
A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science - ColinWright
http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science
======
DanBC
Depressing that a list of calm mostly common-sense suggestions is seen as some
deeply flawed oppressive list.

The HN kneejerk contrarianism is a bit frustrating.

~~~
jlgreco
Quite so. They are not proposing a blacklist of all people without degrees in
their subject matter.. they are presenting _general guidelines to skepticism_
to a group of people (TEDx organizers) who seem to have forgotten their
skeptics cap at home a few times too often.

There should be _nothing_ controversial about telling people to be on their
toes when somebody without a relevant degree tries to tell you something
fantastic.

~~~
sliverstorm
You may not have noticed, but HN is fairly negative about college degrees, so
many people probably see the bit about degrees as a personal attack on their
beliefs.

~~~
reinhardt
This. Not just their beliefs but their lack of said degrees.

~~~
DanBC
But on HN people tend to show their working, rather than using an irrelevant
degree as a badge of authority.

There's a difference between saying "I think this is the case; here's why I
think it; it needs a bit of iteration" and "I have a degree (in X); here's the
truth about Y; some people disagree but they are wrong; I tried to publish
this on Z but they are controlled by shills of the big industry and they
squashed my free speech rights".

------
1123581321
It's important to remember this is for TEDx, which can be put on by some
small, humble groups. My city (hardly a scientific or academic hub) just held
a TEDx and the planning committee was only able to secure one talk from
someone outside of the planning committee and its immediate circle. If someone
outside the area peddling bunk had applied, the committee would have probably
not looked over them too closely. Additionally, the bulk of the committee
members would not have had the knowledge to evaluate the scientific claims.
Guidelines such as having a degree in the field about which the topic is
concerned, publishing peer-reviewed and others are bright lights to help guide
people who cannot discern the quality of the actual content and lack the
motivation to spend a lot of time trying to find faults in a presenter.

Organizers of prestigious TEDx events, and of TED itself, have many more
interesting submissions to choose from and are more qualified and more
motivated to examine the quality of submitted talks, so the selection
committees are more easily able to welcome quality extra-disciplinary
presentations and minority opinions because they can sufficiently evaluate the
actual content to be presented.

~~~
pharrington
Exactly. I think alot of the kneejerk reactions to this post are because
people don't know the context of TEDx events. The post suggests these
guidelines (and they are just that, _guidelines_ , not rules) and gives
warnings about reiki and free energy and crystals because quality control has
been thin to non-existent, and fraudsters giving BS presentations is a real
problem.

~~~
SilasX
I've also seen cases of legitimate science that is nonetheless way too out-
dated and unsurprising. For example, one TEDx speaker presented a bold, "game-
changing" (eye-roll) presentation on how charging for roads at peak times
reduces traffic.

Wow, charging for a scarce good ... why didn't I think of that???

------
sunwooz
"Holds a nonstandard degree. For instance, if the physics-related speaker has
a degree in engineering, not physics; if the medical researcher does not have
an M.D. or Ph.D.; if the affiliated university does not have a solid
reputation. This is not snobbery; if a scientist truly wishes to make an
advance in their chosen field, they’ll make an effort to engage with other
scholars"

What? Not having a degree in something disallows you to "make an effort to
engage with other scholars"? Just saying you're not snobbery does not make it
"not snobbery".

~~~
bryze
Along the same vein: "The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a
phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification". Many of the
points they list are valid, but this conspicuous appeal to authority makes me
much less inclined to watch the talks.

~~~
wpietri
The TED folks are definitely not making an argument from authority; if they
were they would say: all things said by people with scientific bona fides are
true and you can't question them.

Instead, they're correctly observing that there's a correlation between
scientific bona fides and scientifically accurate speakers. And that
organizers will be better off if they use that as one rule of thumb in
evaluating speakers, which is also true.

You only see an argument from authority because you've reduced their argument
to a straw man. The purpose of TEDx isn't to be a final arbiter of all things
true; it's just to surface things that are true and interesting.

~~~
bryze
Well argued, by far the clearest rebuttal I've read so far and I concede. I
just hope that the rules of thumb they listed for "good science" are
prioritized as listed, because I really believe content should be the key
consideration.

------
wwalker3
When I saw the TEDx guys' caution about a "physics-related speaker [who] has a
degree in engineering, not physics", it struck a bit of a nerve for me.

My Ph.D. is in electrical engineering, not physics. I recently got a
computational physics paper accepted in a peer-reviewed journal, and I'm hard
at work on a second paper. And in a different world, I could speak at a
conference and no one would have to worry about my bona fides.

But I think the TEDx caution is well-founded.

Engineers are often accustomed to knowing more about science than the average
person. It can be very easy for them, with the best of intentions, to convince
themselves and others that they know more than they really do. It's easy to
think you've got some great new idea if you don't engage existing experts in
the field via peer review and reading papers.

This is not to say electrical engineers can't be authorities on physics topics
-- quite the contrary! But I agree with the TEDx guys that it does merit a bit
of extra checking, especially in their situation.

~~~
lutusp
> Engineers are often accustomed to knowing more about science than the
> average person. It can be very easy for them, with the best of intentions,
> to convince themselves and others that they know more than they really do.

I agree, but that's true of scientists also, many of whom have a very narrow
specialty in modern times and may not be qualified to speak outside their
field of expertise. Example Nobel Prizewinner William Shockley and his now-
infamous lectures on the topic of race:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Statements_abo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Statements_about_populations_and_genetics)

BTW I agree with you that one can make too much of a person's degree,
especially when compared to actually understanding the topic to be discussed.

~~~
likpok
There was some discussion a while ago about the tendency of Nobel prizewinners
to go off into crazyland (see Linus Pauling, others [1]). I recall hearing
some speculation that this was (somewhat) inherent to getting a prize. I think
the willful ignorance of established thought (to make the great discovery)
plus the feedback loop of the prize made Nobel winners uniquely confident in
their more off-the-wall theories.

[1]: <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease>

------
sdafdasdfasdf
"Marks of good science: ... It does not fly in the face of the broad existing
body of scientific knowledge"

Um... that's not very progressive science. So, the sun revolves around us,
right?

~~~
skylan_q
What also bothered me is the notion that consensus determines what's good
science. (If we all agree to something, then it must be true!)

~~~
rscale
Scientific consensus isn't "we believe"; it's "the results of widespread,
independent, carefully executed, controlled experiments show."

Further, it doesn't mean that it "must be true" but rather that it is more
likely to true.

~~~
jacoblyles
That's not quite true. Many branches of science don't use controlled
laboratory experiments.

~~~
lutusp
Yes, but all legitimate sciences (a) put forth falsifiable theories, and (b)
abandon those theories that fail comparison with reality.

The fact that cosmologists don't perform laboratory experiments with miniature
black holes doesn't reduce the scientific standing of cosmology, as long as
there are equally persuasive sources of evidence to support the theories.

------
pella
Is Ignaz Semmelweis a TEDx compatible person?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis>

 _'The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-
like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts
established norms, beliefs or paradigms.'_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex>

------
hoverkraft
"The neuroscience of [fill in the blank] — not saying this will all be non-
legitimate, but that it’s a field where a lot of goofballs are right now".
Love it.

------
pbharrin
The TED community is full of snobbery.

HOWEVER: I'm glad they are blowing the whistle on pseudo science related to
GMO food.

~~~
zzzeek
some good articles and analysis regarding GMO, generally opposed to it as
performed in practice (not necessarily in theory), from the Union of Concerned
Scientists:

[http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-
food-...](http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-
system/genetic-engineering/)

> We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we are critics of its
> commercial application and regulation to date. GE has proved valuable in
> some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical
> development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role
> in food production.

> However, its applications in agriculture so far have fallen short of
> expectations, and in some cases have caused serious problems. Rather than
> supporting a more sustainable agriculture and food system with broad
> societal benefits, the technology has been employed in ways that reinforce
> problematic industrial approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the
> use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry PR campaigns,
> rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to
> produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland.

these are the real reasons GMO is better off being opposed, as long as
companies like Monsanto are in charge of it.

~~~
mseebach
This is a political argument masked as a scientific one. Unless they have peer
reviewed research to back up their opinion, it's irrelevant to the point of
dishonesty (appeal to authority) that they are scientists.

~~~
zzzeek
um. did you read any of the articles linked from that page. They are all based
on factual evidence and peer-reviewed research. are you saying the union of
concerned scientists just makes things up ? or that expert opinions are
useless by the fact that they are opinions ?

edit: here's a summation of much of what's linked from that page from
wikipedia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_contr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Yield)

> In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed
> studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United
> States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered
> crops—soybeans and maize (corn).[211] The report found that engineered
> herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national,
> aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased
> national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield
> in all cases. The study concluded that in the United States, other
> agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop
> yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States
> Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28
> percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid
> 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a
> modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid
> 1990s.

~~~
robbiep
I find the UCS position interesting and have no argument with the data on
yield increases or the ineffectiveness of Glyphosphate-resistant GM Crops in
increasing yields (Although I find this questionable from personal
experience).

My experience relates to Cotton, not Maize (corn in the rest of the world) and
so is more relevant to the discussion of fibre rather than food cropping

I grew up on a cotton farm in Australia and witnessed first-hand the
introduction of both Bt- (branded Bollgard by Monsanto) and Roundup-Ready
Cotton varieties.

I think an often overlooked aspect of the introduction of genetic modification
is the _Environmental_ and _economic_ improvements.

For Example.

When we first started growing cotton (around 1993), in a bad (insect) season
we would occasionally spray our crops 7-8 times. Stories abound of farmers
getting planes in perhaps 15 times.

Enter Bt-modified Cotton - 0 Sprays. These chemicals weren't good, and I think
not spraying them was a big win for the environment. This, combined with
intelligent management of resistance (Crops are required to have a 10%
'reserve' area of either unmodified Cotton or another crop the insect is
attracted to, so that selective pressures don't evolve resistance), is surely
a benefit that is hard to calculate and to the best of my knowledge no study
of this kind has been made.

Roundup ready cotton, when introduced, meant that we saved around $100,000 per
field of cotton on Cotton Chipper costs (That is exactly what it sounds like -
around 80-100 people walking through the rows of cotton with hoes to chip out
weeds, which will otherwise grow and contaminate the crop). This had an
economic effect for us, the grower (save money) - which I must admit was not
all savings as of course the cost of the technology through seed must be taken
into account). It also had an economic effect on the labourers - seasonal
employees. It may be good or bad individually but economics suggests that
those labourers are now driven further up the supply chain & re-allocated
through the economy.

Interestingly there would have been further environmental gains if Terminator
seed technology had of been introduced. I dont want to get into the ethics of
terminator technology for food crops as I am also concerned about the impact
any use in that area would have on continual seed usage, particuarly in
developing nations as most developed nation farms use hybrid seed which must
be purchased each year anyway: But _i digress_

Terminator technology, by rendering second generation seed sterile, would stop
harsh chemicals being used to kill regrowth after the crop is harvested; and
also mean that the soil may not have to be plowed which also has environmental
effects in terms of fuel use, soil compaction, increased erosion and moisture
loss.

~~~
cmccabe
Yeah, it's funny how the anti-GMO people seem unconcerned with the much worse
stuff we spray in terms of pesticides. And it's not like you can avoid
consuming pesticides and pesticide byproducts just by eating organic food, not
when planes are saturating the area with it. GMOs have the potential to
greatly decrease pesticide use.

~~~
zzzeek
> it's funny how the anti-GMO people seem unconcerned with the much worse
> stuff we spray in terms of pesticides

You are seriously suggesting that anti-GMO advocates are in favor of
pesticides? Even though you disagree with the concept of organic food, it's an
outrageous suggestion that people are "unconcerned".

The linked articles also contain many examples of how GMO's attempts to reduce
pesticide use tend to backfire - but also, their position is, _as practiced by
multinational corporations like Monsanto_.

Remember, the only point here is, "anti-GMO" is not "pseudoscience". There is
real, expert analysis based on peer-reviewed studies behind this position.

