Many people commenting here seem to interpret that this gentleman is tearing down science, perhaps in favor of religion. I disagree. His speech is about dogmatism, which can exist both in science and religion. At the very end of his speech, he restates the importance of science as well as the perils of dogmatism and why scientists should keep an open mind.
I don’t believe in any man-made religion, but I’m not nearly arrogant enough to believe with any certainty that some sort of divine deity does not exist. Somethings simply beyond our comprehension even a collective consciousness to which we are all linked. I agree with your assessment, but I abhor people that instantly revert to ardent denialism if they even sense that someone is simply exhibiting a dalliance with the idea, that the colloquial interpretation of religion may have some sort of validity. It drives me absolutely insane, because nobody can say otherwise with any sort of concrete and conclusive evidence… But they do anyways. Often they refer to themselves as atheists, a religion in its own right often worshipping science, nothingness (which inevitably is something) or themselves on the basis of their superior intellect to the “religious zealot“. Such cases are common, and comically ironic.
I agree. Some people believe everything, some nothing. Most reasoning people are somewhat skeptical of everything. As with this video, the people or organizations that "make the rules" are skeptical of everything but themselves. To question governing bodies is appalling. "We can't be wrong, must protect ourselves, danger Will Robinson." I think everything is a theory or hypothesis not a dogma.
Yeah, sadly the audience is probably full of anti-reason flat earthers hooting their heart out for a fellow "believer" when the guy wants to be a thorough skeptic (and is not delusional at all).
This man is not tearing down science, he is pointing out where the scientific community is not questioning previous assumptions, or established meal tickets to research grants. Set science free!
How about the Global Warming group? They, too, have no place for disagreement or correction on their foundational assumptions. There is great disagreement... but the common public isn't privileged to know that.
you do know the reason for censorship, right? it is because there are people that hold power in their hands, like the heads of the mainstream science community, that having the truth spread out would certainly not be in favor of their egotistical interests
I think banning is a way of rating something. I would rate this worthy of banning because it smacks of a con. In a con, the technique of ridicule is used. Ridicule invites us to reject or hate something but without the option of rebuttal, which happens only here in the comment section, which most don't read. A science con has the appearance (but not the practice) of a scientific process. In law you would not hear only the opinion of the prosecutor, and not the defense, right? Science, properly executed, insists on testing for falsifiability. And so should he, but Rupert S is not doing that. He is doing comedy instead, at the expense of a respectable and very valuable world community. Boo.
@@theghostoftomjoad7161 Theories are not "aspects" and they do not claim to know "every detail". they are the best explanations based on the latest evidence and analysis. Those who talk about scientific disagreements show a profound ignorance of science and how it works. Scientists argue over number of pre-human species, the makeup of the nucleus, the odds of life in the galaxy, the extent to which fossil fuels are raising carbon BUT that does not mean either side rejects evolution, quantum theory, exobiology or climate change. We cannot test without evidence which is why there will never be a test for magic or supernatural beings. The only "evidence" is personal belief. Our courts wisely reject dreams, visions, religious beliefs, opinions, etc as "evidence" and employ expert testimony from those with education and knowledge of the subject.
@@theghostoftomjoad7161, if I'm not mistaken, a theory evolved from a hypothesis, and will evolve into a 'constant' or 'law'.... hypothesis: an idea --> theory: idea that holds up to fact testing ---> constant: idea that is believed to be infallible... at least that's my understanding of the scientific process: this R. Sheldrake character is at the beginning stages of his idea, but claims the rest of the science community is blackballing him or his idea, because it gives narrative that their infallible rules might be falsified... Idk if there's merit to his claims or if he's spouting bollocks...
jib1000 "You can't just make blanket statements and assume everyone will take your word for it." - Like everybody else here? As they say, "as long as they are your side". But on a serious note, you can see one example in the title;)
It disturbs me that this was banned...forget your beliefs or worldview this hurts everyone. We are all adults here and I imagine we all want to learn. Censorship is the enemy. How can we even study the discoveries or claims made when schmuck companies or organizations want to de-platform people suggesting their ideas. What do you all think?
Ted talks should stick with the facts otherwise we get into believing whatever we want... that’s not a pathway to truth... Science has no authoritatives and is constantly changing with our understanding... If science can prove the supernatural, then it’s time to talk about it but until then we must put it behind us as a false primitive explaination.... Also as an atheist I can see that the Mediterranean death cults will end up ending our way of life, through inaction... If we continue to disconnect ourself from our true nature we are all doomed...
@@johnchristiansen9095, uh...dude....science is the study of NATURAL things and phenomena. If any occurence is SUPERnatural, it is by definition beyond the scope of natural examination or explanation. I hope you realize that you just made a contradictory and ignorant statement. If science can explain something, then it is no longer supernatural, but a natural occurrence mistaken initially to be supernatural. It is an extremely narrow and frankly foolish assumption that the only things that exist at all are scientifically measurable. It is a giant assumption that simply cannot be proven at all. One cannot measure a thing that has no physicality with instruments made of physical matter. This whole argument solves nothing and ends only in a conundrum. Science is perfectly good to describe the normative states and behaviors of matter, but that is ALL it can do.
Andrew Churney ... I agree with you 100% , as long as we are not using them to promote religion... Science has debunked religious claims for almost 500 yrs now... if the evidence is provided then it should be discussed, not before... the immoral foundations that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are built on are ridiculous and any claims of afterlife are obvious man made delusions... that’s why I’m saying just keep out religion and it’s claims till it’s verifiable.. that’s it... such ideas can be a horrible thing to spread!
@@johnchristiansen9095, many factual claims of religions are testable, and many do indeed fail reasonable testing, but hardly all of every religion. Also, the philosophies and moral claims of religions can be examined in terms of internal consistancy and can be weighed to a large degree on merit and efficacy. However, if certain aspects of religion are intrincicly supernatural, such as God as a being who transcends time and space, who is purported to actually have made and holds together time and space, then the previous discussion is entirely appropriate, my friend. You simply cannot propose it is not and remain reasonable. It is strictly impossible to prove that a transcended being categorically does not exist. That is simple logic. This is not being religious, but simply reasonable. Now, to talk about specific attributes or physical identity of said being, this is the realm of religion, and another subject entirely. Agnosticism is at least reasonable, but if Atheism is defined by an insistence that surely no transcendent being exists at all, this is complete nonsense.
I'm not supporting it in anyway. But I do Love anyone in this lifestyles and would help them if they needed help, something I could do to share the Love of our Savior. Because I was Loved and helped before I acknowledged my sin nature. "While we were "yet" sinners, Christ died for us".
@@janoycresva276 based on your comment, you are not quite understanding my statement. I am not condoning homosexuality. Society has been force-feed the idea if you don't support this lifestyle you are a bigot, hater of innocent people. That is a lie, and there is another lie and agenda hidden inside. Thank you Janoy, Christopher
Only watching this because it's banned .. Teds had a vid poor Angelo or name like.. about a man that was attracted to children... they wanted you to feel sorry for him . never watched it again ..I think Teds is some agenda.
@Dirk Knight yet here you are...and obviously not for the first time....ans since Ted banned him you had to actually type this in and seek him out. Some of you are incredible....literally can't be honest about anything. Not even to yourselves.
Dirk Knight Lmao, they(ted) gave up copyright of this and disassociated with the video, it is banned from appearing on Ted talk channels, not TH-cam itself. Just self explanatory really.
@Dirk Knight wow....the gymnastics you are doing to try to purposely not understand (or pretend not to understand) must be exhausting. I always wonder about people like you, do you just get off on lies/misleading others or are you really just that confused...this is really not a difficult concept to grasp...but liars always have to change the very fabric of reality and logic in order to make their case...but the sad thing is, the only person falling for it is the liar himself. But liars rely on and expect others to have the same lack of logic that they have, and hope they can word salad their way through. trying to make sense out of nonesense. Like I said, it must be exhausting.
