Doug Little

Someone is shy

Doug hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Doug Little
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Ok, I've been diligently reading through these posts and yes, I do get the feeling that TED will ultimately do nothing about reinstating these talks, apologizing or ratifying their rules on what makes the cut for a TED Talk. This forum of comments is just a smoke screen to let us vent, ultimately they will not respond and when the time runs out of this comment thread it will be done. How many of you are willing to walk away from TED when all is said and done? How many of you are willing to look for another internet venue that better represents the reality of exploring science topics in an open and honest way - leaving the decision on what to believe in the hands of the viewers and not decided for us by an "Anonymous panel"? Let's discuss other venues that we can turn into a newer, better TED. Or will they censor my comment? Interesting thought.... Always remember.... It is a Mysterious Universe.....After all
Noface
Doug Little
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Thank you so much for showing the integrity to stand behind your speakers. Well done. I, for one, would be interested in hearing what Rupert and Graham's peers from the Whitechapel event have to say on the matter. It sounds like they are as appalled as the rest of us.
Noface
Doug Little
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Agreed. You've expanded on some of my ideas I was trying to get across nicely. There are other venues out there that these men could have used and perhaps they do go to a variety of non-mainsteam symposiums. I'm not sure. But don't suck them in and give them a TED talk and then throw them away with the garbage. There are a lot of topics out there that are fascinating and interesting to listen to even if you don't agree with them.
Noface
Doug Little
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Indeed. The mere mention of screening speakers for "Purity" is supposed to get the hackles up on the reader of my post. (My sarcasm was the fallacy of doing this screening and the "Anonymous board", but I don't think that came across as sarcasm) I of course do no agree with that philosophy at all. I think the intelligent people who view TED talks are smart enough to determine for themselves what to believe. My main point was it is absolutely wrong to set someone up by inviting them to speak and then trying to publicly disgrace them so that you can discredit them to further your own agenda. This may not have been what they were doing, but it is obvious from the responses that this is the prevailing opinion. And if TED IS going to try and protect their brand to conform to some vision of scientific purity, they are going to do it. As I said - this is their ball game. They are not a scientific organization. They make their own rules and can do what they want. However, I think the repercussions of the decisions they will make in the next few days will have a great impact on the integrity that they hold in their followers eyes.
Noface
Doug Little
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
This is more of a business decision on how TED wants to run their organization. It's their ball, they can take it and play any sport they want with it, but they need to be consistent. They created TEDx to open things up to a broader audience and promote these talks through their brand. They indicate that they have a hands off approach and do not directly control these - yet they are concerned about how these talks can have a negative impact on the integrity of their brand. A little lack of foresight there perhaps. I, for one, don't feel that there is any dark conspiracy here on TED's behalf and I think their intentions are honest and they now find themselves grappling with a beast of a problem. The solution? Well, if they want to continue to have an open forum for people of all differing opinions and ideas to have their 18 minutes, then they need to stand behind it. If they want to control the integrity and their brand - then they need to take control of that. Do not invite guests to an event that they are not prepared to showcase to the world. It is wrong - Tantamount to slander and libel - To invite a guest to a forum of discussion to present his ideas, his lifework, etc. to the discerning TED followers and then publicly denounce that persons work. That is spiteful and smacks of an agenda of some sort. No insult intended but, your laziness in being willing to vet speakers at your TEDx events has had a negative impact on the lives and careers of the gentlemen in question. You invited them to speak - you posted their discussions online - then you took them down denouncing them as bunk. Sounds like a set-up. The only solution you have is to reinstate the talks in question and apologize immediately. Next step is to set up a more formal process - An "Anonymous board" if you will - to screen potential speakers at all TEDx events to ensure the purity of the material discussed - before the event. You can't do it after the fact.