6 ms·

"Holds a nonstandard degree. For instance, if the physics-related speaker has a degree in engineering, not physics; if the medical researcher does not have an M

• jpdoctor 14y ago
  > For instance, if the physics-related speaker has a degree in engineering, not physics; Yeah, that set off my WTF alarm too. I don't think it's news to TED admins that the line between physics and engineering is messy (I worked on quantum devices but (surprise!) engineering degrees paid substantially more in the 80s so my PhD is engineering.) I'm gonna guess there's a backstory and they got burned hard.
  • jlgreco 14y ago
    No so much a back-story as several back-stories all with the common theme of quacks, sometimes with degrees in irrelevant fields, making plainly false claims.
  • theorique 14y ago
    Likewise - my PhD is engineering, but my advisor was cross-appointed and I published primarily in Physics journals. Any due diligence done by a TEDx committee should find this, though.
• bryze 14y ago
  Along the same vein: "The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification". Many of the points they list are valid, but this conspicuous appeal to authority makes me much less inclined to watch the talks.
  • pekk 14y ago
    If they are having a problem with perpetual-motion trolls and people speaking well outside their field of expertise then it is a valid reaction. If you are speaking on an academic subject then the default should be that there be some reason to believe you are credible on that subject.
    • bryze 14y ago
      To clarify. The bullet points are listed under "Marks of Good Science". Holding a degree does not mean your publications or claims are good science. It's fine if Ted wants to only have degree holders as speakers, but they should be clear that it's a bias they've chosen, not "good science".
      • fatbird 14y ago
        They're organizers of a conference, not academics. If you require them to replicate the experiment to prove it's good science, you're crippling them. It's perfectly appropriate for them to apply conservative heuristics to make their editorial load manageable, and a good heuristic is "has the appropriate academic credentials." They're popularizers, not the cutting edge.
  • jpdoctor 14y ago
    > but this conspicuous appeal to authority makes me much less inclined to watch the talks. You prefer non-authoritative information?
    • bryze 14y ago
      Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
      • jpdoctor 14y ago
        So you do prefer non-authoritative information?
• babarock 14y ago
  I agree with you that it's poorly worded, however keep in mind that they're giving red flags. The way I understand it they mean "clues that the speaker might be engaging in pseudo-science" and not a definitive arbitrary rejection. Experience can teach you certain things, even if not 100% politically correct. What they're doing is simply passing on their experience to other TEDx organizers.
  • lukifer 14y ago
    So in other words, one is supposed to detect bad science using bad science? If I were to take the stage saying "I can't disprove Theory X using empirical data, but here are some red flags that cast that theory into doubt", many would consider that textbook pseudoscience. I'm not saying that red flags and intuition have no value, but they should be taken with a boulder of salt, and definitely not suggested to a layperson who may not have the experience and context to know when red flags should and should not be applied.
    • fatbird 14y ago
      As the letter clearly states, tripping red flags should result in a higher level of scrutiny from the organizer. They do not, in themselves, trigger rejection.
      • sliverstorm 14y ago
        To continue on this train of discussion, if higher levels of scrutiny scare you- don't let the door hit you on the way out!
    • wpietri 14y ago
      And your proposed alternate approach would be? Keep in mind that these are volunteers from a broad set of backgrounds. Their only demonstrated expertise is running small to medium events. The central TED organization is modest in size and staffed by people who are fiendishly busy. Go! If the problem isn't tractable enough to apply hard science, then rough heuristics and human judgment are about the best you get.
• drzaiusapelord 14y ago
  >Not having a degree in something disallows you to "make an effort to engage with other scholars"? For non-trivial things? Yes, generally. Why not? I mean, why do guys with phds in earth science or geology have to get lumped in with nuts like Neal Adams and his expanding Earth bullshit? Why would Tedx weigh them as the same? I'm so sick of this "My bullshit is just as good as your facts" Fox News mentality. There should be discrimination and vetting and standards. The world simply has too many opportunistic and money hungry crackpots. These guys can go start their own little events. The problem with branding yourself as a rebel outlet is that only a very, very small percentage of rebels know what they're doing. Climate change was once a rebel position, but the science backs it up, so we can rely on a basic form of meritocracy in academia to help unpopular ideas along. We don't need comic book artists going to conventions and yelling about "the establishment holding down expanding earth theory" and then trying to get a talking gig next to a real scientist who gives a shit about the science. This also applies to guys speaking outside their fields too. Okay your phd is in engineering but you want to give a speech on how global warming is fake? Yeah, no thanks.
  • guscost 14y ago
    Do you think that it would be possible for someone who doesn't agree with global warming alarmism to complete a PhD in Climate Science? Honest question.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • fatbird 14y ago
      Sure. Not if they referred to it as "alarmism", because that would indicate that they don't give a shit about the science of it, which seems problematic in a science PhD. But if they did proper science, they wouldn't have a problem.
      • kevinpet 14y ago
        The use of "alarmism" is a political judgment dismissing the extreme of what some scientists claim is the only possible policy choice. Ethics and cost benefit analysis is never a scientific question. The cost benefit analysis needs input from science, but it is separate from the purely scientific questions.
• jmilloy 14y ago
  No, that's not what it means at all. What it says is, "If a scientist truly wishes to make an advance..., they'll make an effort to engage with other scholars." In other words, anyone holding a nonstandard degree who is serious will engage other scholars who do have standard degrees. Having a nonstandard degree is a red flag. Having engaged scholars who have a standard degree reduces that red flag, while the opposite supports it.
• Symmetry 14y ago
  You misread that as backwards of what the author said. It's not that having a nonstandard degree disallows you from making an effort to engage with other scholars. It requires you to make an effort to engage with other scholars. Turing wasn't a biologist, but when he had ideas about biology he published them in Biology journals and so it would be perfectly appropriate to have had him give a Ted talk on Biology, for instance.
• fatbird 14y ago
  It's not a strict criterion, but it's a great heuristic for whether or not someone knows what they're talking about. Sometimes an outsider makes a valuable contribution to a field, but 99% of the time, it's a crank blaming his lack of a degree on his exclusion from the standard outlets. This is less true in fields like programming where a lot of self-educated people still work happily. But in fields like physics that demand years of intense study just to grasp the field properly, then yeah, whether or not you have the relevant degree is a pretty good signifier of whether or not you're peddling bullshit.