When ted talks banned Sheldrake, they banned Max Planck at the same time. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” ― Max Planck, The New Science Max Planck is considered to be the father of quantum physics. Why tear him down? Without his work would those trillion dollar rockets work that are paid with by OUR tax dollars? Max Planck is commonly known as “The Father of Quantum Theory.” He dedicated his life to understanding the workings of Quantum Physics, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
It wasn't banned by the scientific community. It wasn't banned at all. It was removed from the TED youtube channel and posted on their blog instead, alongside their reasons for doing so. It's pseudoscience propaganda. Almost nothing he said is correct. It's horseshit and it would be irresponsible for them to promote it
@@jonathanjones770 - I think Karl-P is implying the science community at large is leaning on Ted to get rid of what doesn't fit their narrative in fear the public might actually question the B.S. taught in school. The entire point of this Ted Talk is the indoctrination that science has become, which it has. You don't have to look to far to watch academics crucifying one another if they ever dare go outside the confines of their own limited knowledge. Besides, prior to 1995, everyone thought Graham Hancock was crazy, and now science HAS to accept his hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence that now exists that science got the age of humans all wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble, but claiming this man above is full of sh** is simply you buying into the dogmatic indoctrination that science has become, which it has. The whole point of science, or at least in theory, was to argue the evidence, not the person. However egos ride high in their field.
@J Mireles A manager at one of my clients asked: "now that we are environmentally certified, do we have to as policy believe in human-driven global warming?"
questioning orthodoxy is only productive when sensible counter theories with some evidence are presentable - supernatural claims do NOT ever qualify as science ever!
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. He keeps referring to "evidence" without actually saying what that evidence is, so to most naive people watching this, it sounds compelling. But anyone who knows how can make a compelling argument for anything, to people who don't know any better. Take the "knowing when you're being watched" argument he brings forth. He talks about "evidence" that this is true, when blind scientific tests have shown this is not true. Everything he talks about is simply his opinion, but he literally has nothing to back it up, which is probably why TED disassociated themselves from him. They might as well bring some idiot like Ken Ham up to proselytize. This is not thinking outside the box. It's simply ignoring all the existing evidence in order to come up with something new.
My thoughts exactly, when he makes statements like "and all energy and matter came into existence with the big bang" my bullshit detector went off. We don't know the state of the universe prior to the big bang, science doesn't make claims about things we can't verify. Seriously there is nothing wrong with the answer of I/we don't know (with an optional yet).
highdough then what is sciences answer for the creation of reality? If your answer is that science says there is no answer u sorta prove the speakers point. Big bang theory is really an extrapolation on the proven observation that our universe is expanding. There are many other reasons the universe could be expanding or it could begin contracting at some point. By embracing a mechanistic view of gravity, rather than an organic or random phenomenon, you close your mind to dozens of possibilities. If gravity does vary, why does it vary, and how can we take advantage of this? Furthermore your suspicion fueled rage only serves the point that these views are in deed held in a dogmatic fashion. If his arguments are so invalid post the obvious disproves or explanations for variance in G and C because are both real as far as my research shows.
Luke Seguin My "suspicion fuelled rage"?? Where on earth did you get the idea that my comment was fuelled by rage? Because I disagreed with the subject of the video? Your comment could easily be called rage fuelled as well, then. The fact is that the Big Bang theory is the best explanation for all the evidence. That's what science is. It gives us the best explanations for things with the evidence we're given. And, so far, science has been the best way to explain how our universe works. By the way, the "closed-mind" argument is often launched by people arguing from a side containing little to no evidence.
highdough You just agreed with the speaker in your statement that science is just the best explanation for all the evidence, this whole video is about how it should be seen as such and how it should not be treated as dogma. It should constantly be challenged and we should never hold too dear what we believe as fact as in the grand scope of all that is going on we know very little.
This is a brilliant talk! I have no idea why they censor it. This man calls for an open-minded attitude to never stop questioning even the most commonly-known beliefs in the scientific community, so that we may discover new facts and develop new theories that can course-correct our understanding of the universe and ourselves, as opposed to everybody falling for the dogmatic assupmtions and not moving foward. I loved it when he said "Dogmatic assumptions inhibit inquiry".
"I have no idea why they censor it. This man calls for an open-minded attitude to never stop questioning even the most commonly-known beliefs in the scientific community..." That's why.
b/c most of the "progress" that modern science hangs its hat on is actually wrong. Lot of careers, reputations and wasted tax/grant money would come to be questioned. The egos running this sham religion won't stand for that.
He claims he's listing 10 dogmas, when he's actually just listing 10 things he dogmatically believes scientists believe. Oh, the irony of the arrogant.
@@christofl6523 - I keep seeing this "most scientists" line. How do YOU know that. Answer: You don't, but the line supports your argument so you continue to repeat it even though you have ZERO evidence to support it. Do you even know how many scientists there are in the world? I bet you a year's wages you don't without googling it. Am I right again?
@@jaras1429 - The Protestant reformation was a result of widespread corruption in the Catholic church. The Catholic church did not allow questions regarding its' dogma. This was why Martin Luther protested and why we have Protestant religions. Today we have religions like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Pentecostals etc who will gladly and piously SHUN you if you question their dogma. By the way, Jehovahs Witness dogma changes practically with every edition of the Watchtower comic book. Hard to pin those guys down.
@@kristenhansen1843 That's not true for all members of those groups. You may have had a bad experience with a few, but it's still both anecdotal and a hasty generalization.
I remember my fascination in college learning about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. The professor began the lecture by saying that the key assumption was that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames: everything else in the theory is mathematically rigorous. I recall thinking at the time, "but what if it's not??" Everyone seemed to agree that it must be so, and I dropped the question.....until now. The implications of Dr. Rupert's hypothesis are staggering. When it comes to understanding the Universe, we are like the frog at the bottom of a well who thinks he knows the ocean.
We might be a house fly that’s born in a room, and live for a week thinking we figured out how the coffee maker in the kitchen works. The problem is our ego and not letting the idea that what we know is in fact just a tiny portion of what’s really going on. And just because it works and we’ve found a way to measure things in our own unit doesn’t mean our perspective is constant. The theory of relativity which simply says that time is relative, could be said the same about perspective when it comes to knowledge. Just because it sounds absurd doesn’t mean that it cannot be true. I mean the thinking of it alone to begin with is such an amazing occurrence in intelligence, which can indicate there are little truths in every thought that forms in our minds. Like a puzzle of information… packets of data in binary code, and each 1 &0’s are the collective thoughts individualized by a single human being; one human can be 1, and the other can be 0.
GPS working is constant proof albeit only at Earth scale. If we look further into the universe, we might find irregularities in the speed of light in vacuum, but that is beyond our experience.
"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's all right, it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science." - Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
The best part of that statement that lines up with this talk, is how willing people are to accept the dogmas without taking time to scrutinize the science. It's essentially a religion. It seems like one of the essential needs of humanity is to form common bonds with minimal influence, as long as the same founding principles of a religion are met. The reason this talk is "disliked" by the science religion, is either they're misinterpreting his points, or they can see how this can be spun as fuel for less popular science-based religions (eg: antivaxxers and flat earthers)
@@ron6625 Something like 50% of all the results that come out of science these days can not be reproduced. That is someone does an experiment. Publishes it, someone else tries it and can't get the same results. But it's still been published as fact. And people use papers in arguments like gospel when it's 50/50 whether it's right or wrong. Science these days isn't worth terribly much until they sort themselves out. Too busy working for government grants to get the 'right results' than looking for truth.
Well just a nice artifact of words from Sagan and opens up a doctrine for science sophistry. by saying there are many hypothesis in science that are wrong you are making two branch for science wrong and unwrong. Then if science is self correcting we have the right to logically say every statement in science is wrong and to become the aperture to find another wrong one
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Nikola Tesla
"Oh dear, you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science." "We don't like to use the word 'fudge'... we prefer to call it 'intellectual phase locking'." These are the money quotes.
Benji sorry big guy but I used both the right versions of “you’re” and “your” and you wrongly trying to correct me is even more embarrassing than if I was wrong in the first place. 🤣🤣
Absolutely! You could sum up the major points of error within science with three dogmatic stances: 1. Determinism 2. Materialism 3. Reductionism - We all have to abandon these in order to advance beyond the plateau we have reached. (paraphrasing Swarru)
Thank you for re-uploading. I'm now enjoying this talk for the 2nd time. I think Rupert Sheldrake is a brilliant thinker, also in his approach to discuss this subject. There's a dry and calm perceptive attitude in him that doesn't allow much room for judgment, but clearly, he points at the factual conditions of our present scientific world, frozen in mid-air between dictations of an illusion and a down-to-earthiness with hands in the soil, and their senses connected to the elements, nature's expression, around them. Many scientists survive and remain in their job by obeying the commands of the Wizards of Oz, our captains of industry and corporations who need to hide their agenda and crimes against humanity and the planet's environment. I appreciate Rupert's sense of humor much, standing on bare feet on a circular piece of artificial grass. Or maybe it's the real thing, like the Xmas trees? I hope he chose the props 😊
I find it so amazing that just the questioning is so threatening. Is this because the dogma of science is as much a religion as dogmatic religion which fears and cannot tolerate, contemplate or even let peep deep questioning!
+Keith As a scientist I know that's not actually true. Hence the infamous '100 authors against Einstein'. There is often huge resistance (rather than healthy open minded skepticism) to new scientific ideas that challenge core fundamentally held scientific beliefs.
+Norm Babbitt ...............Totally 100% with you Science is the new Religion , we now what Science has given us BUT it can not answer everything . Sad some People can not be OPEN MINDED.
I love a real scientist with a brain that can reason & big enough balls to speak out of the narrow-minded status-quo theory box! Love & respect this man so much! Had to watch it again! So refreshing!
Eloquent and mind changing. The only irony I witnessed was the dogma reiterated by Rupert of evolution that is “already answered and no longer discussed. “
are you trying to insult my intelligence? I can think things people pretend to think and I do it subconsciously while laying a log and reading Shakespeare.
From the outset. His definition of science was that of a religion. It isn't. The whole point of science is discovery of the truth through evidence and reason. Belief plays no part.
riverspirit7 How many times has a country been invaded over science? Has science ever told you that you were evil or is how to live? No it hasn't, because it isn't a belief system which is what a religion is. Science requires no faith. Any law or theory has evidence to back it up or it is trashed. Can the same be said of any religion? I think not. Take a logic course, you'll start to see the invalidity of your own claims.
Everything is tethered to un-manifest inertia i.e. Ether. Just like a dog on a leash running around a stake. The dog on the leash = Magnetism The stake = un-manifest inertia or the Di-Electric Field.
A truly creative video. I retired from an engineering career, and had noticed during it how the Speed of Light seemed to be varying somewhat unexplainedly, but Sheldrake has explained it beautifully. No one else ever had, and I had enough experience to be able to guess what the reaction would be. Incidentally, I had also developed an "inspiration" that the researchers were NOT going to "find" electricity by investigating motors , generators, etc. , and in an analogous way, investigators are very soon going to find out that the ancient hindu-buddhists were right in their poetic inspiration that "Consciousness" is analogous to an electromagnetic Field, with the usual field characteristics, which means that you are NOT going to "find" it in the brain, but rather the brain is "inhabited" by consciousness just like a motor is "inhabited" by electricity. And, don't worry, it has been found lately that "Paradoxes" are "REAL".
Why do you think that? Do you think there is a conspiracy to prevent this man from speaking "the truth" or perhaps more likely that this man has presented a bunch of out and out bullshit to befuddle poorly educated people? Light changing speed as we move through "patches of dark matter"??? Does he know something about "patches of dark matter" that real scientists don't? He's a "parapsychologist" and believes in things like esp, seances, ghosts etc.
What Dr. Sheldrake is criticizing is the ideology of scientism, not the presuppositions, or the hard conclusions, of science itself. There are many, many scientists who do not subscribe to scientism, and would not accept some, at least, of the 'dogmas' which he identifies.
No. He's confusing (to my way of thinking, with regard to some of his 'dogmas') science with scientism. He's not being deceitful, in my view; he's being unfair to scientists as a whole. I'll amplify on this a little later.
He's being talking about that for years, if it was just a matter of "confusion" he would've amended for it. Also, by the crazy stuff he says you can't excuse his "misuse" of a word, when the very misuse is the central focus of his critic. Science has found no evidence of his insane claims so he resorts to dismissing science as a whole to keep making them, but does so by not getting science in the least bit.
The biggest problem I have with science as a religion is that a certain morality and ethics are sometimes lacking in scientists. There are somethings that shouldn't be created/altered just because you can.
@@seldonwright4345 And continue to breathe in a self contain electrical flesh body on a planet hurling through a violent environment that supplies your every need.?
It was not a miracle, he misrepresented the theory. Neither the theory nor science says that the materials that made up the singularity came from "nothing" nothing, when science says "nothing" it doesn't mean "no thing at all", we have no reason to believe there ever was "nothing".
Fancy actually removing this! I mean, people are free, if they disagree with him, to dismiss his ideas as ill-researched fantasy, or, if they agree, to celebrate the input of a man who can think for himself, yet question entirely scientifically. Personally, I feel cleansed and refreshed by what he says.
Zach Dyer Exactly. Sense some scientists can change their minds when confronted with enough evidence. But there will always be those that will stick to their old beliefs. After all scientists are people too. It took the evidences of Kepler and Newton to convince the community Copernicus was right. But even now some odd ducks believe in the geocentric model. Needless to say, those are now a very small minority. But at first Copernicus had lots of resistance.
hellavadeal "Dogma" is a state-of-mind... LIMITS. "Pragma" is the complete opposite... NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE. One is deemed dogmatic not through their subscription but their state-of-mind. Einstein was a pragmatic being in a dogmatic world hence he couldn't believe himself.
+IAm NoOne, your trollish assertion that a prior commenter is confused attenuates anything you've said that might otherwise have been worth considering.
I studied physics at university and then got my degree in Computer Science. I love the sciences and feel its valid .. however .. I have had experiences that science cannot easily explain. When I began having them I talked with a psychologist as I was getting somewhat concerned that I was going mad. If I had to say what these are they suggest one of more of the claires. It has come as quite a surprise for myself. I have thought a lot about some of them that there is a scientific explanation and some of them I have found after contemplation and some I cannot fathom. Dogma in all its forms is restrictive. Stay open and ask important questions about everything especially when it is deemed controversial. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I am in grad school in biophysics and I can relate to what Mr. Sheldrake is discussing. I face many profs and researchers who are stuck in their own mind. Science was about finding truth about everything in the universe, but their own egos get in the way...which in this case is the dogmas of being a scientist. The enemies of scientific progress are the scientists themselves.
My daughter got her first F in University in literature. When she adapted to her Professors line of thinking she passed the course with flying colours... Thinking outside the box how dare you!
It’s healthy to question all dogma. That is the principal of progress and understanding. Be it science, belief or any human activity. Dogma is the power of the elite, customs and tradition reinforce their socio-economic pre-eminence. In a world of institutions, whose purpose is to calcify and entrench the convention of the day. It often takes the inspired and motivated maverick to expose the emperor has in fact no clothes and often is persecuted for it. Then after a while, or a lifetime, is revered as the new source of universal truth. Institutions then embrace and solidify their position by locking understanding under the new paradigm. And the scientific cycle begins anew... Science, like existence and the universe around it isn’t smooth and balanced. There are centres of activity and vast areas of quiet calm. Then an explosion of understanding by some genius insight moves us along the road of discovery until a quiet time is again reached, by the limits of technology and intellectual freedom, until the next revolution leap frogs us again into the future.
@@lukeskywalker2481 Read Thomas Kuhn's On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. There are no genuine "cycles" in nature. A genuine cycle would violate the Second Law and imply a possibilty of a perpetual motion device.
@Siri Erieott - Almost every episode of inspired genius ends with a dogma revealed to be a dogpa under false hair. Manic harassment of the protagonist ensues to a predictability fine-tuned by the lay scientist, Yakety Sax, who had to blow his own trumpet many times for it to be well known.
