9 ms·

TEDx talks discredited: Sheldrake speaks, argues that speed of light is dropping

44 points by tokenadult 14y ago

lucisferre 14y ago
The author confuses TEDx with TED near the bottom though he mentions it's TEDx earlier. > TED, you’d better vet your speakers from now on Obviously TED doesn't typically vet the TEDx speakers. In fact apparently 378 TEDx events took place just last month. It's starting to feel like there is one of these events just here in Vancouver every month now. https://www.ted.com/tedx https://www.ted.com/tedx
- tapp 14y ago
  Wow, that seems like some pretty serious brand dilution. I'm curious - does anyone know if TED charges any sort of fee to the local TEDx licensees?
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Obviously. It's a significant advantage to be able to use the TED brand.
    - Oculus 14y ago
      There's no fee, you apply online for a free TEDx license.
      - derefr 14y ago
        That's... huh. I think I'd actually rather it cost money. Then, at least, only rich people would be diluting the brand in this way--besides there being fewer of them, there's at least a small correlation between wealth, free time, and ability to immerse oneself in the liberal arts to the point that one can give interesting TED talks ;) (Or, to be more cynical in a Robin Hanson-esque fashion, "get off the TED stage, low-status people we don't care to affiliate with!")
        Executor 14y ago
        Get off my hacker news comments! :)
  - Oculus 14y ago
    No fees, you just apply online.
    - jclos 14y ago
      Isn't it free for a certain number of attendees, and not free if you go above?
      - Oculus 14y ago
        The way that works is if you want to run an event with over 100 attendees then you have to attend one of the three main TED events.
camz 14y ago
I find TED mostly marketing these days and less substance. I'm a fan of people that TED attempts to bring together, but I have no love for the organization.
rdl 14y ago
TEDx does more to damage the TED brand than anything. The correct alternative to TED if you can't afford it is BIL, or watching the videos online and commenting somewhere like hn or twitter. TEDx is basically universally horrible.
lysium 14y ago
While it's sad to see pseudoscience in TED talks, keep in mind that this was on TEDx, a local venue of which there are hundreds, which the author mentions himself. I think, you can't blame TED for not checking every speaker at every local venue.
- russellallen 14y ago
  I think I can blame TED for lending its name and reputation to a process which would inevitably turn up talks like this...
  - jdotjdot 14y ago
    Agreed. They should have seen that one coming.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Others will point out that this was a TEDx talk, and so somewhat removed from the central brand. But TED itself has hosted a talk with a similar level of pseudo-science woo-woo: Elaine Morgan pushing the "Aquatic Ape" theory. http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_...
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  Those are not nearly in the same league. I think that talk fits the purpose of TED perfectly, which is to bring in new ideas, throw fuel into the fire and gently poke the boundaries of mainstream consciousness (props to myself for that one). Even though the aquatic ape story is unlikely to be proven as a theory, it seems to have generated a ton of valuable discussion and scientific research.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    The Aquatic Ape theory is not new (proposed in the 1940s) and has never generated any scientific scholarship apart from repeated debunkings. It was proposed, and is today promoted by, people without any formal education in anthropology. It's not supported by any rigorous physical evidence--fossil or genetic. It's got nothing going for it other than an energetic former TV writer and a credulous audience.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      I don't think you get my comment: the debunking itself is valuable. Just look at the many papers/critiques published on the subject[1]. The last paragraph of the Wikipedia article is also very relevant: In a 2012 paper, anthropologist Philip Tobias noted that rejection of the AAH led to stigmatization of a spectrum of topics related to the evolution of humans and their interaction with water. The result of this bias, in his and co-authors opinions, was an incomplete reconstruction of human evolution within varied landscapes. This is why I think these not-100%-scientific talks (but not spiritualistic crap) are perfectly valid in a TED event. They might be wrong after all, but it doesn't matter as long as they made you visualize/explore new ideas. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Footnotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Footnote...
tokenadult 14y ago
Hacker News thread started 89 days ago about suggestions for vetting TEDx speakers (including advice in the original post, submitted by ColinWright, that was perhaps not followed in the incident described in today's thread): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4887791 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4887791
