Mar 21 2013: “Truth, curiosity, diversity, no selling, no corporate bullshit, no bandwagoning, no platforms. Just the pursuit of interest, wherever it lies, across all the disciplines that are represented here.”
— Chris Anderson on the core values of TED
Mar 21 2013: Maybe we should give them a chance to respond before calling them cowards? I'm just saying it doesn't help our case for a debate if we're presupposed to hostility before it even starts.
I think Chris is trying his best here. He's in a tough spot, at least from his perspective.
Please, PLEASE, do the right thing here and accept Rupert Sheldrake's debate invitation. You guys put him on the defensive, and your science board did so with extreme (over?)confidence. There is clearly no fear on his end, and there should be none on yours. At the very least, it will be one heck of an entertaining, constructive, and informative debate.
You know, in your heart of hearts, that an open debate is the most fair and graceful way to resolve this, while -- at least in my book -- completing repairing any damage to TED's credibility and turning a PR nightmare into a huge win for everyone.
Edit: Today I learned that Chris Anderson of TED is not the same person as Chris Anderson of WIRED. Regardless, I think they'll both pretty chill guys. :-P
Mar 21 2013: This is an excellent idea. I can think of no better format to advance the stated goals of this debate. And, incidentally, no better way to repair TED's credibility and satisfy both camps in this debate.
TED Staff - This is a prime opportunity to turn a PR nightmare in a big win for everyone.
Mar 20 2013: At least 130k people disagree with you, David, about it being useful/interesting information. There are plenty of TED talks that are not science-based. Hancock's in particular was more on the philosophy of science, as has been said many times before, and all of the controversial statements in question were very carefully framed. So again, I don't quite understand the controversy.
Mar 20 2013: @Dave, 130k views is excellent for even an official TED (not TEDx) video -- especially in a mere matter of weeks. There are official TED videos that don't get near that in six years.
To compare an 18-minute lecture of a substantive/intellectual nature to Gangham Style or Hulu replays of Dancing with the Stars is pointless and misleading.
Mar 20 2013: @Chris, thank you for taking the time to better elucidate TED's position here.
Please understand that at least 75% of the outrage and animosity here is due to the way this was initially handled, e.g. framing the videos with refutations that clearly misrepresented what both speakers had to say, leveling wikipedia-based accusations of "pseudoscience" on the speakers, and leaving them up for days without adequate response.
Regarding the challenges of curation, 165k+ people watched these videos before they were pulled. While there was some healthy criticism and debate, the response from the community was overwhelmingly positive, and the videos appealed to a large audience beyond dedicated Hancock/Sheldrake groupies and stoners. I can think of no better illustration of public response to ideas worth spreading.
Mar 20 2013: I think that given the limitations of an 18-minute presentation, it is not "sleazy" for Sheldrake to make an offhanded comment to the effect that he has laid out this case in far greater detail elsewhere -- especially given the tendency of some to nitpick an obviously limited argument to death. While the point of Sheldrake's book reference is legitimately debatable, it is far from a shameless plug.
If TED wants to keep these talks civil, its representatives should refrain from levying further inflammatory insinuations at its speakers.
Yes. Someone probably rang them up and said "Our community is asking for us to get involved in this conversation and it's coming off as pretty one-sided at this point. Can you please jump in and do your best to represent our concerns in a reasonable, well-substantiated, and courteous manner?"
If this is the case (and I sincerely apologize to any TED-affiliated commenters if it is not), they seem to be doing their best to get up to speed and contribute constructively.
What has been fundamentally lost in this conversation is the assumption of mutual good faith on both sides. Now that TED and its representatives are willing to engage with the community in a civilized and substantive manner, I suggest we do our best to put past offenses behind us and focus on having the conversation that should have taken place on day one.
TEDCred score: +8.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
— Chris Anderson on the core values of TED
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
I think Chris is trying his best here. He's in a tough spot, at least from his perspective.
Please, PLEASE, do the right thing here and accept Rupert Sheldrake's debate invitation. You guys put him on the defensive, and your science board did so with extreme (over?)confidence. There is clearly no fear on his end, and there should be none on yours. At the very least, it will be one heck of an entertaining, constructive, and informative debate.
You know, in your heart of hearts, that an open debate is the most fair and graceful way to resolve this, while -- at least in my book -- completing repairing any damage to TED's credibility and turning a PR nightmare into a huge win for everyone.
Edit: Today I learned that Chris Anderson of TED is not the same person as Chris Anderson of WIRED. Regardless, I think they'll both pretty chill guys. :-P
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
FTFY
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
TED Staff - This is a prime opportunity to turn a PR nightmare in a big win for everyone.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
To compare an 18-minute lecture of a substantive/intellectual nature to Gangham Style or Hulu replays of Dancing with the Stars is pointless and misleading.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Please understand that at least 75% of the outrage and animosity here is due to the way this was initially handled, e.g. framing the videos with refutations that clearly misrepresented what both speakers had to say, leveling wikipedia-based accusations of "pseudoscience" on the speakers, and leaving them up for days without adequate response.
Regarding the challenges of curation, 165k+ people watched these videos before they were pulled. While there was some healthy criticism and debate, the response from the community was overwhelmingly positive, and the videos appealed to a large audience beyond dedicated Hancock/Sheldrake groupies and stoners. I can think of no better illustration of public response to ideas worth spreading.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
If TED wants to keep these talks civil, its representatives should refrain from levying further inflammatory insinuations at its speakers.
A reply on Conversation: The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Yes. Someone probably rang them up and said "Our community is asking for us to get involved in this conversation and it's coming off as pretty one-sided at this point. Can you please jump in and do your best to represent our concerns in a reasonable, well-substantiated, and courteous manner?"
If this is the case (and I sincerely apologize to any TED-affiliated commenters if it is not), they seem to be doing their best to get up to speed and contribute constructively.
What has been fundamentally lost in this conversation is the assumption of mutual good faith on both sides. Now that TED and its representatives are willing to engage with the community in a civilized and substantive manner, I suggest we do our best to put past offenses behind us and focus on having the conversation that should have taken place on day one.