
TEDx talks discredited: Sheldrake speaks, argues that speed of light is dropping - tokenadult
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/tedx-talks-completely-discredited-rupert-sheldrake-speaks-argues-that-speed-of-light-is-dropping/
======
rpm4321
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-d0hmS...](http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4NL9i-Fu15hhYGB-d0hmSWD1fcIvLvn1)

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>

and the "Social Media Consultant":

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY>

------
rdl
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.

------
jonasvp
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.

~~~
polemic
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
polemic, you seem frustrated in your efforts to condemn.

Why? Are his ideas dangerous? Have they touched a nerve? Maybe that's a good
thing.

This talk is not aimed at the scientific community anyway. It's aimed at a TED
audience, who love a bit of creative, unconventional thinking with their
rigorous scientific discoveries and rock solid demonstrations. So the talk was
heavy on the creative, and light on the rigorous scientific demo, but that's
ok... we have the option of not buying his book, and taking his ideas with a
grain of salt.

No need to cry panic, no need to worry. Eventually, ideas such as these either
gather momentum or die from lack of evidence. We don't need to put this
speaker, or TED on trial just because someone speaks for 18 minutes about
intriguing, exotic ideas that you don't like.

~~~
Ao7bei3s
TED is not a fiction conference.

------
exodust
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
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>

~~~
exodust
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.

~~~
PhineasRex
It is very different and that is exactly the point. Experiments are not
supposed to mimic the natural condition in which an effect is found, they are
supposed to isolate the effect being tested and eliminate all confounding
variables.

It might be the case that the "sense of being stared at" is real but it could
easily be a combination of ordinary senses. By isolating the confounding
variables scientists can determine whether this is an independent effect.

~~~
exodust
I don't disagree. It could easily be a combination of ordinary senses.
Scientists not happy with people poly-filling the knowledge gaps with
fictional ideas, have no choice but to improve their equipment for even more
data capture and analysis.

It may be that the very act of staring at someone actually alters or
influences something in the physical world, as those flowers do we've recently
learned.... >"electrical fields—may work in concert with these other cues to
provide extremely nuanced details about pollination status."

Along those lines, it's plausible that there's processes at work with staring
we're currently unaware of, waiting for science to discover.

Better that fictional ideas about possible nature of matter come from
scientists anyway. Having a go at guessing where science may uncover new
mechanisms, or where current science deserves more attention, is a good thing
to have a go at.

It's the equivalent of drawing attention to a new patch of ground for a fresh
archeological dig, he's not actually claiming on the TEDx stage to have dug it
up and found an alien artifact.

------
Alex3917
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.

~~~
GuiA
Direct quote from the talk, at 4:20 :

"Dogma 8: your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the
activity of your brain and nothing more. Dogma 9: psychic phenomena like
telepathy are impossible. Your thoughts and intentions cannot have any effect
at a distance because your mind is inside your head. Therefore all the
apparent evidence for telepathy and other psychic phenomena is illusory."

Sheldrake says these are science's "dogmas" (there are 10), and that they are
all wrong.

Draw your own conclusions.

~~~
Alex3917
"Sheldrake says these are science's 'dogmas' (there are 10), and that they are
all wrong."

No he doesn't. You're just hearing what you want to hear.

~~~
GuiA
Are you kidding me dude? At 1"40:

"[I] take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science, and turn them into
questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look at them scientifically.
None of them stand up very well."

So "telepathy doesn't exist" does not stand up to scientific questioning? Come
on man, you're better than this.

~~~
Alex3917
>"[I] take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science, and turn them into
questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look at them scientifically.
None of them stand up very well."

He's saying that the evidence for the 'ten dogmas' being true is weak, not
that there is strong evidence for them being false.

>So "telepathy doesn't exist" does not stand up to scientific questioning?

He's not saying that telepathy exists, he's saying there isn't good reason to
believe that it's impossible.

~~~
GuiA
Here's the thing though, and this will be the last comment from me on this
thread as it gets tiring; people of your sort are great when it comes to
playing "he said/she said" games, finding something to "tutut" about at every
sentence– but when it comes to actually producing results, actually bringing
something to the table other than an ego, there is nothing. Not a single man
standing.

------
lucisferre
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>

~~~
tapp
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?

~~~
Oculus
No fees, you just apply online.

~~~
jclos
Isn't it free for a certain number of attendees, and not free if you go above?

~~~
Oculus
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.