Oculus 14y ago
The problem isn't with the concept of TEDx and having others run TED clones, it's that they're allowing almost anyone to run a TEDx event. There are awesome talks that come from TEDx events. TED should just be very stringent on who it grants TEDx licenses to, which it clearly isn't.
resbaloso 14y ago
thought this was interesting and somewhat related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk Eddie Huang talks about his experiences speaking at TED
- dntrkv 14y ago
  A friend of mine mentioned this video to me last week and I finally got to see it. On the one hand, Eddie Huang didn't follow the rules set in place by TED. It seems like now he is just complaining that he didn't get the exposure he was expecting and he doesn't have anything to lose so he goes public about how "cult-like" TED is. He knew what he was getting into and he knew that he wasn't going to get paid for it, and then goes and complains about how much money they are supposedly making. On the other hand, the rules set in place by TED are a bit ridiculous. Maybe they have justifications for those rules, I don't know. There are usually two sides to a story and seeing as how Huang feels like he got screwed by TED, he may just be venting his anger at the organization. If anyone has anymore info on this event or has any idea why TED imposes those rules on it's guests, I'd love to know more.
gmisra 14y ago
"If TED’s platinum brand is at risk of becoming a generic, it has been with the full support of the brand’s owner." http://nymag.com/news/features/ted-conferences-2012-3/ http://nymag.com/news/features/ted-conferences-2012-3/ It's a decent history of how TED has evolved.
Alex3917 14y ago
Sheldrake's actual talk is pretty decent, and this is another example of internet skeptics being intellectually dishonest. The blogger's entire argument is that Sheldrake is saying that the speed of light isn't constant, which he explicitly never says. The ironic thing is that this blog post actually proves Sheldrake's point.
- pfraze 14y ago
  I probably won't have the time to watch the talk. What does Sheldrake say?
  - brockf 14y ago
    He says the speed of light fluctuates, but the scientific community simply says its constant by definition.
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      "He says the speed of light fluctuates" He never says this. He says the measurements fluctuate, which means the speed of light itself may (or may not) fluctuate. But we will never know because it's been defined as a constant.
      - brockf 14y ago
        Ok. In related news, I tried to measure the length of a day the other day (just to make sure we're not being had) and it was 29 hours long! My watch was broken, but still - 29 hours! Could it be that some days are 29 hours long? We'll never know, I guess. But I personally have my doubts, and plan to share them in a future TEDx talk.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    The talk is about how philosophical materialists have subverted science by using it to push their dogma.
- brockf 14y ago
Namrog84 14y ago
Despite any potential inaccuracies or not. I still think he raises a good point with regards to questioning assumptions that we all might have. Regardless of accuracies or understanding. As scientists and intellectuals we should be the most open about accepting and exploring of new and conflicting ideas. Even if they turn out to be wrong. It's always worth investigating everything from time to time.
rpm4321 14y ago
If you haven't seen them, make sure to check out The Onion's TED parodies - Onion Talks: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4NL9i-Fu15hhYGB-d0hmSWD1fcIvLvn1 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4NL9i-Fu15hhYGB-d0hmS... They may be the funniest thing The Onion has ever done. =================================== Edit: of particular interest to the HN crowd would be their takedown of the "Idea Guy": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q and the "Social Media Consultant": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY
ComputerGuru 14y ago
This makes me so sad, as I saw up close the organization of the first TEDx talks in the Middle East and the amazing effect they had on everyone involved. In fact, I gave my own speech at TEDx Dead Sea and was honored to do so, and this kind of stuff really makes me regret the poor image TEDx sometimes earns. That's terrible because I've seen in person and watched online many TEDx talks that were as good or even better than actual TED talks (though by far less famous individuals).
captn3m0 14y ago
We just had a TEDx event at IIT-Roorkee, and all the speakers, except one, was brilliant. The exception was a horrible talk on "Quantum Holism", which just degenerated into "I think God does things". Yes, I wish if there was a way to vet speakers before-hand.
GuiA 14y ago
TED has commented on those before: http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-c...
aneth4 14y ago