~~~
robbiep
I think what Cmccabe is trying to say is that a major benefit of GMOs would be
reduction in pesticide usage, which is not something that is really heard much
as a benefit of GMOs.

I agree that anti-GMO by itself is not a pseudoscience but anti-GMO is a
position that is very often lumped in with other pseudosciences- 'natural'
therapies, anti-vaccinationers, anti-establishment and conspiracy theory
types. This is not to say there is not a legitimate point that they have, but
that there is a larger cultural movement which finds their aims aligned with
the anti-GMO body of knowledge, and a lot of those proponents are not known
for their rational approaches to evidence.

~~~
zzzeek
absolutely, and it peeves me to no end when so-called "rationalists" on hacker
news aren't able to understand the distinction between legitimate GMO concerns
versus the more fringe cultural system that embraces the anti-GMO stance. UOCS
is definitely concerned about Monsanto's profit motive taking precedence over
sound ideas that benefit society, and that is a political stance, for which
they've offered many reasoned and fact-based arguments. But right wing
patriot/militia groups also embrace the same free market/libertarian ideals so
popular on HN, yet it of course would not be at all reasonable to label any
free-market enthusiast as being a wild-eyed member of the john birch society.

~~~
cmccabe
It peeves _me_ to no end when people respond to my posts with what seems like
some kind of pre-programmed response. I never called the anti-GMO movement
"pseudoscience," never said I disagree with the concept of organic food. "The
linked article" which you refer to has nothing to say about Monsanto or GMOs,
except a one line bullet point that GMOs are a "red flag topic." Yet you
implied otherwise in your post.

Are you actually reading what I'm writing, or just responding to what you
think "someone like me" would write? Do you actually think critically about
the topics at hand or just pick up the banner of some political movement and
treat the debate like a football game?

If you're so concerned about food safety, then surely you are in favor of
irradiation, which would prevent many e-coli deaths every year? And surely you
are upset that lead and DMSO are still permitted in cosmetics by our archaic
laws? Haven't heard of it? Don't come to the debate empty-handed. We're not
interested in hearing your prejudices.

~~~
zzzeek
here are some of the the monsanto links from that page:

[http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-
food-...](http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-
system/genetic-engineering/promoting-resistant-pests.html)

[http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-
food-...](http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-
system/genetic-engineering/spreading-gene-contamination.html)

[http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-
food-...](http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-
system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html)

I never _claimed_ you called the anti-GMO movement "pseudoscience" - I was
trying to get back on topic, after you made this point:

> Yeah, it's funny how the anti-GMO people seem unconcerned with the much
> worse stuff we spray in terms of pesticides.

As though this is some way to dilute my argument, which it is not, since I was
only talking about, anti-GMO is not pseudoscience. The articles talk about
pesticides quite a bit including an analysis of alternative ways to reduce
pesticide use, which they came to the conclusion were more effective than GMO
methods, but that's not even a point I cared to debate and I do not wish to, I
was only introducing an alternative side to the debate.

As for organic food, the most prominent rationale for organic food is that it
is not treated with pesticides, a point that you flat out disagree delivers a
real benefit:

> And it's not like you can avoid consuming pesticides and pesticide
> byproducts just by eating organic food, not when planes are saturating the
> area with it.

People who consume organic _do_ feel that they are avoiding the consumption of
pesticides to a profound degree. The suggestion that this effort is pointless,
because "planes are saturating the area with it" in any case, is a clear
disagreement with the usefulness of this fundamental tenet of organics and is
strongly suggestive of an overall disdain for the concept of organics, I
apologize for reading into your statement something you did not intend.

> Are you actually reading what I'm writing, or just responding to what you
> think "someone like me" would write?

fully

> Do you actually think critically about the topics at hand or just pick up
> the banner of some political movement and treat the debate like a football
> game?

if i were _not_ thinking critically, you'd have seen a much more emotionally-
charged diatribe about the evils of corporations and free markets and all of
that and I'd get my ass handed to me in a place like HN, so yes, I
thoughtfully temper the things I say to a profound degree and am extremely
careful in how I present things here, thanks for implying I'm a robotic
regurgitator.

> If you're so concerned about food safety, then surely you are in favor of
> irradiation, which would prevent many e-coli deaths every year?

I don't have an opinion on irradiation, and at this point you're diving well
into the realm of assuming many things about me for no good reason, which I
have not done, contrary to what you imply.

> And surely you are upset that lead and DMSO are still permitted in cosmetics
> by our archaic laws? Haven't heard of it? Don't come to the debate empty-
> handed. We're not interested in hearing your prejudices.

I came only with links to peer-reviewed studies and scientific assessments
from a well known and respected, if not somewhat politically oriented,
scientific organization, which directly support the single point I wished to
make, which is that the anti-GMO movement is not a pseudoscientific one. My
opinions about Hacker News posters actually was not referring to you, it was
referring to the original poster, perhaps you felt I was attacking you as you
appear to be quite hostile at this moment.

I know better than to post prejudicially on hacker news. It doesn't fly very
far, hence I'm extremely careful to act instead as a steward for reputable
sources of information in areas where I certainly have opinions, but not the
expertise, which would allow me to comment independently of including some
very good sources. It is absurd to suggest that a person is not entitled to an
opinion of something without that person themselves being an expert in that
subject area, when that person is presenting these opinions backed up by
expert analysis. We all have to make decisions every day based on our own
curation of the expertise of others. I've come to this discussion only with
references to expert analysis and it appears you've come to it mostly with
frustration. Please try not to be so offended as I intended no offense towards
you.

If there is just one point I can make, it is this. _I have no intention or
authority to debate GMO._ I only came to say, the anti-GMO position is not an
unscientific one, reputable experts have published worthwhile rebuttals to
GMO, and here are some of them. In fact, it's not even an anti-GMO position,
as I made clear, it's a "concern about GMO _as currently practiced_ "
position. I have absolutely no issue with ethical and proven-to-be-beneficial-
to-society applications of GMO. If you'd like to debate, please read all the
articles I've posted and then discuss your rebuttals to their points, I'd love
to read that. That is all.

~~~
cmccabe
Let's be clear about this. If there are negative things that Monsanto, or any
other company, is doing, then by all means let's discuss them. But I don't see
why GMOs themselves are bad. If that is your position as well, then you aren't
"anti-GMO" but just "anti-Monsanto."

I like organic food and I eat it when I get a chance. At the end of the day,
it's a luxury product, like fine wine or private jets. It's something that's
inherently expensive because the labor it requires is greater than that of
conventional agriculture. We can't feed the populations of tomorrow with the
methods of the past.

Perhaps in time some new technology like robotics will come along to square
this circle. In the meantime, we're stuck with the agricultural economics
we've got.

------
_pferreir_
This was inevitable.

I've seen several speakers of dubious credibility in local TEDx events. Not
necessarily people advocating unscientific things, but clearly individuals
whose authority in their field of work has yet to be proven. It would be just
a matter of time till TEDx became a perfect stage for self-help gurus and bad
science in general.

I like the idea of spreading the TED philosophy to local communities, but they
should try to make a clear distinction between the "official" TED events and
TEDx. I believe most people end up thinking it's the same thing (I've seen it
happen IRL). Otherwise, just follow up with the local communities more
closely.

In the end, it's the TED brand that loses credibility. It's a pity since it's
been doing a really nice job in the "Pop science" front...

------
tokenadult
Other comments in this thread helpfully explain the context of these
recommendations. The TEDx brand name is now used to label local events set up
by busy volunteers who need criteria for evaluating speaking proposals. The
majority of the criteria are sensible and helpful, but I see one criterion
that is overly broad, as another subthread first noted.

"Holds a nonstandard degree. For instance, if the physics-related speaker has
a degree in engineering, not physics; if the medical researcher does not have
an M.D. or Ph.D.; if the affiliated university does not have a solid
reputation. This is not snobbery; if a scientist truly wishes to make an
advance in their chosen field, they’ll make an effort to engage with other
scholars."

Well, unless what is meant here by "make an effort to engage with other
scholars" is publish in the same peer-reviewed journals as the scholars with
the expected credentials, this criterion sweeps up too many path-breaking
scientists. I will give one famous example. James R. Flynn is a researcher on
human intelligence who has had several peer-reviewed publications in
Psychological Bulletin, the premier research journal on psychology in the
United States.

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3AJames+author%3A...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3AJames+author%3AR+author%3AFlynn+IQ&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24)

But Flynn's Ph.D. degree is in sociology, not in psychology. He looks at the
discipline of psychology as an outsider, and it is precisely that outsider's
view that helped him make a discovery missed by dozens of psychologists. He
discovered that IQ scores have been rising in national populations all over
the world during the last century, and that trend of rising raw scores on IQ
tests is now called the "Flynn effect" in his honor.

Here is what the late psychologist Arthur Jensen said about Flynn back in the
1980s: "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most
respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R.
Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia
(Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer.
Here's what Charles Murray (all right, not a psychologist nor a geneticist)
says in his back cover blurb for Flynn's book What Is Intelligence?:

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-
Effect/...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-
Effect/dp/0521741475)

"This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was
new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions
about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." As psychologist N.
J. Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are
surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other
interesting issues along the way." Flynn has earned the respect and praise of
any honest researcher who takes time to read the primary source literature.
Robert Sternberg, Ian Deary, Stephen Pinker, Stephen Ceci, Sir Michael Rutter,
and plenty of other eminent psychologists recommend Flynn's research. So, yes,
sometimes "an effort to engage with other scholars" will happen after a
scholar has already earned his last academic degree, and a scholar that has an
important concept named after himself by people who have the standard degree
will never have the standard degree for the field in which he made his mark.

EDIT PROMPTED BY SECOND REPLY: I'll attempt to be clear here. If the TEDx
criteria included "has never been published in any major journal related to
their chosen field" rather than "holds a nonstandard degree" not related to
their chosen field (to speak about), I might have fully agreed with the
criteria from the get-go. But degrees are both an overinclusive criterion and
an underinclusive criterion. In other words, using degrees as a criterion for
vetting speakers lacks both sensitivity and specificity.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity>

Instead, look at publications as the relevant criterion. A person who has
peer-reviewed publications in a good-quality medical journal is competent to
speak on the issues discussed in that person's publications, with or without a
medical degree, while a person with the M.D. degree who has never published in
anything but "alternative medicine" journals is not well qualified to speak
about medicine. Publications matter more than degrees, as the example of James
R. Flynn I gave in the original edit of this post shows.

On the broader "demarcation problem" of distinguishing science from
pseudoscience, a really valuable recently published book is The Pseudoscience
Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe by Michael D.
Gordin,

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226304426>

which I found to be quite an interesting read, full of historical and
ideological connections I had not heard about before. The author, a historian
of science based at Princeton University, makes clear that demarcating between
"science" and "pseudoscience" is not at all easy in any era. Reviewers
generally like this book, as I did.

[http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=42...](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=421339)

[http://www.tnr.com/book/review/pseudoscience-wars-michael-
go...](http://www.tnr.com/book/review/pseudoscience-wars-michael-gordin#)

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044470900457765...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444709004577651741918258080.html)

<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/steven-shapin/catastrophism>

~~~
kevinpet
Your counter example is poor. Flynn holds a degree in a related (but not
closely related) field. He holds a PhD from a real university. He has
published in the leading journals for his area of research.

The only possible way he triggers any of these red flags is a degree in
sociology rather than psychology. These are red flags calling for more
scrutiny, not strict conditions. And indeed, it seems like Flynn does deserve
more scrutiny. He's clearly a legitimate scientist doing important work, but
this is despite the red flag of being someone from a different field offering
up theories that go against previously established science. He shares several
of the quickly observable features of a crank.

How do we know he isn't a crank? Because he's published in the leading
journals and other scientists who meet the "not a crank" test have said that
his work is worthwhile.

In short, this is not a false alarm by the "red flags". This is a correct
alarm.

~~~
wisty
The original example was poor. Engineering and Physics are closely related
fields.

~~~
sopooneo
A lot of physics quackery comes from engineers.* Their knowledge of advance
physics is generally nowhere near that of a physics PhD, but their title lends
them credibility to many people.

* I have not found the reverse to be true.

~~~
gus_massa
I don't know about physics, but a few years ago here in Argentina there was a
epidemy of "engineers that solved the Goldbach conjecture". A few (¿maybe 5?)
of my math Ph.d. students friends had each one his/her own engineer with a
different unrelated proof.

The histories where all different, but generally it was a long (100 pages)
proof that was involved and not very clear. So the math Ph.d. student and the
engineer meet weekly for one year to try to understand the proof. It was very
painful because they have to understand which part was only unclear or has
only small gaps, and which parts had errors that were impossible to fix. And
then they had to explain that to the engineer, that were happy to had solved
the conjecture.

All of this is in a scientific field that there isn't too much money, press
coverage or social prestige involved (not like a "cure for cancer"). So I
think that in more applicable fields the problem is worse.

------
omnisci
"It has been published in a peer reviewed journal (but beware… there are some
dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t.)"

Dodgy journals should be omitted from everything relating to science. It's a
shame that many of them get picked up by the mass media and blown out of
proportion.

Also, the peer review system is so faulted that even bad studies make it into
good journals due to politics. Thanks for the post OP, it continues to drive
me to get my company started which will hopefully reduce the amount of "bad
science" data out there.

------
evv
I hate the phrase "bad science." Can't we just call this _not_ science?

~~~
marekmroz
Pseudoscience would also work, and is easier to say than non-science.

~~~
hdctambien
I agree with ChuckMcM's comment above, but I like how "non-science" sounds
like "nonsense" when you say it out loud.

------
dpapathanasiou
Ironically enough, the current issue of Wired magazine has an article praising
TED for creating the TEDx franchise and allowing anyone to use its brand:
<http://www.wired.com/business/2012/11/ff-tedx/>

------
ypeterholmes
"Marks of bad science: Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of
its truth"

This is wrong. From Copernicus to Einstein to many others, agreeing with the
"mainstream" has very little to do with science.

~~~
Symmetry
Nobody agree with Einstein and few with Copernicus before they published there
work, but both were able to convince many mainstream scientists quite rapidly.
In Copernicus's case not a majority, but to be fair he was fighting political
oppression that doesn't exist today. And despite his theory's elegance (and
ultimate truth) it was less successful at predicting the positions of planets
in the heaven's than the overfited theories of his opponents with their
epicycles. It wasn't until Kepler figured out how planets actually moved in
ellipses (not perfect circles) that heliocentric theories provided superior
experimental predictions to geocentric ones.

------
toddmorey
I'm curious if any knows of a particular talk that prompted this response. I
did a brieft search but didn't uncover much.

~~~
shrikant
This probably didn't prompt the proposal (given that this speech was in June
2011), but at the time certainly contributed to the loss of TEDx credibility:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtNRHo_AMfM>

> _Conventional medicine failed to help him, but an introduction to nutrition
> and alternative health care completely changed the quality of his life and
> health forever. A homeopathic doctor, Lindsey opened Home Nutrition Clinic
> in Santa Monica, California in 1985._

------
CarlosOnline
I value TED for bringing me new info. Sure some of it is not applicable, yet.
However I am glad to see this info. As to its results, I take a wait and see
attitude. As to the intentions be good this letter, I find it suspect. Frankly
the critics should stay away from censoring TED.

------
jaredcwhite
Why is it bad science to be radically questioning the status quo? For
centuries many major scientific breakthroughs have been in spite of the dogma
of the scientific community of its day. Statements like good science = "It
does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge"
or bad science = "Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its
truth" is just garbage. Sickening to me, in fact. Everything that so-called
"fringe psuedoscientists" complain about in regards to the arrogant elitism of
the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of science are validated with this kind of
letter.