He is right of course that dogmatic assumptions should always be looked at and not just accepted. But he completely ignores the fact that the established laws make very accurate predictions. When his new law of "fluctuating gravity" makes accurate predictions about the motions of the planets, or the orbits of satellites, then they will be taken seriously.
Several contradicting causes for predictability exist but go unexamined by 'science'. It should be patent that there is no such thing as constants, but rather SETS within which predictability occurs. That is fundamental to all math, which is wholly immaterial by the way, so how did math come to exist? He brings up the right questions. Doesn't mean he has all the right answers, nor need he do so. Only a religious 'science' person would demand there be all the right answers.
It is admitted by those who set the "constants" that the constants fluctuate. By definition, the so-called constants are not constants. The questions you should ask yourself after that are: 1) How precise did the "constants" have to be in order to predict the future position of a planet? 2) Are predictions of other things dismissed as incorrect simply because they do not rely on the artificially set "constants?" 3) Are documented experiments showing a fluctuating constant purposely being stifled by the gatekeepers of science? 4) (most importantly) Are these gatekeepers true scientists if they purposely withhold data that indicates their own assumptions or calculations or terminology are incorrect or not universal? The fact that a formula has predicted the position of planets correctly does not make it universally correct. Afterall, a broken clock is correct twice in a day.
it only gets good at 16:00 IMHO - this kind of talks are necessary anyway, no matter if they're "wrong" or "incorrect", they are thought provoking, even if you want to question what he says, you need to think about things outside the mainstream consensus. That's valuable
This is the second time I have watched this. The first thing I noticed when i saw him was "No shoes" ....... I tried to convince myself that he might be wearing beige shoes. But he moves his toes in a way that shoes don't move. Also when he walks away you can see dirt on the soles of his feet. It completely put me off the first time, but I managed to get past it this time.
+LAnonHubbard You are a fanatic and just like those religious zealots because you are using gossip to justify your totally unscientific judgement of this man rather than his content.
+Jocjabes Agree it was a bit "gossipy". Deepak Chopra is a snake oil salesman and charlatan who makes up stuff. I didn't bother watching more than a minute or two of Rupert Sheldrake, especially after skim reading the negative comments here of the man. I don't have time to give a proper scientific rebuttal of Mr Sheldrake. He doesn't respect science by the sounds of it, so what would be the point? I only had time to quickly take the piss and get out of here.
Discussed the ideas in your books with Ralph N. Maud, my deceased partner, who understood and appreciated your views. You joined us once for lunch. Happy to hear you again.
I was just about to say whar I now see Quincy Litigator already responded here... except QL was too reserved: because Modern Science is NOT allowed to be questioned, alas... hence the shit we're in now. Modern Science is no longer Science; it has regressed to little more than a kind of voodoo. The CCP operates under this assumption in order to gain the upper hand; with our eager compliance they are succeeding, amazingly.
i believe they wanted to solidify the speed of light as a constant rather than a relativity...it made the math work for their construct and create a world of followers through the university ...don't think outside the box shit or you can't be one of us nonsense....remember, it's all theory ONLY!
Donnie Young - Theories are more important than 'facts' and lead the way to new discoveries. 'Facts', like constants are given to make it easier to understand complex relationships. No one is going to tell you the exact value of the square root of 2 or the exact value of Pi and it's not necessary. The symbol for the square root of 2, or the symbol for Pi or the symbol for infinity are totally understandable and used all the time in scientific discussions, even by high school students.
Not even halfway through the talk and I must say I'm impressed and glad I clicked. We must periodically ask what are our foundations on which we are building knowledge.
@@Brainsore. the more you learn about acceptable science, the more I'm skeptical of it. From diet, to psychology... Weather to theoretical physics. All make wild claims with inseficient knowledge
No, he's just a dogmatic moron. He claims he's listing 10 dogmas, when he's actually just listing 10 things he dogmatically believes scientists believe. Oh, the irony of the arrogant.
@@davidw.4524 - Christianity is responsible for a LOT of bad shit, even today they're enabling child rape within the organised churches. That's ignoring the countless deaths it's responsible for.
@Eric Flaquer - Yes, but science has given us everything that makes modern life so good. What exactly has religion given us? And please don't say morality, we had that long before we had gods. Morality is a product of man's social nature.
Sheldrake isn't questioning and criticizing science, he is questioning a "science delusion", the way people misinterpret and identify with science as their belief system, and judging from all the butt-hurt comments below; yes, these deluded people are defending science as if it is their substitute religion and somebody just insulted it. Lot of emotional and illogical identification for an abstract word that represents a rational and logical practice.
+Chaka Caca You nailed it! They resort to insult and bashing so they dont have to defend their arguments. They learned that from the likes of Richard Dawkins.
+Chaka Caca Which is why I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the people's comments, laugh at how stupid they're being or cry because humanity isn't as smart as I thought it was.
Here is an informative audio about other things that are not commonly brought out in the open. I hope it is a benefit to you. th-cam.com/video/WP3TZh6A6Vg/w-d-xo.html
They had banned many videos that directly show when and about what "science" has been exposed (it's very often about history, archaeology and topics like that - which aren't really scientific by themselves - most of it is based on opinions, notable examples are Sphinx and Great Pyramid, both of which were dated by "who else, we don't see any civilizations older than that age" and most likely faked 2 word inscription in Great Pyramid - because grammar was incorrect and that error was very common among Egyptology at the time of dating it; plus all the Egyptian texts they found clearly stated "Repaired by Pharaoh XXX" not built by XXX(I don't remember who was exactly at the time), plus when Egyptians restored or repaired buildings they used Granite at notable places indicating that this building was restored - all egyptologists agree on that, except Great Pyramid with the same technique official "scientific" response: "built by XXX")
I don't think they were scared (is there something to be scared of?), but embarrased. Anyways, I agree that baning it is a wrong decision and only creates confusion.
Isn't it funny that science is about questioning everything and attempting to better understand this reality in a way that we can conceptualize, yet people will quickly criticize the questioners when the topics they are questioning are typically hardly understood by the critics.
Mh, the criticism is insubstantial. If someone says that a scientific model is wrong he has to present a "better" model. Better in a way that the new model presents better predictions. We already know that quantum theory and the theory of relativity can't coexist they contradict each other. Yet they are both the best models we have in their domain. Present a better model with better predictions and they (the old theories) become history. Greetings
@@TheKhanQ That is rather shockingly wrong. Falsification is not reliant on the existence of anything but errors in current knowledge ("models")> A model that doesn't work, or work well, that produces consistent errors, is a model BY SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION that needs to be improved or replaced. The peculiar notion that we can't dispute the adequacy of a "model" because we haven't a better on offer would stop scientific inquiry. Worse, since the goal or addtional research would be to replace a model already falsified by its failures, but that existing model is treated as doctrine or dogma rather than a legitimate target for inquiry, you could not get funding or research time. There is an immense and growing literature on problems created by scientific dogmatism in every field from medicine to cosmology. In some cases, such as medicine, this adherence to dogma is genuinely dangerous.
It is funny, because all that is necessary is the acknowledgement that there COULD be intelligence behind it all. Failing to acknowledge that possibility, while at the same time saying it all had to occur naturally, is not science, it's philosophy.
@@TheKhanQWell I wouldn't say anybody is saying that the model is wrong. The model is good for lot's of things and helps to produce technology of all sorts. I think the problem is that science claims to be able to explain everything using purely mathematical contructs that inevitably leads to mechanistic model no matter how complex the mechanism is. In the process it runs into many paradoxes(e.g. it claims no event propagates faster than light by gravitational force denies this fact and all cosmological computations work because gravitational force vector effect is instant). It uses many absolute minimal and maximum values (actually speed of light is a variable constant:)) for many things saying that what we cannot observe doesn't exist, but there's no evidence for that is there?. It also ,in many cases, uses terms "intellect" and "intelligence" interchangeably grosly degrading intelligence to be again mechanistic, this would open the whole discussion about AI guess:)
When he talks about the speed of light being fixed, he is right because the meter definition became a count of wave lengths of light rather than the standard meter. This has blinded science making such variations impossible to see. It is literally defining distance by the speed of light.