Isn't part of the point of TEDx to provider a broader venue of speakers? Keep in mind that almost every major idea in the history of science was at one time considered unlikely quackery. Spiritual and philosophical conjecture have a place where the science of today is unable to even speculate. Consciousness of inanimate objects and the universe itself is not as crackpot as it sounds. Of course it is not something scientifically verifiable at this time, but science has negligible understanding of the nature of consciousness, awareness, the illusion (or reality) of free-will, the reason for existence itself, and what might exist outside space-time. Many such fundamental questions are wide open, and neither can they be addressed by current science, nor can wild ideas be discounted. How do we know consciousness is not a property of the universe as a whole if we do not even know what consciousness is or how it arises? If you suggested that a massive explosion of energy would result in a stable universe that would come to know itself through intelligent, self-aware bundles of molecules, you'd be shouted out of the cosmos, yet that seems to be why we are here discussing such things. EDIT: After watching the video, I don't agree that all of his "scientific dogmas" are false, nor does he say they are. I do agree that some of them possibly are false and should be questioned, which is all he suggests. What is science worth if it does not allow the questioning of it's own assumptions? What is the use of science applied to realms it is unable to address? Most emphatically, we do not understand the nature of consciousness, and we do not know that consciousness is not comprised of something more than the matter in our brains. Yet all we know enters, or perhaps exits, through that window of consciousness and perception. Science works from what Sheldrake calls a materialistic view to explain the testable laws of the universe based on our perception. Science does nothing to help us with larger questions of what this all is and why we are in it. "Morphic resonance" is indeed a "bizarre" idea, but it is also not implausible nor is it untestable. At one time, relativity was a bizarre idea. And is string theory and quantum entanglement really not a bizarre idea? "Morphic resonance" could arise in any number of ways, from a unified dimension of consciousness, to some as yet unknown quantum interaction, to simple electromagnetic field sensitivity, to some yet undiscovered energy field that is impacted by consciousness. The arrogance of the "scientific" folks to push out alternative ideas they can not disprove is akin to the arrogance of a religious leader. Science is amazing. So are the things science can not yet explain.
- andrewfelix 14y ago
exodust 14y ago
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this talk. Those who are "outraged" should relax. His main points are about thinking less dogmatically. He is a scientist, and he states the importance of science, he is only exploring the idea of moving beyond the dogma, and he is both qualified and well-spoken enough to earn a listen. He makes valid points such as how science can't deal with the fact we're conscious. That's true. Science is still in the dark about consciousness. He proposes that our minds extend beyond our brains, which is an exciting and interesting idea worthy of consideration. He talks casually, not conclusively, about the sensation of being stared at, which many of us are familiar with. He draws parallels with predator-prey relationships in nature. He says "it may seem astonishing that this is a topic of debate within consciousness studies right now." [the question of "where" the images in our mind actually are]. And he is dead right. Quite frankly, we need more outside of the box thinking. Don't take tokenadult's click-bait here. This talk is not centered on the speed of light, nor does he take aim at science in general. If you want your quantum computers and interplanetary space travel to come online, you'll need to open your mind to everything including ideas presented in this talk. Well done TEDx.
- fyi80 14y ago
  It's pretty easy to test if people can detect being stared at, and yet no one has bothered to set up a clean demonstration. Why not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect
  - exodust 14y ago
    Ah yes, but in typical "men in lab coats" testing environments, what we have is "blindfolded subjects attempting to guess whether persons were staring at them." This is far removed from "prey detecting whether a predator is staring at them", which would be a much harder test to set up. For humans, "prey" might mean someone with genuine sexual interest in you, staring at your backside. Try setting that up as a scientific test! Observer effect in full swing, and your results will be disappointing. Not that I believe or support ideas because they're exotic and exciting. My point here is that it's worth keeping an open mind, precisely because science is entering uncomfortable areas such as consciousness, ego, identity, dreams.
hncommenter13 14y ago
Very long, but worth it (I think). http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/105703/the-naked-and-the-ted-khanna http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/1...
jonasvp 14y ago