Dislike.

~~~
lutusp
> Why is it bad science to be radically questioning the status quo?

It's not bad science unless the "questioning" isn't accompanied by evidence.
Science is not steered by authority, but by evidence.

If you have authority but no evidence, scientists won't listen to you. Example
Nobel Prizewinner Linus Pauling's claims about vitamin C and the common cold.

If you have evidence but no authority, scientists will listen to you. Example
Albert Einstein, who as a lowly patent clerk overthrew much of the physics of
his day -- but only after evidence and observation began to support his
theories.

In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest
amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific
evidence.

~~~
mogrim
> In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing.

That's a bit optimistic, in the long run it may be true, but over shorter time
periods reputation and authority often discourage proper criticism.

~~~
lutusp
> ... .but over shorter time periods reputation and authority often discourage
> proper criticism.

Yes, but that's not science. When people pay attention to authority and
claimed expertise, they're abandoning science.

"Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." —
Richard Feynman

~~~
mogrim
No, it's not science, it's human nature. (And I really hope you're being
ironic using a Feynman quote there!)

~~~
lutusp
> And I really hope you're being ironic using a Feynman quote there!

If you had met Feynman, you would realize when he said something like that, he
wasn't posing as any kind of authority. This naturally reminds me of one of my
favorite Einstein quotes:

"To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority
myself."

~~~
robbiep
Paul, I just looked you up and realised of course you would have met Feynman.
Although he died when I was 3, Reading books by and about him when I was going
through my final years of undergrad changed the course of my life - I am now a
final year medical student due to the influence of him and, subsequently, Carl
Sagan.

so, I guess this is just a hand wave across the internet at someone who has
achieved much and met one or more of my intellectual idols. ps. I find your
aperger's by proxy article very interesting.

~~~
lutusp
> ... I find your aperger's by proxy article very interesting.

Thanks for reading! Here's another more recent article on the same general
topic:

<http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology>

------
SeanLuke
Why not just peer-review the Tedx proposals?

~~~
jpdoctor
Who will peer-review the peer reviewers?

------
mansoor-s
No moere "'Free energy' and perpetual motion machines, alchemy, time travel" ?

Well... I no longer have any reason to watch ted videos

------
protomyth
So, discuss the next Willow bark extract at a different forum first.

~~~
Symmetry
I suspect you're being sarcastic or flippant there, but yes that is precisely
what you should do if you've got a new Willow bark extract. Some forum with
the sort of medical expertise to compare your extract to current treatments.

~~~
protomyth
Not really being sarcastic or flippant, willow bark extract figures
prominently in the history of aspirin and I would suspect something similar
might happen again. I would suggest picking a different forum.

Personally, given the list, I would think TEDx would be better off discussing
anything but science. It would save on staff time and possible future
embarrassment. There are many topics that could fill the gap that don't often
have a forum.

~~~
Symmetry
Yes, I know how willow bark extract relates to aspirin. And if you think
you've made a similarly important medical discovery you really shouldn't be
making TED talks, but rather publishing in a journal first, and then maybe
founding a medical startup to produce a medicine based on it.

Until you've demonstrated that you can actually make a safe and effective
medicine based off of your discovery there really isn't much point in doing a
TED or TEDx talk.

~~~
protomyth
and that's what I said - twice - don't use TEDx for the next science discovery

I happened to use "willow bark extract" as my example because it would have
been a red flag in the guidelines and last month was "Native American Heritage
Month" in the US and it happened to come up as a bit of trivia.

I really don't know what you seem to think I am saying other than repeating
what I said as some opposition. Whatever point seems to resonate with someone
given my down votes.

~~~
protomyth
At this point, I really wish all down voters had to give their reasons.

I give a perfectly fine example of something that would fit in the guidelines
as a warning that you should probably discuss somewhere else and get down
voted. Meanwhile Symmetry does two insulting posts which give the same point I
already gave as if I was on the other side and I get down voted responding. I
am well and truly at a loss.

------
jhawk28
This removes any talks related to evolution unless it is "micro evolution":
"Is not based on experiments that can be reproduced by others"

~~~
tokenadult
The scientific theory of macroevolution makes a series of interconnected
testable predictions, all of which have held up as new natural history
discoveries and controlled experiments have been made over the last century
and a half.

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

