TED : Graham Hancock And Rupert Sheldrake "A Fresh take"

[d-T-r]

I know there is a strong scientifically minded and empiricist crowd on this forum, so just thought i would bring this to your attention as it seems to have started a good and much needed debate re-examining the lines between what makes something credible science and what makes something 'Pseudo-science'.

Ted got a bit militant and actually censored and removed their talks with some 'clumsy' claims to follow, which were later refuted by Hancock And Sheldrake respectively, leading to both of the talks being put back, albeit in a separate section of the website.

We’ve been reviewing the response this past weekend to our decision to move two TEDx talks off the TEDx YouTube channel and over here onto the main TED Blog. We’d like to recap here what happened and suggest a way forward.We’ve been reviewing the response this past weekend to our decision to move two TEDx talks off the TEDx YouTube channel and over here onto the main TED Blog. We’d like to recap here what happened and suggest a way forward.

We plan to repost both talks in individual posts on our blog tomorrow, Tuesday; note a couple of areas where scientists or the community have raised questions or concerns about the talks; and invite a reasoned discussion from the community. And there will be a simple rule regarding responses. Reason only. No insults, no intemperate language. From either side. Comments that violate this will be removed. The goal here is to have an open conversation about:

- the line between science and pseudoscience

- how far TED and TEDx should go in giving exposure to unorthodox ideas

We will use the reasoned comments in this conversation to help frame both our guidelines going forward, and our process for managing talks that are called into question.

Both Sheldrake and Hancock are compelling speakers, and some of the questions they raise are absolutely worth raising. For example, most thoughtful scientists and philosophers of science will agree it’s true that science has not moved very far yet in solving the riddle of consciousness. But the specific answers to that riddle proposed by Sheldrake and Hancock are so radical and far-removed from mainstream scientific thinking that we think it’s right for us to give these talks a clear health warning and to ask further questions of the speakers. TED and TEDx are brands that are trusted in schools and in homes. We don’t want to hear from a parent whose kid went off to South America to drink ayahuasca because TED said it was OK. But we do think a calmer, reasoned conversation around these talks would be interesting, if only to help us define how far you can push an idea before it is no longer “worth spreading.”

Both talks from Hancock (The war on conciousness) and Sheldrake (The science delusion) can be watched here:




http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for ... sheldrake/

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-h ... resh-take/

[wub]

Good film, Mila Kunis is fit.

[pembroke]

So what is this thread about?

[jugo]

So what is this thread about?

a person who wishes his lucid dreams were reality, linking to public speakers who wish they were taken more seriously

suprised he didn't add pretty pictures tbh

[d-T-r]

maybe just read the links. Or not.

(also i made certain parts in bold to give people a hint )

[Terpit]

Looks very interesting

[lloydnoise]

Graham Hancock is definitely worth listening to for interesting, alternative views on human history and the origins of civilisation but the fact there are very few in the scientific and archeological communities that give any weight to his ideas makes them less appealing as serious standpoints.
And don't bother telling me there's a conspiracy within the wider scientific community to suppress Hancock's and others' ideas, if they were 100% valid science they would be more than a best selling books by now.

I really like Hancock as he is articulate and doesn't come across as unhinged, but it's more like listening to a clever, stoned mate's cool ideas than learning anything scientific or factual..

[Electric_Head]

thanjs dtr, i'll check the links out.

Some of you need to stop being so narrowminded.

[d-T-r]

Graham Hancock is definitely worth listening to for interesting, alternative views on human history and the origins of civilisation but the fact there are very few in the scientific and archeological communities that give any weight to his ideas makes them less appealing as serious standpoints.
And don't bother telling me there's a conspiracy within the wider scientific community to suppress Hancock's and others' ideas, if they were 100% valid science they would be more than a best selling books by now.

I really like Hancock as he is articulate and doesn't come across as unhinged, but it's more like listening to a clever, stoned mate's cool ideas than learning anything scientific or factual..

The problems with his work tend to be not that they don't encompass enough science , but rather the core ideas he has tend to contradict a lot of things we take as a given within our scientific understanding. Mostly in terms of our understanding of the history of our planet and the evolution of our civilizations, but also the notion of conciousness it's self.

Is conciousness the driving force of evolution or was it a secondary byproduct of our physical evolution? is conciousness a byproduct of the brain , or vice versa.

A lot of it boils down to something called The Hard problem of Consciousness.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Har ... sciousness + http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

Writers like Hancock, And Terrence Mckenna for example, are very good at articulating these ideas without sounding completely unhinged as you say. They have very questionable unconventional views but thankfully , they manage to express them in a way which brings in more questions into the forefront. A lot of babble , but every now and then a question or point raised that can't be swept away or discredited either instantly or with some deconstruction.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I recommend people read the comments to get more of an idea of the full scope of replies and discussion that is currently taking place. Maybe we can follow on from some of the points from there.