------
snowwrestler
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_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html)

~~~
ricardobeat
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
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
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#Footnote...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Footnotes)

~~~
snowwrestler
The debunking is not valuable. For one thing it takes up the time of
professional scientists who could be studying more promising subjects. For
another, as your quote points out, this crazy theory has unfairly tarred
related, more promising areas of study.

In terms of TED, the primary harm is that it gives the subject lay credence
that it does not deserve. The very fact that you are arguing that this theory
has value proves my point. What is your educational or professional background
for evaluating the merits of this theory? A Wikipedia page? My wife is a
professional anthropologist and I can assure you that her field considers
Elaine Morgan a crackpot. She was astounded that TED would give her a
platform.

~~~
ricardobeat
It says _rejection of the AAH led to stigmatization_ ; correct me if I'm wrong
but that means it was not _acceptance_ of the theory which has tarnished
related areas; it was labeling it as "crazy" as you just did that caused
damage.

You're right that I don't have a degree in the area, but I don't claim any
merits to the thoery, to me it's just another conjecture (like _what if_ life
on earth came from a martian asteroid) - I don't really care if it's going to
be proven or not and don't take it as a fact, it's just food for thought.
Falsifying hypothesis _is_ the basis of science after all! Quoting from the
aquaticape.org debunking website:

    
    
        false views, if supported by some evidence, do little 
        harm, for everyone takes a salutory pleasure in proving 
        their falseness: and when this is done, one path toward 
        error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same 
        time opened
            - Charles Darwin
    

It might sound crazy if you're immersed in the field, but it's not the kind of
blatant pseudo-science we should be raging about.

------
tokenadult
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>

------
ComputerGuru
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).

------
camz
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.

------
Namrog84
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.

------
lysium
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
I think I can blame TED for lending its name and reputation to a process which
would inevitably turn up talks like this...

~~~
jdotjdot
Agreed. They should have seen that one coming.

------
pitchups
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.....

------
pedalpete
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
"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.

------
aneth4
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
... _"almost every major idea in the history considered unlikely quackery"_.

 _Every_ major idea?

Perhaps many hypotheses were considered inconceivable. But certainly not
quackery.

Scientific ideas tend to me testable. A lot of what this guys suggests is
entirely unfalsifiable. He may as well be discussing Pastafarianism.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
In fairness to Sheldrake, he writes about these ideas, and then goes off to
test them. See Seven Experiments that Could Change the World, and his later
books which tested the effects.

A meta-analysis has supported the sense of being stared at. I will find the
link later and included it. I believe it was in the British Journal of Social
Pyschology around 2005.

~~~
pitchups
Of the seven experiments that Sheldrake describes in his book, the phenomena
of dogs (and other pets) knowing when their owners are coming home, has been
empirically verified in many instances, and anecdotally verified by thousands
of pet owners the world over - and at least a couple of friends. It certainly
deserves some serious scientific inquiry rather than being dismissed out-of-
hand as "ergo jesus" (as per the blog post above) or woo-woo. His other
proposed experiment on phantom limbs and the real pain they can cause, on the
other hand (no pun intended) has been fully explained and even solved by
neuroscientist V. Ramachandran in his book "Phantoms of the Mind".

~~~
upquark
My issue with this sort of unexplained phenomena is that people are willing to
jump to ridiculous conclusions that invalidate or at least poke a hole through
physics/chemistry/biology/all the other layers of scientific knowledge, vs
trying to look for explanations within the established framework of knowledge.
The amount of scientific knowledge we've accumulated so far is huge. It's been
very thoroughly tested through multiple independent experiments, quantitative
relationships have been verified to ridiculous precision.

It's just astronomically more likely that a dog sensing their owner's arrival
is going to be explained within the framework of established science, and not
invalidate every layer of our model of the world from mammal biology to
quantum foam.

~~~
aneth4
Nobody is suggestion controverting science established through tests, only
questioning ideological presumptions.

~~~
upquark
A. Plenty of people are suggesting precisely that.

B. I was responding to the parent comment about empirically verified
dog's-sixth-sense phenomena, and what I think about those.

------
Oculus
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.

------
gmisra
"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/>

It's a decent history of how TED has evolved.

------
resbaloso
thought this was interesting and somewhat related:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk>

Eddie Huang talks about his experiences speaking at TED

~~~
dntrkv
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.

------
captn3m0
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.

------
hncommenter13
_Very_ long, but worth it (I think).

[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-
arts/magazine/1...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-
arts/magazine/105703/the-naked-and-the-ted-khanna)

------
GuiA
TED has commented on those before:

[http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-
tedx-c...](http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-
community-on-tedx-and-bad-science)

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