This won't be a popular opinion around here but I've read quite a bit of Sheldrake's works and they strike me as very lucid. He's a scientist to the bone. However, his findings go against many current scientific theories. This should be an opportunity for intellectual debate. I don't understand why many people think it's heresy to come to different conclusions about how the world works. The editor of "Nature" actually called for his books to be burned. It's quite disheartening to see how a bit part of current "science" (including some internet mobs) has turned into a new version of the church that condemned Galileo.
- gruseom 14y ago
  Assuming that human nature and basic demographics haven't changed much since Galileo, the class of people who used to be priests must still be around in roughly the same proportions today. Since they're obviously not priests any more, it's worth asking where they went.
- polemic 14y ago
  Two axioms you seem to put forward: 1) You have a right to have unusual, heretical, controversial or just plain dumb opinions. 2) The scientific community is required to respect, and seriously debate your conclusions, regardless of their foundations. Point (1) is valid. Calling for book-burning is silly. Some correct ideas do, indeed, seem wacky to begin with. Point (2) is not. "Lucid" theories are worth almost nothing until backed by scientific rigor, peer review and the weight of evidence. Cf. "intelligent design" - a theory invented out of nowhere as a backstop against evolution. You're more than welcome to believe it (1), but real scientists shouldn't be wasting their time with it (2). -- EDIT: I felt the need to add... It's quite one thing to have an idea that you believe passionately, that you spend your life defending, that is ultimately proved true in the fullness of time. It's quite another to dabble in a wide range of quackery, pushing unfounded positions in everything from constants of physics to animal telepathy and the conciousness of inanimate objects. That's not perseverance in the face of scientific obstructionism, it's throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.
  - exodust 14y ago
pedalpete 14y ago
Am I the only one who appreciates the non-conformist view, wrong or not, I'm sure much of what has been presented at TED turned out to be wrong in the long run. It's about ideas, and ideas have to come from the fringe. Or how about Tim Ferris? He sells science with a test/control group of 1 (himself), his science is questionable as well (eg. don't eat sugar/fruit, drink wine...wine is fruit & sugar!). Doesn't mean there aren't valuable nuggets or interesting ideas. Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? On another note, I suspected that TED was using TEDx events as a vetting process for finding speakers to invite to the big show. For example, you'd think Born to Run author Christopher McDougall would have been a great presenter, but watch his TEDx talk from portland, and you'd barely have any interest in the book, which is surprising because it's a great read. But I also suspect some of the science he writes about is questionable.
- ramblerman 14y ago
  "Or how about Tim Ferris? He sells science with a test/control group of 1 (himself)," Food science isn't quite the same as physics.
Kronopath 14y ago
That's not even the worst pseudoscientific TEDx talk, by far. I give you Vortex Math: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iw1WNixvds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iw1WNixvds
pitchups 14y ago
The history of science is filled with ideas and theories that were heretical or even nonsensical at the time they were first proposed - only to be accepted later as part of mainstream science. That is how science progresses. Just a century ago, wave-particle duality was a heretical idea, as was the notion that gravity bends space-time, or black holes exist, or even that the universe is expanding, and so on. Even Einstein could not accept the "spooky action-at-a-distance" implications of quantum mechanics - a theory he helped formulate early on. In fact, every major shift in our worldview has come from such paradigm shifts that start with fringe ideas that challenge conventional wisdom or dogma - starting with Galileo challenging the Church's dogma about a geocentric universe. Every age has its own sets of dogmas and beliefs that preclude other ways of viewing the world. The current scientific dogma is that the universe consists of stuff and phenomena that are entirely explainable by a materialistic, mechanistic worldview. It is dogma because it is an unshakable belief that automatically excludes any other ways of looking at the world. And even more revealing, in every age, it is just a handful of scientists - never the majority - who challenge our most sacred assumptions, and overturn the old paradigm to usher in a new way of looking at the world. That said - does not mean or imply that every heretical idea should be embraced. But at least let us consider them first before dismissing them out of hand - just because they challenge our most cherished notions about how the world ought to work. That is all Sheldrake is asking us to do here.....

