> Effectively banned from the site The TED organization decides which talks are worth "featuring". The two "banned" talks are actually far MORE prominent than

> Effectively banned from the site The TED organization decides which talks are worth "featuring". The two "banned" talks are actually far MORE prominent than all the talks they decide to simply not feature at all. TED is still hosting them, merely on a different page where they encourage discussion of the issues raised. You can easily find that page and engage the discussion there if you like. > Sorry but the scientific community needs to address a number of points that are raised. Does it? Says who? More to the point, does TED need to address those points, or is it okay for TED to say "no, this is just silly" until there's an actual there there in the form of, say, replicable results? I would be careful to distinguish results that merely aren't explained by science from those that can't be. If they really can't be explained by "science", what's the point in addressing them? Why bother? That the earth was round could be explained by science. Did you mean to say instead that these points "run counter to conventional wisdom"? If you think you have a case to make, why not just make it? What SPECIFIC "points" do you think he raises that "need to be addressed"? Are you willing to support his views on, say, telepathy - including dog telepathy? Do you think his "ten dogmas" accurately reflect what scientific types believe? Some seemed pretty strawmannish to me. (It's easy to make yourself seem insightful if you are allowed to invent and caricature imaginary opposing views that you can then rail against.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake