Satanist Mufti

Someone is shy

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

Comments & conversations

Noface
Satanist Mufti
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
@Conor, are there review boards for any of these fields you mention comparable to the science review board supposedly operating for TED on these two speakers? Were there any other speakers sidelined like Hancock and Sheldrake were, or are these two unique displacements? Is it possible that the science board (anonymous?) is so biased against Hancock / Sheldrake that they skew TED's content toward less expansive criticism? This appears to be the general argument against TED's decision to continue *primary* support for these videos (instead dumping them in several successive spots; someone did upload the original again, temporary?). I still think that the question of why they were allowed to speak at all if they were going to be subjected to moderation/exclusion ought to be addressed. Who made that decision? Why? Are they receiving rebuke now that their science professionals or sounding board has determined against their judgement? Is there a list of these science decision-makers? Is Sheldrake's contention in writing after the fact that a couple of extremists are opposed to his ideas reasonable, or is it special pleading? I was not aware that Sheldrake was mainstream. He appears to be pushing a particular subcultural struggle (against "The God Delusion"?).
Noface
Satanist Mufti
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
@Grobbelaar, you are very welcome. I think this was adequately deconstructed by a previous poster who explained in some detail how and why the exaggerations as regards the scientific community's attentions and activities (including, apparently, the dearth of substantiating support for his morphogenetic field theories) gave TED incentive to distance itself from him. I don't think that Graham Hancock is really comparable to Mr. Sheldrake, but may be mistaken. Lumping the two together is as relevant as proclaiming that exercising moderation or editorial oversight is "censorship" (barely worth a rational reply). Find me in facebook. I am simply using this account to express my solidarity with TED. I am not trolling, though I do go by the name of Troll Towelhead. Kind regards,
Noface
Satanist Mufti
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
I think it is valuable that TED has weighed in on the side of 'ideas worth spreading' that Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake are insufficiently substantive to be taken seriously in the focal area of science philosophy. Their methods of argumentation and substantiation to their claims are clearly substandard, and extracting them from a venue which *does* attempt to retain high standards gives the proper message about their weaknesses. Way to go TED! This isn't censorship, this is editorial moderation and responsible content review!
Noface
Satanist Mufti
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
It was an adequate review of why it wasn't important to sustain Sheldrake's talk. A refutation should take a bit more time and effort. Given the characterizations (explained adequately as hyperbole below by Knut Franke), Mr. Pintér's analysis is a helpful reasoning for why he thinks pulling was the right choice.
Noface
Satanist Mufti
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
@Time Walker, Editorialship or moderation necessitates a standard applied which serves to exclude. Censorship is a biased action taken on the part of a state against a citizen regarding expression. The two are different categories. Mr. Sheldrake is free to express himself elsewhere, and the videos are remaining up but without the implied endorsement of TED as viable scientific considerations. We might wonder how and why it was that TED was convinced that exponents such as Hancock and Sheldrake might present something salient and reliable, who provided them with assurance that their science board would feel comfortable with these individuals' assertions and hypotheses.