44 points by tokenadult 14y ago

The author confuses TEDx with TED near the bottom though he mentions it's TEDx earlier. > TED, you’d better vet your speakers from now on Obviously TED doesn't typically vet the TEDx speakers. In fact apparently 378 TEDx events took place just last month. It's starting to feel like there is one of these events just here in Vancouver every month now. https://www.ted.com/tedx https://www.ted.com/tedx

tapp 14y ago
Wow, that seems like some pretty serious brand dilution. I'm curious - does anyone know if TED charges any sort of fee to the local TEDx licensees?
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Obviously. It's a significant advantage to be able to use the TED brand.
  - Oculus 14y ago
    There's no fee, you apply online for a free TEDx license.
    - derefr 14y ago
      That's... huh. I think I'd actually rather it cost money. Then, at least, only rich people would be diluting the brand in this way--besides there being fewer of them, there's at least a small correlation between wealth, free time, and ability to immerse oneself in the liberal arts to the point that one can give interesting TED talks ;) (Or, to be more cynical in a Robin Hanson-esque fashion, "get off the TED stage, low-status people we don't care to affiliate with!")
      - Executor 14y ago
        Get off my hacker news comments! :)
- Oculus 14y ago
  No fees, you just apply online.
  - jclos 14y ago
    Isn't it free for a certain number of attendees, and not free if you go above?
    - Oculus 14y ago
      The way that works is if you want to run an event with over 100 attendees then you have to attend one of the three main TED events.

camz 14y ago

I find TED mostly marketing these days and less substance. I'm a fan of people that TED attempts to bring together, but I have no love for the organization.

rdl 14y ago

TEDx does more to damage the TED brand than anything. The correct alternative to TED if you can't afford it is BIL, or watching the videos online and commenting somewhere like hn or twitter. TEDx is basically universally horrible.

lysium 14y ago

While it's sad to see pseudoscience in TED talks, keep in mind that this was on TEDx, a local venue of which there are hundreds, which the author mentions himself. I think, you can't blame TED for not checking every speaker at every local venue.

russellallen 14y ago
I think I can blame TED for lending its name and reputation to a process which would inevitably turn up talks like this...
- jdotjdot 14y ago
  Agreed. They should have seen that one coming.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Others will point out that this was a TEDx talk, and so somewhat removed from the central brand. But TED itself has hosted a talk with a similar level of pseudo-science woo-woo: Elaine Morgan pushing the "Aquatic Ape" theory. http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_...

ricardobeat 14y ago
Those are not nearly in the same league. I think that talk fits the purpose of TED perfectly, which is to bring in new ideas, throw fuel into the fire and gently poke the boundaries of mainstream consciousness (props to myself for that one). Even though the aquatic ape story is unlikely to be proven as a theory, it seems to have generated a ton of valuable discussion and scientific research.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  The Aquatic Ape theory is not new (proposed in the 1940s) and has never generated any scientific scholarship apart from repeated debunkings. It was proposed, and is today promoted by, people without any formal education in anthropology. It's not supported by any rigorous physical evidence--fossil or genetic. It's got nothing going for it other than an energetic former TV writer and a credulous audience.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    I don't think you get my comment: the debunking itself is valuable. Just look at the many papers/critiques published on the subject[1]. The last paragraph of the Wikipedia article is also very relevant: In a 2012 paper, anthropologist Philip Tobias noted that rejection of the AAH led to stigmatization of a spectrum of topics related to the evolution of humans and their interaction with water. The result of this bias, in his and co-authors opinions, was an incomplete reconstruction of human evolution within varied landscapes. This is why I think these not-100%-scientific talks (but not spiritualistic crap) are perfectly valid in a TED event. They might be wrong after all, but it doesn't matter as long as they made you visualize/explore new ideas. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Footnotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Footnote...

tokenadult 14y ago

Hacker News thread started 89 days ago about suggestions for vetting TEDx speakers (including advice in the original post, submitted by ColinWright, that was perhaps not followed in the incident described in today's thread): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4887791 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4887791

Oculus 14y ago

The problem isn't with the concept of TEDx and having others run TED clones, it's that they're allowing almost anyone to run a TEDx event. There are awesome talks that come from TEDx events. TED should just be very stringent on who it grants TEDx licenses to, which it clearly isn't.

resbaloso 14y ago

thought this was interesting and somewhat related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk Eddie Huang talks about his experiences speaking at TED

dntrkv 14y ago
A friend of mine mentioned this video to me last week and I finally got to see it. On the one hand, Eddie Huang didn't follow the rules set in place by TED. It seems like now he is just complaining that he didn't get the exposure he was expecting and he doesn't have anything to lose so he goes public about how "cult-like" TED is. He knew what he was getting into and he knew that he wasn't going to get paid for it, and then goes and complains about how much money they are supposedly making. On the other hand, the rules set in place by TED are a bit ridiculous. Maybe they have justifications for those rules, I don't know. There are usually two sides to a story and seeing as how Huang feels like he got screwed by TED, he may just be venting his anger at the organization. If anyone has anymore info on this event or has any idea why TED imposes those rules on it's guests, I'd love to know more.

gmisra 14y ago

"If TED’s platinum brand is at risk of becoming a generic, it has been with the full support of the brand’s owner." http://nymag.com/news/features/ted-conferences-2012-3/ http://nymag.com/news/features/ted-conferences-2012-3/ It's a decent history of how TED has evolved.

Alex3917 14y ago

Sheldrake's actual talk is pretty decent, and this is another example of internet skeptics being intellectually dishonest. The blogger's entire argument is that Sheldrake is saying that the speed of light isn't constant, which he explicitly never says. The ironic thing is that this blog post actually proves Sheldrake's point.

pfraze 14y ago
I probably won't have the time to watch the talk. What does Sheldrake say?
- brockf 14y ago
  He says the speed of light fluctuates, but the scientific community simply says its constant by definition.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "He says the speed of light fluctuates" He never says this. He says the measurements fluctuate, which means the speed of light itself may (or may not) fluctuate. But we will never know because it's been defined as a constant.
    - brockf 14y ago
      Ok. In related news, I tried to measure the length of a day the other day (just to make sure we're not being had) and it was 29 hours long! My watch was broken, but still - 29 hours! Could it be that some days are 29 hours long? We'll never know, I guess. But I personally have my doubts, and plan to share them in a future TEDx talk.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  The talk is about how philosophical materialists have subverted science by using it to push their dogma.
brockf 14y ago

Namrog84 14y ago

Despite any potential inaccuracies or not. I still think he raises a good point with regards to questioning assumptions that we all might have. Regardless of accuracies or understanding. As scientists and intellectuals we should be the most open about accepting and exploring of new and conflicting ideas. Even if they turn out to be wrong. It's always worth investigating everything from time to time.

rpm4321 14y ago

If you haven't seen them, make sure to check out The Onion's TED parodies - Onion Talks: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4NL9i-Fu15hhYGB-d0hmSWD1fcIvLvn1 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4NL9i-Fu15hhYGB-d0hmS... They may be the funniest thing The Onion has ever done. =================================== Edit: of particular interest to the HN crowd would be their takedown of the "Idea Guy": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q and the "Social Media Consultant": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY

ComputerGuru 14y ago

This makes me so sad, as I saw up close the organization of the first TEDx talks in the Middle East and the amazing effect they had on everyone involved. In fact, I gave my own speech at TEDx Dead Sea and was honored to do so, and this kind of stuff really makes me regret the poor image TEDx sometimes earns. That's terrible because I've seen in person and watched online many TEDx talks that were as good or even better than actual TED talks (though by far less famous individuals).

captn3m0 14y ago

We just had a TEDx event at IIT-Roorkee, and all the speakers, except one, was brilliant. The exception was a horrible talk on "Quantum Holism", which just degenerated into "I think God does things". Yes, I wish if there was a way to vet speakers before-hand.

GuiA 14y ago

TED has commented on those before: http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-c...

aneth4 14y ago

Isn't part of the point of TEDx to provider a broader venue of speakers? Keep in mind that almost every major idea in the history of science was at one time considered unlikely quackery. Spiritual and philosophical conjecture have a place where the science of today is unable to even speculate. Consciousness of inanimate objects and the universe itself is not as crackpot as it sounds. Of course it is not something scientifically verifiable at this time, but science has negligible understanding of the nature of consciousness, awareness, the illusion (or reality) of free-will, the reason for existence itself, and what might exist outside space-time. Many such fundamental questions are wide open, and neither can they be addressed by current science, nor can wild ideas be discounted. How do we know consciousness is not a property of the universe as a whole if we do not even know what consciousness is or how it arises? If you suggested that a massive explosion of energy would result in a stable universe that would come to know itself through intelligent, self-aware bundles of molecules, you'd be shouted out of the cosmos, yet that seems to be why we are here discussing such things. EDIT: After watching the video, I don't agree that all of his "scientific dogmas" are false, nor does he say they are. I do agree that some of them possibly are false and should be questioned, which is all he suggests. What is science worth if it does not allow the questioning of it's own assumptions? What is the use of science applied to realms it is unable to address? Most emphatically, we do not understand the nature of consciousness, and we do not know that consciousness is not comprised of something more than the matter in our brains. Yet all we know enters, or perhaps exits, through that window of consciousness and perception. Science works from what Sheldrake calls a materialistic view to explain the testable laws of the universe based on our perception. Science does nothing to help us with larger questions of what this all is and why we are in it. "Morphic resonance" is indeed a "bizarre" idea, but it is also not implausible nor is it untestable. At one time, relativity was a bizarre idea. And is string theory and quantum entanglement really not a bizarre idea? "Morphic resonance" could arise in any number of ways, from a unified dimension of consciousness, to some as yet unknown quantum interaction, to simple electromagnetic field sensitivity, to some yet undiscovered energy field that is impacted by consciousness. The arrogance of the "scientific" folks to push out alternative ideas they can not disprove is akin to the arrogance of a religious leader. Science is amazing. So are the things science can not yet explain.

andrewfelix 14y ago

exodust 14y ago

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this talk. Those who are "outraged" should relax. His main points are about thinking less dogmatically. He is a scientist, and he states the importance of science, he is only exploring the idea of moving beyond the dogma, and he is both qualified and well-spoken enough to earn a listen. He makes valid points such as how science can't deal with the fact we're conscious. That's true. Science is still in the dark about consciousness. He proposes that our minds extend beyond our brains, which is an exciting and interesting idea worthy of consideration. He talks casually, not conclusively, about the sensation of being stared at, which many of us are familiar with. He draws parallels with predator-prey relationships in nature. He says "it may seem astonishing that this is a topic of debate within consciousness studies right now." [the question of "where" the images in our mind actually are]. And he is dead right. Quite frankly, we need more outside of the box thinking. Don't take tokenadult's click-bait here. This talk is not centered on the speed of light, nor does he take aim at science in general. If you want your quantum computers and interplanetary space travel to come online, you'll need to open your mind to everything including ideas presented in this talk. Well done TEDx.

fyi80 14y ago
It's pretty easy to test if people can detect being stared at, and yet no one has bothered to set up a clean demonstration. Why not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect
- exodust 14y ago
  Ah yes, but in typical "men in lab coats" testing environments, what we have is "blindfolded subjects attempting to guess whether persons were staring at them." This is far removed from "prey detecting whether a predator is staring at them", which would be a much harder test to set up. For humans, "prey" might mean someone with genuine sexual interest in you, staring at your backside. Try setting that up as a scientific test! Observer effect in full swing, and your results will be disappointing. Not that I believe or support ideas because they're exotic and exciting. My point here is that it's worth keeping an open mind, precisely because science is entering uncomfortable areas such as consciousness, ego, identity, dreams.

hncommenter13 14y ago

Very long, but worth it (I think). http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/105703/the-naked-and-the-ted-khanna http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/1...