A good comment i found on there from todays date, The 20th:

TED, the term ‘PSEUDOSCIENCE’ is a non-scientific, propaganda term designed to insult researchers of unconventional claims. If you use that term, you are aligning yourself with aggressive political pressure groups that popularized the term. There is no need to use the term ‘pseudo-science’ at all.

It is ironic TED are being duped into using the term ‘pseudoscience’ as if performing some ethical duty, for the term ‘pseudoscience’ was first coined by a 1840s notorious vivisectionist Francois Magendie, who nailed living animals to lab benches for days to perform experiments.

The term ‘pseudoscience’ was rarely used until the 1980s because it is not a scientific term. The reason the term is all over wikipedia and other places today is that political pressure groups have put it there to try and exclude claims they dislike with a contrived list of what is and isn’t science to suit their political agenda. The term ‘pseudoscience’ is not scientific, it is a form of bigotry.

Science is a method, if enough replicated experiments produce evidence supportive of an unconventional claim, the scientific world view is supposed to accept it. Instead we see pressure groups label claims ‘pseudoscience’ and create contrived lists of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science with an attempt to move the goal posts from what science actually is – a method – into a dogma of preconceived prejudices.

TED’s list of pseudoscience guidelines contains circular reasoning fallacies. There is no need for such a list.

Sheldrake has long used the conventional scientific method to test unconventional claims. He has conducted randomized, blinded experiments in a properly controlled manner that rule out ‘normal’ explanations. If a conventional theory cannot explain his experimental results, one is perfectly free to speculate on other theories and create hypotheses and test these too over time. This is good science and it is exactly what Sheldrake has done for decades.

[Terpit]

[d-T-r]

Water Knows what you did last summer



didn't watch that but i'm guessing it's further stuff to do with ol Emoto's water tests which this guy adds some useful thought to. May seem like an idea without too much behind it at first glance, but still has potential to it if pursued properly.

http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

[d-T-r]

Rupert Sheldrake , 13 hours ago:

I appreciate the fact that TED published my response to the accusations levelled against me by their Scientific Board, and also crossed out the Board’s statement on the “Open for discussion” blog. http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for ... sheldrake/

There are no longer any specific points to answer. I am all in favour of debate, but it is not possible to make much progress through short responses to nebulous questions like “Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation?”

I would be happy to take part in a public debate with a scientist who disagrees with the issues I raise in my talk. This could take place online, or on Skype. My only condition is that it be conducted fairly, with equal time for both sides to present their arguments, and with an impartial moderator, agreed by both parties.

Therefore I ask Chris Anderson to invite a scientist from TED’s Scientific Board or TED’s Brain Trust to have a real debate with me about my talk, or if none will agree to take part, to do so himself.

[lloydnoise]

Water Knows what you did last summer



didn't watch that but i'm guessing it's further stuff to do with ol Emoto's water tests which this guy adds some useful thought to. May seem like an idea without too much behind it at first glance, but still has potential to it if pursued properly.

http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

oh man, water memory, a totally made up phenomenon that props up the scam that is homeopathy..

massive TL:DR here -

Water Memory

Modern defenders have desperately tried to justify homeopathy with scientific-sounding explanations, but they have failed miserably. The results are often hilarious (at least to those who have the slightest familiarity with actual science). One such attempt is the notion that water is capable of having memory – that it can physically remember the chemical properties of substances that have been diluted in it.

The notion of water memory was first raised by French homeopath Jacques Benveniste in 1988. He was not studying the water structure itself, just trying to demonstrate that water can retain the memory of antibodies or other substances diluted in it. His research, however, has been completely discredited – among the many flaws in his methods, his lab was cherry picking data, using improper statistics, and recounting data points that did not fit their desired results.

Roy, however, was referring to later research which he believed showed that water molecules are like bricks – they can be used to build structures that contain greater complexity and information than the bricks themselves. Specifically, that water molecules could encode in their structure the chemical properties of what was diluted in them.

However, the evidence does not support this claim. What has been demonstrated is that water molecules do form transient bonds with other water molecules, creating a larger ultrastructure – but these water structures are extremely short-lived. They are not permanent.

In fact, research shows that water molecules very efficiently distribute energy from these bonds, making them extremely ephemeral. One such research paper concludes:

Our results highlight the efficiency of energy redistribution within the hydrogen-bonded network, and that liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within 50 fs.

That’s 50 femotoseconds, or 50 quadrillionths (10^-15) of a second. Contrary to Roy’s claims – water does not hold memory. In fact it is characterized by being extremely efficient at not holding a memory. Scientists can argue about whether or not under certain conditions water can display ultrastructure lingering for longer than femtoseconds – but they are arguing over fractions of a second.

There is no evidence that water can retain these structures for a biologically meaningful amount of time. It is amazing that Roy and others so enthusiastically extrapolated from the claim (itself probably bogus) that water can hold structures slightly longer than previously believed to the notion that this can explain the biological effectiveness of homeopathy. Let’s take a close look at the non-trivial steps they glossed over.

