Niomi Hill

Someone is shy

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

Comments & conversations

Noface
Niomi Hill
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
A public oath already exists, an oath which used to be required by doctors and some scientists: The Hippocratic Oath, simplified: DO NO HARM. Doctors and scientists, lawyers, and public officials are no longer required to take the Oath. While the oath is entirely symbolic, I have little doubt that those who refuse to take the oath (voluntarily) may have questionable ethical and moral values.
Noface
Niomi Hill
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Perhaps the issue is more complicated than we on the outside realize. I am making an assumption here, but perhaps the reason why Ted is reticent to publish Sheldrake's talk is because someone who contributes large donations - and is keeping Ted afloat - is threatening to pull funding. Without funding Ted would cease to exist. Perhaps they're concerned that if they allow Sheldrake's talk it will open the floodgates to true pseudoscience, such as David Icke's belief in extra-dimensional beings and reptilian shapeshifters and the like. (Personally, while extra dimensional beings and biological transmogrification may be possible, David Icke is so fervent - and angry - that I avoid anything he publishes because I feel that he is perpetrating the very thing he is advocating against: spreading fear and hate). Perhaps Ted simply does not have the resources available to dedicate to policing talks and the most time-effective solution is to remove sponsorship from scientifically-questionable talks. Perhaps we should realize that Ted is a private organization and while the public is welcome to voice its opinions the bottom line is that Ted is allowed to ban whatever talks they see fit and have no obligation to justify it. And lastly, if you do not agree with Ted's policies perhaps you and a group of like-minded friends should consider creating your own organization devoted to supporting and disseminating fringe science. There is certainly an audience for it. But there is a fine line between fringe science and quackery, and woe is the individual charged with the responsibility of delineating between the two. The bottom line is, while we may not agree with some of Ted's policies, Ted is nevertheless an excellent source for information and inspiration. Take what you need from Ted, and fill in the rest yourself by performing your own research. This is what I do, it works for me.
Noface
Niomi Hill
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
What kind of action would satisfy you? Reinstatement of the videos? Publication of the names of the individuals who opposed the talks so that we can tar and feather them in the village square? Do you want to punish Ted, or do you simply want Ted to re-post the videos? I think it's fair that they removed the videos, and then re-posted them for public debate. With all luck they will eventually reinstate the videos and add a "the views therein may not reflect the views of mainstream science" disclaimer along with, perhaps, an objective apology to the speakers.
Noface
Niomi Hill
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Strange. Recent news states that the speed of light is indeed not constant.. so what, exactly, is the debate? http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/speed-light-vacuum-varies-slightly-study-finds I have watched some truly pointless (yet entertaining) videos on Ted, that have nothing to do with science or "Ideas Worth Spreading", and yet there seems to be no issue. For instance, one Ted talk where a speaker provides no proof yet openly advocates giving billions of dollars to corrupt charities because "overhead is important". Another video, albeit adorable, of a trio of young boys playing bluegrass (I do love bluegrass, but what place does this video have on Ted?). Another video, which was wonderful, of dancing robots. Sheldrake's opinions may not be accepted by mainstream science but the principles, ideas, and opinions stated in his talk are still valid and important. People should try to understand that the scientific community isn't hellbent on banning Sheldrake (and Hancock for that matter) out of maliciousness, but out of fear. The ideas both of these men bring to the table are disturbing to those who are afraid of breaking free of their materialistic world-view. The idea that science isn't fact, that the laws of nature are malleable, is to many scientists a lot like telling someone who fervently believes in religion that their God is a sham. The initial reaction to perception-altering information is almost always outrage and shock. While I strongly disagree with Ted's decision to ban Sheldrake's talk, shaming Ted employees, insulting them, or threatening to boycott Ted entirely is counter productive and malicious. By all means, voice your opinions. But be polite. It is difficult to take someone seriously when their response to this debacle is akin to "you banned a video! I hate you! I'm never going to watch your videos ever again, so there!". We're better than that.