jonasvp 14y ago

This won't be a popular opinion around here but I've read quite a bit of Sheldrake's works and they strike me as very lucid. He's a scientist to the bone. However, his findings go against many current scientific theories. This should be an opportunity for intellectual debate. I don't understand why many people think it's heresy to come to different conclusions about how the world works. The editor of "Nature" actually called for his books to be burned. It's quite disheartening to see how a bit part of current "science" (including some internet mobs) has turned into a new version of the church that condemned Galileo.

gruseom 14y ago
Assuming that human nature and basic demographics haven't changed much since Galileo, the class of people who used to be priests must still be around in roughly the same proportions today. Since they're obviously not priests any more, it's worth asking where they went.
polemic 14y ago
Two axioms you seem to put forward: 1) You have a right to have unusual, heretical, controversial or just plain dumb opinions. 2) The scientific community is required to respect, and seriously debate your conclusions, regardless of their foundations. Point (1) is valid. Calling for book-burning is silly. Some correct ideas do, indeed, seem wacky to begin with. Point (2) is not. "Lucid" theories are worth almost nothing until backed by scientific rigor, peer review and the weight of evidence. Cf. "intelligent design" - a theory invented out of nowhere as a backstop against evolution. You're more than welcome to believe it (1), but real scientists shouldn't be wasting their time with it (2). -- EDIT: I felt the need to add... It's quite one thing to have an idea that you believe passionately, that you spend your life defending, that is ultimately proved true in the fullness of time. It's quite another to dabble in a wide range of quackery, pushing unfounded positions in everything from constants of physics to animal telepathy and the conciousness of inanimate objects. That's not perseverance in the face of scientific obstructionism, it's throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.
- exodust 14y ago

pedalpete 14y ago

Am I the only one who appreciates the non-conformist view, wrong or not, I'm sure much of what has been presented at TED turned out to be wrong in the long run. It's about ideas, and ideas have to come from the fringe. Or how about Tim Ferris? He sells science with a test/control group of 1 (himself), his science is questionable as well (eg. don't eat sugar/fruit, drink wine...wine is fruit & sugar!). Doesn't mean there aren't valuable nuggets or interesting ideas. Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? On another note, I suspected that TED was using TEDx events as a vetting process for finding speakers to invite to the big show. For example, you'd think Born to Run author Christopher McDougall would have been a great presenter, but watch his TEDx talk from portland, and you'd barely have any interest in the book, which is surprising because it's a great read. But I also suspect some of the science he writes about is questionable.

ramblerman 14y ago
"Or how about Tim Ferris? He sells science with a test/control group of 1 (himself)," Food science isn't quite the same as physics.

Kronopath 14y ago

That's not even the worst pseudoscientific TEDx talk, by far. I give you Vortex Math: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iw1WNixvds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iw1WNixvds

pitchups 14y ago

The history of science is filled with ideas and theories that were heretical or even nonsensical at the time they were first proposed - only to be accepted later as part of mainstream science. That is how science progresses. Just a century ago, wave-particle duality was a heretical idea, as was the notion that gravity bends space-time, or black holes exist, or even that the universe is expanding, and so on. Even Einstein could not accept the "spooky action-at-a-distance" implications of quantum mechanics - a theory he helped formulate early on. In fact, every major shift in our worldview has come from such paradigm shifts that start with fringe ideas that challenge conventional wisdom or dogma - starting with Galileo challenging the Church's dogma about a geocentric universe. Every age has its own sets of dogmas and beliefs that preclude other ways of viewing the world. The current scientific dogma is that the universe consists of stuff and phenomena that are entirely explainable by a materialistic, mechanistic worldview. It is dogma because it is an unshakable belief that automatically excludes any other ways of looking at the world. And even more revealing, in every age, it is just a handful of scientists - never the majority - who challenge our most sacred assumptions, and overturn the old paradigm to usher in a new way of looking at the world. That said - does not mean or imply that every heretical idea should be embraced. But at least let us consider them first before dismissing them out of hand - just because they challenge our most cherished notions about how the world ought to work. That is all Sheldrake is asking us to do here.....