4 ms·
I think this shows scientific institutions and advocates in a bad light. Rupert Sheldrake had a great TED talk on the dogma's of modern science, and was even f
by tokenizer 13y ago
I think this shows scientific institutions and advocates in a bad light.
Rupert Sheldrake had a great TED talk on the dogma's of modern science, and was even further legitimized when a private council of TED banned the talk.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
- sharkbot 13y agoThat's incorrect. Rupert Sheldrake gave a TEDx talk on his non-scientific opinions, which wasn't considered to be appropriate. The talk is still available, just not under the TEDx label. See here for more details: http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_te...
- tokenizer 13y ago> non-scientific opinions hmm... lets check out your link... > ...be removed from the TEDx archive if the ideas contained in it are wrong to the point of being unscientific... So who judges this? Did you even watch the video? The whole thing was about questioning things we already THINK we know the answers to. How is the opposite of such not Dogma? Did you even research Constants? He had. But you're right, just plain wrong. http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/fundamental-constants-are-not-constant-or-maybe-they-are-we-dont-know-really/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/fundamental-constants...
- protomyth 13y agoDr. Rupert Sheldrake's interview about the TEDx video is interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA
- warfangle 13y agoTED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek). Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-? Maybe it should have been Venkmann.
- tokenizer 13y agoYou mean PHD Biologist that lectured at Cambridge University? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake So if you were a scientist interested in a field that others called, "stupid", you would just change for fear of peer pressure? I admire following your interest with scientific method... Which is what this man advocates, and not just blind faith to stats... Did you even watch the video before forming your opinion?
- warfangle 13y agoFrom what I can tell, he used to do pretty awesome work ... and then went a little crazy. Much of this, for example, looks like depak chopra level pseudoscience drivel: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=1978&as_yhi=2013 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&...
- tokenizer 13y agoI wouldn't go that far. So how would one approach doing scientific work on additional sense in addition to the known 5? Or what about the idea of constants not being so exactly concrete? Just do yourself a favour and watch the video. And besides, his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but experimentation and theory. If you dismiss it simply because it seems "too crazy"... then I could argue it could be comparable to the scientists of Galileo, dismissing such ridiculous ideas. Not even worth entertaining...