actions of TED would not look out of place in a Laurel and Hardy sketch. The organization is obviously run by a bunch of rank amateurs who are too easily swayed by drama queens like Jerry Coyne - a "skeptic" blogger who likes to make outrageous claims in order to attract people to his blog. It is time to speak to some real scientists and not those calling for censorship. It is time for TED to do the right thing and they can begin by allowing Sheldrake to face his accusers.
Mar 9 2013: The one thing that I find galling is that the sceptics are already whining (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/tedx-has-second-thoughts-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk-asks-viewers-to-weigh-in/) that those of us who are against censorship of Sheldrake have not provided evidence to support his claims. Oh, the hypocrisy. They are the ones who want to shut him up, so surely the onus is on them to support this with evidence. They have not debunked his claims – all they have done is prove that there might be a great deal to them.
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your Opinion, man"
What you need are more facts and less outrage.
It seems a bit dangerous to me that ideas about science should be censored to fit in with the a certain worldview.
Mar 9 2013: Hi Emily, I hope that when you and your colleagues are making your decision that you will remember that this "truly fascinating conversation" would not have happened without the Rupert Sheldrake video. If he were just some quack or scam artist I doubt that this conversation would have been interesting at all. I think TED and science will ultimately benefit from this type of content.
Mar 8 2013: I agree with you Sandy. The problem is that there is a group of people who have appointed themselves as defenders of a particular worldview and these people are trying to hijack science. They have made it their religion, and their dogmatism means that they do not want their beliefs questioned. They have replaced good and evil with science and woo. Rupert Sheldrake is making the reasonable argument that science should not be held back by this type of dogmatism. It is funny, there are plenty of other TEDx videos on here that deal with controversial scientific ideas, but the skeptics are so angry with Sheldrake because he is questioning their most cherished beliefs. He is a heretic and they want him shut up.
BTW - I would give you a thumbs up, but I'm spent :)
Mar 8 2013: It's sad how easy it is to for people to drag Rupert Sheldrake's name through the mud just because people are made uncomfortable by his words. Of course, it is always going to be easier for sceptics to go after his character rather than his claims. The problem is that most of us have gotten into the habit of just reading sound bites. This means that all a sceptic has to is do is a bit of handwaving, and call their enemy a scam artist, and there will be many other people who will just accept this as fact - they are not going to check the facts themselves.
The thing that has surprised me much about the so called skeptics of Rupert Sheldrake is that their arguments have been so weak - even the celebrity skeptics like Coyne and Myers. It is like they have been caught with their trousers down, and they are just fumbling around in damage control mode. They want Rupert Sheldrake silenced because his arguments question their dogmatic beliefs, and they are incapable of dealing with these arguments. Easier to say that he is a "woo meister" than to actually tackle his claims about scientific dogmatism.
My guess is that the TED people have already made their mind up about Sheldrake. I hope not. My post will likely be taken as a rant, but I'm just so annoyed by this attempt by a very vocal group to silence a legitimate argument. It is up to the people at TED to decide on what videos they wish to put their name to, but it seems to me that if they do decide to censor Sheldrake they will be damaging their own credibility. The arguments raised by Rupert are not going away.
Mar 8 2013: Hi Derek, I've never posted on here previously, but I am a glutton for TED videos. I signed up to make comments here today because I feel so depressed by the calls to have Rupert Sheldrake censored. As far as I can see, the arguments given by those who want him silenced have barely risen above personal attacks – he has certainly not been debunked.
I'm agnostic in regards to the claims of Sheldrake, but he most certainly has interesting things to say. I like the idea of him doing a proper TED talk, but if they remove this video I will be looking elsewhere for educational content. I don't want to be browbeating into what I should believe by a group of people who are trying to police scientific knowledge. I’m disappointed that TED would even consider taking this step.
TEDCred score: +7.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
PZ Myers is all about drama and hand waving, but he will run a mile when asked to defend his position. He automatically deletes any comments on his blog that question his ideas. He tends to prefer drive by shootings because he would never cope with a real debate.
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
A comment on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your Opinion, man"
What you need are more facts and less outrage.
It seems a bit dangerous to me that ideas about science should be censored to fit in with the a certain worldview.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
BTW - I would give you a thumbs up, but I'm spent :)
A comment on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
The thing that has surprised me much about the so called skeptics of Rupert Sheldrake is that their arguments have been so weak - even the celebrity skeptics like Coyne and Myers. It is like they have been caught with their trousers down, and they are just fumbling around in damage control mode. They want Rupert Sheldrake silenced because his arguments question their dogmatic beliefs, and they are incapable of dealing with these arguments. Easier to say that he is a "woo meister" than to actually tackle his claims about scientific dogmatism.
My guess is that the TED people have already made their mind up about Sheldrake. I hope not. My post will likely be taken as a rant, but I'm just so annoyed by this attempt by a very vocal group to silence a legitimate argument. It is up to the people at TED to decide on what videos they wish to put their name to, but it seems to me that if they do decide to censor Sheldrake they will be damaging their own credibility. The arguments raised by Rupert are not going away.
A reply on Conversation: Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
I'm agnostic in regards to the claims of Sheldrake, but he most certainly has interesting things to say. I like the idea of him doing a proper TED talk, but if they remove this video I will be looking elsewhere for educational content. I don't want to be browbeating into what I should believe by a group of people who are trying to police scientific knowledge. I’m disappointed that TED would even consider taking this step.