If this kind of water memory is an explanation for homeopathy, then these structures would have to survive not only in a sample of water, but through the physical mixing of that water with other water. In fact, they would have to transfer their structure, like a template, to surrounding water molecules. This would need to be reliably repeatable over many dilutions. Then these structures would have to survive transfer to a sugar pill (often homeopathic remedies are prepared by a drop of the water being place onto a sugar pill.

These water structures would then have to be transferred to the sugar molecules, because before long the water will evaporate. This pill will then sit on a shelf for days, months, or years finally to be consumed by the gullible. She sugar pill will be broken down in the stomach, the sugar molecules digested, absorbed into the blood stream, and then distributed through the blood to the tissues of the body.

Presumably – whatever molecules are retaining this alleged ultrastructure are sticking together throughout this process, and finding their way to the target organ where they are able to have their chemical/biological effect.

“Absurd” does not even begin to cover the leaps of logic that are being committed here. In short, invoking water memory as an explanation for homeopathic effects just adds more layers of magical thinking to the notion of homeopathy, it does not offer a plausible explanation (even if water memory were true, which it isn’t.)

Chemical bonds (some chemical bonds) are strong enough to survive this process intact and make it through the body to the target tissue where they can bind to receptors or undergo their chemical reactions. Even most chemicals, however, cannot make it through this biological gauntlet with their chemical activity intact – which is why the bioavailability of many potential drugs is too low for them to be useful as oral agents. They are simply broken down by the digestive process. The ephemeral bonds of this alleged water memory, in other words – if this fiction of water memory even existed, would have a bioavailability of zero.

Conclusion

Rustom Roy had a respectable career as a materials scientist, but likely his name would be unknown to the public were it not for his side interest in magical healing and homeopathy, which is certain to eclipse his more conventional career. His claim that water memory provides a scientific explanation for the action of homeopathic preparations is pure pseudoscience. It does not hold up to a review of the published scientific evidence, or even just thinking through how such water memory could exert a biological effect.

Homeopathy, as the water memory claims demonstrate, has become nothing but a desperate enterprise of piling pseudoscience on top of pseudoscience.

from here
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... er-memory/

[d-T-r]

yeah i know man -- hence the previous tl;dr link:

http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com

It is the sad truth that it's this kind of 'bad' , or false/premature science that gives the newer fringe scientific pursuits a bad name before actually being properly looked at.

[d-T-r]

another comment worth highlighting :

"Let me preface this by saying that I don't think either of the videos in question are particularly scientific in nature, they are largely philosophical and subjective, but anyway- TED's "letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science" and the guidelines contained therein are, I think, dangerously dependent on the idea that the mainstream of science is the most valuable science.

It IS important to recognise that mainstream science largely is where reliable, trustworthy, and useful science can be found. The mainstream can be thought of as the resting point where ideas go to once they are accepted and their uses are well established (and where they often remain past their use by date, it must be said). However, much of what is now well accepted - Einstein's theories; our most basic astronomical understandings; the existence and dangers of bacteria and viruses; evolution - began not in the mainstream, but in the tributaries, far out and visibly separate from the mainstream.

Many of those who are used to the mainstream, ideologically dependent on it, or some way have a vested interest in it, are resistant to ideas in the tributaries. This has always been the case, and it only makes sense. We can only be so open minded, and it takes time and effort to maintain awareness of what is going on on the fringe so as to be able to judge fairly the worth of different things going on there. It's hard to maintain that effort if you're heavily vested in what's going in the mainstream - say if you're trying for tenure with some mainstream institution, or you're relied upon as a source of reliable, mainstream knowledge.

This situation isn't surprising, but I think that it causes a great deal of conflict, and it holds us back. Our most progressive, pioneering individuals are alienated in this situation. I am sure that many of them simply give up, or lack the support they need to really develop their ideas.

I think that TED's policy is likely to perpetuate this situation. "

[lloydnoise]

so, mainstream science = established (empirical) science?
stop applying labels and think about what the word means. Science is a method. Anything that can't adhere to this method isn't scientific at all, 'mainstream' or not.

[d-T-r]

so, mainstream science = established (empirical) science?
stop applying labels and think about what the word means. Science is a method. Anything that can't adhere to this method isn't scientific at all, 'mainstream' or not.

i know what the words mean and what the labels mean. hence why starting the thread

the comment from above summarizes it quite well i think. And as an extension of you identifying science as a method too....(not all people do!)

Science is a method, if enough replicated experiments produce evidence supportive of an unconventional claim, the scientific world view is supposed to accept it. Instead we see pressure groups label claims ‘pseudoscience’ and create contrived lists of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science with an attempt to move the goal posts from what science actually is – a method – into a dogma of preconceived prejudices.

[d-T-r]

Following up the Sheldrake talk with a longer presentation of his:

[video]ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4[/video]



Science as a method is great. Scientisim as a dogmatic ,restrictive ideological force is not so great.

[knell]

it's like a pseudoscientific filibuster

[d-T-r]

it's like a pseudoscientific filibuster

knell missed the thread / point.

Besides, is pseudoscientific even a scientific word?

If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us".

"The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites"