Jess Boldt Posted 11 months ago Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license. The post didn't show up until I posted my response, but that matters very little. The main argument at hand, it seems, is what we classify as pseudoscience and what is theories are allowed to be discussed in a rational manner without being automatically classified as pseudoscience. You'll get no argument from me that misinformation can be dangerous for society. Personally, and I don't speak for a monolith, I think one of the most dangerous bits of misinformation is that autism is caused by vaccines. But that doesn't give me credence to use the anti-vax movement to make an unrelated point. Say, I want to argue for more funding for astroid research while someone is arguing for less or no funding by stating it serves no purpose. I wouldn't bring up vaccinations into the conversation because it holds no real importance to the conversation. All it does is muddy the waters and paints with a broad brush. The finer points always have to be sussed out and topics should be argued on their merit alone. Why I say Red Herring, is because, by bringing up an abortion bill (One i don't personally support) in this thread, puts it in the same classification as all other topics.It's far easier to knock down the idea of this bill (IMO) than really tease out the data Targ offers up. I fail to see how the consideration of the alleged evidence of ESP is comparable to the public policy ramifications of an intrusive abortion bill. All I am saying is that automatically classifying something as pseudoscience instead of supporting a rigorous debate between the best minds of the subject isn't helpful. It smacks of ideology. If an idea is worth having, it's worth being challenged on. I think we can all agree on that.