That's bullshit, because we still have other measurement lengths than only the meter. The meter is no longer defined in count of wavelengths of light (which was adopted in 1960 and retired 1981), but as "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458th of a second" The "second" is subsequently defined as follows: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." So combining the two means that the meter is really the distance that light travels in a vacuum during 30,66331898849837 transitions of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. The wavelengths of light (which is NOT the same as the *speed* of light, but denotes its energy) can be measured in non-units like Planck lengths for instance. Or any other measurement system you want. Base units are man-made abstract constructs and have to necessarily be based on something else that is real. The older definitions were: "The meter was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole - as a result the Earth's circumference is approximately 40,000 km today. In 1799, it was redefined in terms of a prototype meter bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889)." Do you really think such definitions are sufficient to measure the speed of light accurately? Had they still used those definitions, yes the speed of light would be varying constantly with the shape of the earth or that bar (and the measurement equipment used to measure that bar), but that would be completely artificial. We don't need such units at all, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
@@terrencedekat9359 I'll fully admit to punching above my weight by even entering into this discussion, but I have a question. How do we know that the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods doesn't fluctuate? It seems to me that measurement of any kind has to be compared to a standard that is constant in order for it itself to be considered a constant as well, as in our definition of what the duration of a second is. But if the constant we're comparing to is not really constant, how would we know?
@@markbader4942 bcoz it work ?? If it was wrong out GPS systems would be useless. They are so sensitive they have to take into account relativity of time between earth and low earth orbit.
I tend not to rely on GPS besides getting me to the general location, I always assumed the satellites involved weren't updated frequently enough. Men are funny creatures, once believed they were the center of the universe, only to come to know the mechanisms of it, even though they've only peered a fraction of a percent of it... I admittedly am not remotely as intellectual as others, but through my 30 or so years of wanderings, I've personally only found one thing to truly be constant: change.
@@GrimSleepy ofcoz the laws of nature might change over time.. who knows.. but if it does, then it's on such a timescale that it on a human level seems to stand still and is impossible for us to measure. And something we cannot measure or predict in a meaningful way, that's a religion.
What do we have to indicate that consciousness is anything more than a result of brain activity? As far as I understand it, the only consciousness we've been able to observe has been that of brain activity. Also as I understand it, nothing is considered an unalterable fact in science. For example, if we DID discover measurable consciousness emitting from somewhere other than a brain, science wouldn't keep asserting that consciousness is only a result of brain activity.
We don't have anything that indicates that brain activity is the same as consciousness, if we did then neuroscientists and psychologists would not call it "The hard problem of consciousness" which there are Ted talks about by other more orthodox scientists. Conventional approaches hope to prove that consciousness is in the brain, that is their hypothesis, but we don't have a theory that explains it and there are lots of reputable people who think it will turn out to be an irreducible emergent complexity that we won't be able to narrow down to just the brain. There is a decent sized brain in your intestines for example, are they part of your consciousness ? It is part of a materialist assertion to insist consciousness is in the brain, this seems reasonable but we still cannot prove it so skepticism should continue in the mind of a good scientist.
supercoolio120 If you really want to go down that road it can be easily said that absolutely nothing can be certain to be true. We're left with no choice but to live according to certain pre-suppositions. These pre-suppositions were once based on religion. Now they're based on scientific observation. Would the speaker of this video prefer that we go back to the old way? I just don't know what in the hell he's really suggesting here. Science may not be a perfect and easy path to having all the answers but it sure beats the hell out of anything else we have.
+Giles Tully What's the alternative if consciousness doesn't stem from the brain? I'd like to hear a coherent, scientific answer? Does consciousness live outside our heads? If so, what proof do you have? I think you're making a very large leap in thinking that consciousness is something outside of ourselves. Where does it come from then?
At its best, science is not a “system” based on primitive beliefs, but a way of observing the actual world in a systematic manner which has as its core objective logic and rigorous experimentation.
Despite my research in parapsychology and science, I actually do kinda agree with Rupert Sheldrake. Science is a beautiful tool, I agree, but it is far from perfect. In order to understand dogma in science, you must first distinguish its meaning for religion. Unlike science, religion relies on some supernatural deity(s) without any empirical evidence. Everything in religion is considered to be true at face-value, even if there is evidence against it. Science is actually quite the opposite. Everything that science explains or tests originates from a presumption (e.g. a hypothesis/claim). If the hypothesis is widely supported via empirical evidence, it becomes a scientific theory. A scientific theory scientifically speaking cannot be proven to be true. It can only be supported in the basis of experimental evidence and falsified if shown otherwise. This "support" and "falsification" are the golden rules of science. If anyone violates these two golden rules, then it becomes a scientific dogma. A dogma where the opposition will be ridiculed and degraded, regardless of evidence in favor. This is where dogma in science stands. It is no surprise, really. Charles Darwin, Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Wegener (the creator for the Plate Tectonics Theory) were all ridiculed and degraded by scientists simply because it didn't follow their paradigm or should I say, scientific dogma. It just shows how much the scientific community are full of prejudices, knee-jerk reactions, and confirmation biases. It seems that paranoia and cognitive dissonance play a huge role in what we call the scientific community. So yeah, scientists are pretty much on the same high horse as politicians. Thinking nothing but protecting their paradigm with an "If you don't agree with me, go fuck yourself" attitude.
Why not read Buddha Dharma if you are keen to know the truth, just read my comment and see if there is any truth, my comment is written about a month ago
If a scientific theory can't be proven to be true and relies on experimental or observational evidence, then why would someone ever call a scientific theory a fact? This is what they say. Scientific theories are not facts. Actually what a fact is is an issue which science does not have the capacity to address in itself. It requires philosophy. This shows you that science is full of fraud, and that scientism and logical empiricism are fraudulent as well.
Yep...if you scroll around on BoobTube long enough, you are bound to eventually come across a video that shares whatever batshit crazy thing you may believe. Yey.
@fynes leigh "There are none more religious than the devout atheist" Oh jeez...here we go with another painter. "just as impossible to put a cigarette paper between believing and not believing - both are equally irrational" Then by all means explain why with a rational argument instead of a silly analogy. But are you suggesting that you believe all gods exist? "The mister god teddybear is indistinguishable from the there-is-no-mister-god teddy bear." Not really, but it doesn't help that you don;t know what the definition if "atheism" is. Because it doesn't suggest there is no "teddy bear", only that based on the evidence, we are not convinced an invisible teddy bear exists. But I do not think it irrational to suggest that based on what we know of reality, there is no invisible teddy bear. "or even attention seeking children still seething from their lack of being breastfed as infants." Then blame your mother, why share your dirty laundry here? I mean, that's kind of personal isn't it? Maybe you bit her nipples too hard, or maybe you kept falling off onto your head? Have you asked her why? And have you looked into a hobby? Or perhaps the Boy scouts? I'm sure they will give you some attention.
Here is an informative audio about other things that are not commonly brought out in the open. I hope it is a benefit to you. th-cam.com/video/WP3TZh6A6Vg/w-d-xo.html
Following the link in the description clarifies a lot. The link leads to a general explanation of the reason why this video was removed from a channel (not banned). There are two more links that give space for a debate on two talks. Ultimately he made comments that were not true based on history, not on knowledge. But TED does invite debate with the videos still uploaded on their blog. The title to this TH-cam video is misleading.
+Harry Parkinson if you’re claiming that something is true, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate this claim. if you can’t demonstrate it, you don’t get to label it as ’truth’.
+Rabsputin ok I'll play along, A: Scientific Study Of Telepathy And Remote Viewing: goo.gl/xFdStH B: Plant perception: goo.gl/yWRN0x and we meet at the collision of faith masquerading as science and 'science', I guess more fundamentally reality as we make it comes from thought so it's really a failure of ego checking that gets us to the unbalanced greed of dogmatic materialism
+Rabsputin got 1 4 that to; goo.gl/3bMtYf wheres your white paper now el capitan, also, heres another one for free; goo.gl/okG3pm lol call the fire bregade, cos +Rabsputin got that burn, nice Bandit though
Had he been my science teacher during my school years, I imagine my interest for science would've been far greater than being merited an F! and generally would've enjoyed learning the subject. Because as you get older, interest in the broad spectrum related to science spikes up!
