Last week, I posted this:<\/p>\n
TED has reacted to a considerable amount of pressure from posts similar to mine. They have pulled the videos from their usual places. The TED blog<\/a> explained the move, claiming they were not censoring the videos, but placing them on their blog where they can be viewed in a proper context:<\/p>\n After due diligence, including a survey of published scientific research and recommendations from our Science Board and\u00a0our community<\/a>, we have decided that Graham Hancock\u2019s and Rupert Sheldrake\u2019s talks from TEDxWhiteChapel should be removed from distribution on the TEDx YouTube channel.<\/p>\n Both talks have been flagged as containing serious factual errors that undermine TED\u2019s commitment to good science. The critiques of these talks need much clearer highlighting.<\/p>\n We\u2019re not censoring the talks. Instead we\u2019re placing them here, where they can be framed to highlight both their provocative ideas and the factual problems with their arguments. See both talks after the jump.<\/p>\n All talks on the TEDxTalks channel represent the opinion of the speaker, not of TED or TEDx, but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.<\/p>\n SHELDRAKE He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example. But, in truth, there has been a great deal of inquiry into the nature of scientific constants, including published, peer-reviewed research investigating whether certain constants \u2013 including the speed of light \u2013 might actually vary over time or distance. Scientists are constantly questioning these assumptions. For example, just this year Scientific American\u00a0published a feature<\/a>\u00a0on the state of research into exactly this question. (\u201cAre physical constants really constant?: Do the inner workings of nature change over time?\u201d<\/a>) Physicist Sean Carroll\u00a0wrote a careful rebuttal<\/a>\u00a0of this point.<\/p>\n In addition, Sheldrake claims to have \u201cevidence\u201d of morphic resonance in crystal formation and rat behavior. The research has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, despite attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work.<\/strong><\/p>\n HANCOCK In addition, Hancock makes statements about psychotropic drugs that seem both nonscientific and reckless<\/strong>. He states as fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an \u201cemergence into consciousness,\u201d and that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture. He seems to offer a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs), it\u2019s no surprise his work has often been characterized as pseudo-archeology.<\/p>\n TED respects and supports the exploration of unorthodox ideas, but the many misleading statements in both Sheldrake\u2019s and Hancock\u2019s talks, whether made deliberately or in error, have led our scientific advisors to conclude that our name and platform should not be associated with these talks.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last week, I posted this:<\/p>\n TEDx, Pseudoscience and the Rupert Sheldrake controversy<\/p>\n TED has reacted to a considerable amount of pressure from posts similar to mine. They have pulled the videos from their usual places. The TED blog explained the move, claiming they were not censoring the videos, but placing them on their blog where they can be viewed in a proper context:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[516,209,467,507,508],"class_list":["post-1947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-skepticism","tag-graham-hancock","tag-pseudoscience","tag-rupert-sheldrake","tag-ted","tag-tedx"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/tippling\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\nAccording to our science board, Rupert Sheldrake bases his argument on several major factual errors, which undermine the arguments of talk.<\/strong> For example, he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it\u2019s generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there\u2019s much research and literature exploring the idea.<\/p>\n
\nGraham Hancock\u2019s talk, again, shares a compelling and unorthodox worldview, but one that strays well beyond the realm of reasonable science. While attempting to critique the scientific worldview, he misrepresents what scientists actually think. He suggests, for example, that no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness.<\/p>\n