@fynes leigh well in school, students are taught the basic elements of science which consists of; physics, chemistry and biology. It was just generalised literature but never was interested perhaps due to the teachers inability to deliver in an engaging context Those principles were the general literally
There are dark corners of reality which science does not yet illuminate. None of us can afford to be too arrogant or certain about what we will find there.
"dark corners"???....that justifies the attitude of people who pretend to know things that they don't......and you call scientific standards arrogant??? lol ok mr I know it all....
Key word is "yet". Not so long ago people thought rain was caused by frantic dancing to entertain Gods. Now we know better. Be patient. The smart money will always be on the side of science. Every. Single. Time.
Once before I though that, too, and then in a close up where the camera showed a foot for a second I could see he had on tan, cloth or cloth-like slip-on loafers (an aspect of comfort, I suspect). He seems like a "comfortable" sort of chap, and I have a great deal of respect for the man.
@ Luis Martinez : _listen_ or _believe?_ Not listening only leads to less understanding of things, at the least it leads less understanding of how someone gets the wrong ideas stuck in their head. I would be inclined to think you meant _not believe them,_ but since you want them to _shut up,_ I am uncertain. I almost never fully agree with anyone, but I do read their comments and opinions before I decide if I agree, and if they are _shut up,_ I will never know if I agreed or not with all they said. Freedom of speech is as much for the listener as it is for the speaker.
9:00 he left out his 'evidence' for that theory. Crystal formation occurs because of energy distribution (minimising potential energy according to what elements are there), NOT magic.
@Martin Svensson energy is count of photons, which can literally be seen with your eyes (energy is is light), unless it's outside of our visible spectrum
@fynes leigh it's a similar principle of how things fall down hills, rather than go up. They minimise potential energy by falling under gravity. But for a crystal solid, atoms arrange themselves so that there isn't too much repelling. I was told by a science teacher AND it makes sense, just like how things don't roll up hill of their own accord
It is so curious how entertaining alternative hypotheses which vary from the norm is looked down upon, treated with almost disgust, and those who consider such ideas are seen in some way as crazy or hostile. This is such an extraordinary attitute to have considering that all progress in human history has by definition been through individuals entertaining alternative hypotheses.
NTL 99 Those who automatically reject alternative thinking are simply afraid of losing what little control they feel they have over reality. It is fear which causes people to act this way not knowledge or reason.
+David Roberts Rupert is a scientist. I would venture to say he knows more than you in the area of biology. But you miss the point... do you take what is stated out of blind faith by the scientific community? Rather than trashing his ideas out of turn, I think it is a good thing to question everything especially when you don't find a good response. Most of us don't have the time to verify our questions but I appreciate those who do question and bring forth alternative views based on their investigations. Even if you disagree, it can give you a new perspective. The more options we have on ideas, the better. Some fall by the wayside (and some may be downright stupid) but there is the potential to have a diamond of an idea which is better than dismissing everything and missing some new thinking.
We were crystallizing cobalt? salts in honors chemistry lab at UC (Cincinnati) about 1980. The chemistry head said it’s hard to get it to crystallize but when I did it, it crystallized with high yield. He was amazed, but didn’t say anything. Then I moved on. Debt slavery pushed us on and away from interesting things and much more.
Rabsputin Who's he arguing with? When did he refuse? This is a TED talk, not a debate. It would be a pretty fucking boring talk if he was constantly referring you to various research. He provides citations in his books.
readmycomments100 he was 'making an argument'. you don't have to have an opponent to make an argument. like i said, fuck giving him money until he can support his claims in argument. demanding money for answers is the act of a con man.
+Rabsputin The whole Idea of the big bang theory cant be supported with hard fact only "educated" hypothesis. Even Dawkins himself said this. Lennox vs Dawkins.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +52
Only human arrogance assumes their scientific constructs to be absolute, and therefor not to be questioned, let alone debated.
Any real scientist or believe of the sciences knows that human science is simply a way of explaining that which we do not fully understand. Also, it is well known that nothing in science is concrete.
Nothing in science is absolute. Science improves or changes based on whatever existing evidences there is, if soon uncovered. Scientific community questions everything. Even science.
@JP Duffy pat yourself on the back for exposing those evil scientists and their dogma, I'm sure your father is very proud of you. BTW, if science is bad and worthless, how should we investigate the world? If proof and maths is banned, how can we agree on ideas? As a fellow revolutionary genius, we should start planning this stuff out.
IT'S OFFICIAL - ATHEISM IS A RELIGION ! ATHEISM IS A RELIGION according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, as well as the Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. The court described “SECULAR HUMANISM AS A RELIGION.".
That's why I'm agnostic. No human alive today, or who has ever lived, can say, for fact, that there is, or isn't, a "god", due to our limited understanding of the universe, or even what constitutes "god". To say unequivocally one way or the other is the height of human ignorance.
Joe Ruden No human alive can say the same for either Zeus, the Sun God Ra, Hades, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Little fairies, or magical unicorns. Are you an agnostic about magical unicorns too? Gremlins, goblins, and Santa Claus?
Joe Ruden You should Google the difference between atheism and agnosticism because they are not mutually exclusive positions. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist, a Gnostic atheist, a agnostic believer (deist), and Gnostic believer (theist). For example, I am an agnostic atheist. I am agnostic because I do not have a definite belief about whether god(s) exists or not. I am atheist because I have no reason to believe that any god(s) exist(ed). Atheism shouldn't even be a word. We don't have words for people who don't believe specifically in Bigfoot, or Lochness Monster, or Space Aliens. We just have skeptics, people who are skeptical of others' claims that can not be demonstrated by evidence. Gnostic - Claim of knowledge Agnostic - Claim of not knowing Theist - Believes there is a personal God Atheist - Does not believe there is a personal God
Indeed. Someone may come up with hilarious idea that make absolutely no sense. Still the act of picking those ideas apart may still result in new viewpoints that otherwise would not be contemplated.
"“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~ William Paley
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~Herbert Spencer I guess great minds think alike! ;)
The exact quote you've used was famously and usefully [mis]attributed to Spencer. It has been traced back to Paley -- the Watchmaker -- but not in that exact form.
Gravity is what we ignorantly call magnetic attraction. Boom! mystery solved. Everything is tethered to un-manifest inertia i.e. Ether. Just like a dog on a leash running around a stake. The dog on the leash = Magnetism The stake = un-manifest inertia or the Di-Electric Field.
As I Circumscribe rhyme circuits, welcome to my circus of rhythm, a symbol circling gyms as priceless gem's,..........,..I am some dude named Fu , awesome comment column
Look at all the silly rationalists , materialists hating on Rupert. If you people think the physical science of things is the key to understanding the universe you are sadly mistaken
When I was a young boy, my sister and I had an encounter with what can only be described as a being from another dimension. We still vividly remember it today and often talk about it. Some fields of dogmatic science told me such things do not exist, going against my direct experience. I am all for science by the way. Christianity gave me a reasonable explanation for such an experience as being an angelic being, and I realised I was not the first person to ever have such an encounter with a being from another dimension. I have spent my whole life studying theology, philosophy and science, and see no conflict with faith unless one chooses a bias against it. I think this speaker's views are very well thought out, and it is such a shame this talk was banned, ironically proving exactly what he says that some in science want to close their minds to evidence that undermines their own thesis and ideas.
Well, you can watch the full account of my personal story on my channel for I tell it on there. Schizophrenia has multiple symptoms, not just one. Neither I or my sister hallucinated, and neither do we suffer any form of mental health issues. I have studied psychology as well as theology and philosophy, and I know how the brain works in various states. The incident I refer to cannot now be scientifically measured I agree, but it was a very real phenomena and is also the experience of many people who have seen things that appear from beyond the physical reality. All the time science is discovering new things, and just because it has not yet worked out how to investigate other dimensions, most scientists believe other dimensions do exist.
The brain experience a very slow cycle of wave called delta state. Our beta state or wake state experience what we call reality. But there is more than one state of consciousness. I studied the Silva Mind Control Method for years. I never thought when I fell asleep my conscious state threw me out of my body.
That could be the experience of one person @@johnmikkocapoy5985 but we are talking about two people who had the same experience at the same time and still remember it vividly. If we question what two people see as physical reality, we have to question all physical reality which of course takes us into the realms of philosophy and deeper science.
Two people can share the same experience. Science does not have the capabilities yet to explain a neural phenomenon. Cause Science neglects consciousness study. It is way beyond reach of experimentation unless you have to monitor the brain activity for an entire city of people 24/7 for the rest of their lives and encode the data receive each day.
For all those who believe faith in God is religiun should know, science not only takes much for faith, but if you dare to question it you might loose your job, reputation,your pention and anything thats left over, keep talking and its your life.
I don't know what that means, but IF IT WORKS, it ISN'T "FAITH" doing the curing, but some UNKNOWN PRINCIPLES are coming into play. Thusly, DEFINITELY, *proper science* is in the mix.
your an asshole! You wrote this out with your laptop & still you cant spell,even with spellcheck,there should be a special name for people this thick,oh there is one?
20 km/s compared to the speed of light _is_ decimal places of error. It's 0.0067% of the speed of light. As for "What if [the gravitational constant] is really changing?" Well, then satellites, moons, and planets would go flying out of their orbits and crashing into the sun. Personally, I'm very happy the gravitational constant remains constant.
The current scientific paradigm is based on a number of assumptions, YES. But to say that our assumptions are as arbitrary as human laws, is a complete misunderstanding. There are very good reasons why our top scientists make those materialistic assumptions.
"Every single one of them [dogmas] is questionable. If one questions it, new forms of research, new possibilities open up. And I think as we question these dogmas that have held back science for so long, science will undergo a re-flowering, a renaissance."
This man just explained his worldview, not any groundbreaking ideas. Never trust a person who says, "I think" and then calls it science. That's just an effing opinion.
A good book is 'Slaughter of the Dissidents.' For shame, that someone should question what is 'science.' A classic old time book is 'Science is a Sacred Cow.' Hopefully, the scientific method will return: rigorous testing/observation to actually support the hypothesis, instead of science by consensus. I plan on reading Dr. Sheldrake's books. Thanks.
Dr. Sheldrake is a true, uninhibited scientist whose clarity of mind and its expression empowered him to present the limitedness of the present-day science in such an unbelievable , yet absolutely argumentative way. Our education needs such scientists that can inspire to question every existing dogma to help students be open-minded and creative. Thanks, Dr. Sheldrake and TED. It was a true pleasure to listen to such a clear-cut evolutionary view. Dr. Rimaletta Ray
Many people commenting here seem to interpret that this gentleman is tearing down science, perhaps in favor of religion. I disagree. His speech is about dogmatism, which can exist both in science and religion. At the very end of his speech, he restates the importance of science as well as the perils of dogmatism and why scientists should keep an open mind.
I don’t believe in any man-made religion, but I’m not nearly arrogant enough to believe with any certainty that some sort of divine deity does not exist. Somethings simply beyond our comprehension even a collective consciousness to which we are all linked. I agree with your assessment, but I abhor people that instantly revert to ardent denialism if they even sense that someone is simply exhibiting a dalliance with the idea, that the colloquial interpretation of religion may have some sort of validity. It drives me absolutely insane, because nobody can say otherwise with any sort of concrete and conclusive evidence… But they do anyways. Often they refer to themselves as atheists, a religion in its own right often worshipping science, nothingness (which inevitably is something) or themselves on the basis of their superior intellect to the “religious zealot“. Such cases are common, and comically ironic.
I agree. Some people believe everything, some nothing. Most reasoning people are somewhat skeptical of everything. As with this video, the people or organizations that "make the rules" are skeptical of everything but themselves. To question governing bodies is appalling. "We can't be wrong, must protect ourselves, danger Will Robinson." I think everything is a theory or hypothesis not a dogma.
Yeah, sadly the audience is probably full of anti-reason flat earthers hooting their heart out for a fellow "believer" when the guy wants to be a thorough skeptic (and is not delusional at all).
scientism is a new religion !
@@TheHellogs4444 i am not flat-earther but when was the last time you saw the shape of the world with your own eyes?
This man is not tearing down science, he is pointing out where the scientific community is not questioning previous assumptions, or established meal tickets to research grants. Set science free!
sorry you are wrong, all scientific research begins with questions.
How about the Global Warming group? They, too, have no place for disagreement or correction on their foundational assumptions. There is great disagreement... but the common public isn't privileged to know that.
@Chris Russell Oh yeah, all those rich and famous Research Geologists 😆
Scientific methods DO question itself though
Exactly.
I categorically oppose any and all censorship. If I don't 'like' an opinion, I ignore it. Censorship shuts down debate.......
you do know the reason for censorship, right? it is because there are people that hold power in their hands, like the heads of the mainstream science community, that having the truth spread out would certainly not be in favor of their egotistical interests
I think banning is a way of rating something. I would rate this worthy of banning because it smacks of a con. In a con, the technique of ridicule is used. Ridicule invites us to reject or hate something but without the option of rebuttal, which happens only here in the comment section, which most don't read. A science con has the appearance (but not the practice) of a scientific process. In law you would not hear only the opinion of the prosecutor, and not the defense, right? Science, properly executed, insists on testing for falsifiability. And so should he, but Rupert S is not doing that. He is doing comedy instead, at the expense of a respectable and very valuable world community. Boo.
If you dont like an opinion and ignore it you are censoring yourself mate.
@@theghostoftomjoad7161 Theories are not "aspects" and they do not claim to know "every detail". they are the best explanations based on the latest evidence and analysis. Those who talk about scientific disagreements show a profound ignorance of science and how it works. Scientists argue over number of pre-human species, the makeup of the nucleus, the odds of life in the galaxy, the extent to which fossil fuels are raising carbon BUT that does not mean either side rejects evolution, quantum theory, exobiology or climate change.
We cannot test without evidence which is why there will never be a test for magic or supernatural beings. The only "evidence" is personal belief. Our courts wisely reject dreams, visions, religious beliefs, opinions, etc as "evidence" and employ expert testimony from those with education and knowledge of the subject.
@@theghostoftomjoad7161, if I'm not mistaken, a theory evolved from a hypothesis, and will evolve into a 'constant' or 'law'.... hypothesis: an idea --> theory: idea that holds up to fact testing ---> constant: idea that is believed to be infallible... at least that's my understanding of the scientific process: this R. Sheldrake character is at the beginning stages of his idea, but claims the rest of the science community is blackballing him or his idea, because it gives narrative that their infallible rules might be falsified... Idk if there's merit to his claims or if he's spouting bollocks...
"Advances are made by answering questions.
Discoveries are made by questioning answers."
Bernard Haisch
Finally someone talking REAL science as a method of inquiry, not science as a religion. this is refreshing, awesome material.
+Nicky Mijo When has anyone ever treated science like a religion?
+jib1000 Almost always, more so in recent times.
John Love
Examples? You can't just make blanket statements and assume everyone will take your word for it.
jib1000
"You can't just make blanket statements and assume everyone will take your word for it."
- Like everybody else here?
As they say, "as long as they are your side".
But on a serious note, you can see one example in the title;)
John Love
How is the title of the video
an example?
"Like verybody else here?"
Not me.
It disturbs me that this was banned...forget your beliefs or worldview this hurts everyone. We are all adults here and I imagine we all want to learn. Censorship is the enemy. How can we even study the discoveries or claims made when schmuck companies or organizations want to de-platform people suggesting their ideas. What do you all think?
JoosH orsumbuddy haha we know how far and wide the censorship is if it’s at ‘Ted’
Ted talks should stick with the facts otherwise we get into believing whatever we want... that’s not a pathway to truth... Science has no authoritatives and is constantly changing with our understanding... If science can prove the supernatural, then it’s time to talk about it but until then we must put it behind us as a false primitive explaination.... Also as an atheist I can see that the Mediterranean death cults will end up ending our way of life, through inaction... If we continue to disconnect ourself from our true nature we are all doomed...
@@johnchristiansen9095, uh...dude....science is the study of NATURAL things and phenomena. If any occurence is SUPERnatural, it is by definition beyond the scope of natural examination or explanation. I hope you realize that you just made a contradictory and ignorant statement. If science can explain something, then it is no longer supernatural, but a natural occurrence mistaken initially to be supernatural.
It is an extremely narrow and frankly foolish assumption that the only things that exist at all are scientifically measurable. It is a giant assumption that simply cannot be proven at all. One cannot measure a thing that has no physicality with instruments made of physical matter. This whole argument solves nothing and ends only in a conundrum.
Science is perfectly good to describe the normative states and behaviors of matter, but that is ALL it can do.
Andrew Churney ... I agree with you 100% , as long as we are not using them to promote religion...
Science has debunked religious claims for almost 500 yrs now... if the evidence is provided then it should be discussed, not before... the immoral foundations that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are built on are ridiculous and any claims of afterlife are obvious man made delusions... that’s why I’m saying just keep out religion and it’s claims till it’s verifiable.. that’s it... such ideas can be a horrible thing to spread!
@@johnchristiansen9095, many factual claims of religions are testable, and many do indeed fail reasonable testing, but hardly all of every religion.
Also, the philosophies and moral claims of religions can be examined in terms of internal consistancy and can be weighed to a large degree on merit and efficacy.
However, if certain aspects of religion are intrincicly supernatural, such as God as a being who transcends time and space, who is purported to actually have made and holds together time and space, then the previous discussion is entirely appropriate, my friend. You simply cannot propose it is not and remain reasonable.
It is strictly impossible to prove that a transcended being categorically does not exist. That is simple logic. This is not being religious, but simply reasonable.
Now, to talk about specific attributes or physical identity of said being, this is the realm of religion, and another subject entirely.
Agnosticism is at least reasonable, but if Atheism is defined by an insistence that surely no transcendent being exists at all, this is complete nonsense.
They censor this but their talk on pedophelia is totally ok to have up.
I'm not supporting it in anyway. But I do Love anyone in this lifestyles and would help them if they needed help, something I could do to share the Love of our Savior.
Because I was Loved and helped before I acknowledged my sin nature.
"While we were "yet" sinners, Christ died for us".
@@janoycresva276 based on your comment, you are not quite understanding my statement.
I am not condoning homosexuality. Society has been force-feed the idea if you don't support this lifestyle you are a bigot, hater of innocent people.
That is a lie, and there is another lie and agenda hidden inside.
Thank you Janoy, Christopher
Janoy Cresva *greetings from Jeffrey Epstein, hiding somewhere in the Middle East,* _who is the procurer of children for the monstrous elites!_
Only watching this because it's banned .. Teds had a vid poor Angelo or name like.. about a man that was attracted to children... they wanted you to feel sorry for him . never watched it again ..I think Teds is some agenda.
Janoy Cresva 🤭
When someone is banned, they hit a nerve.
@Dirk Knight yet here you are...and obviously not for the first time....ans since Ted banned him you had to actually type this in and seek him out. Some of you are incredible....literally can't be honest about anything. Not even to yourselves.
Dirk Knight Banned by ted talks. Just saying, you didn't read the description or are a paid shrill/potentially a bot
Dirk Knight Lmao, they(ted) gave up copyright of this and disassociated with the video, it is banned from appearing on Ted talk channels, not TH-cam itself. Just self explanatory really.
@Dirk Knight Can you direct me to a statement or act that shows TED relinquished all copyright claims?
@Dirk Knight wow....the gymnastics you are doing to try to purposely not understand (or pretend not to understand) must be exhausting. I always wonder about people like you, do you just get off on lies/misleading others or are you really just that confused...this is really not a difficult concept to grasp...but liars always have to change the very fabric of reality and logic in order to make their case...but the sad thing is, the only person falling for it is the liar himself. But liars rely on and expect others to have the same lack of logic that they have, and hope they can word salad their way through. trying to make sense out of nonesense. Like I said, it must be exhausting.
Being banned is the highest honor. Your adversaries admit the power of your words
When ted talks banned Sheldrake, they banned Max Planck at the same time.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck, The New Science
Max Planck is considered to be the father of quantum physics. Why tear him down? Without his work would those trillion dollar rockets work that are paid with by OUR tax dollars? Max Planck is commonly known as “The Father of Quantum Theory.” He dedicated his life to understanding the workings of Quantum Physics, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
@@pureenergy4578 Great reply
@@gfdthree1 Thanks. And my words are not even deleted yet.
Total irony. A TED talk that questions scientific orthodoxy gets banned by the scientific community for being unorthodox.
It wasn't banned by the scientific community. It wasn't banned at all. It was removed from the TED youtube channel and posted on their blog instead, alongside their reasons for doing so. It's pseudoscience propaganda. Almost nothing he said is correct. It's horseshit and it would be irresponsible for them to promote it
Exactly!
@@jonathanjones770 - I think Karl-P is implying the science community at large is leaning on Ted to get rid of what doesn't fit their narrative in fear the public might actually question the B.S. taught in school. The entire point of this Ted Talk is the indoctrination that science has become, which it has. You don't have to look to far to watch academics crucifying one another if they ever dare go outside the confines of their own limited knowledge.
Besides, prior to 1995, everyone thought Graham Hancock was crazy, and now science HAS to accept his hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence that now exists that science got the age of humans all wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble, but claiming this man above is full of sh** is simply you buying into the dogmatic indoctrination that science has become, which it has. The whole point of science, or at least in theory, was to argue the evidence, not the person. However egos ride high in their field.
@J Mireles A manager at one of my clients asked: "now that we are environmentally certified, do we have to as policy believe in human-driven global warming?"
questioning orthodoxy is only productive when sensible counter theories with some evidence are presentable - supernatural claims do NOT ever qualify as science ever!
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. He keeps referring to "evidence" without actually saying what that evidence is, so to most naive people watching this, it sounds compelling. But anyone who knows how can make a compelling argument for anything, to people who don't know any better.
Take the "knowing when you're being watched" argument he brings forth. He talks about "evidence" that this is true, when blind scientific tests have shown this is not true.
Everything he talks about is simply his opinion, but he literally has nothing to back it up, which is probably why TED disassociated themselves from him. They might as well bring some idiot like Ken Ham up to proselytize.
This is not thinking outside the box. It's simply ignoring all the existing evidence in order to come up with something new.
My thoughts exactly, when he makes statements like "and all energy and matter came into existence with the big bang" my bullshit detector went off. We don't know the state of the universe prior to the big bang, science doesn't make claims about things we can't verify. Seriously there is nothing wrong with the answer of I/we don't know (with an optional yet).
Tim Savage Ya, his references to the Big Bang were from someone who didn't seem to really understand the Big Bang.
highdough then what is sciences answer for the creation of reality? If your answer is that science says there is no answer u sorta prove the speakers point. Big bang theory is really an extrapolation on the proven observation that our universe is expanding. There are many other reasons the universe could be expanding or it could begin contracting at some point. By embracing a mechanistic view of gravity, rather than an organic or random phenomenon, you close your mind to dozens of possibilities. If gravity does vary, why does it vary, and how can we take advantage of this? Furthermore your suspicion fueled rage only serves the point that these views are in deed held in a dogmatic fashion. If his arguments are so invalid post the obvious disproves or explanations for variance in G and C because are both real as far as my research shows.
Luke Seguin My "suspicion fuelled rage"?? Where on earth did you get the idea that my comment was fuelled by rage? Because I disagreed with the subject of the video? Your comment could easily be called rage fuelled as well, then.
The fact is that the Big Bang theory is the best explanation for all the evidence. That's what science is. It gives us the best explanations for things with the evidence we're given.
And, so far, science has been the best way to explain how our universe works.
By the way, the "closed-mind" argument is often launched by people arguing from a side containing little to no evidence.
highdough You just agreed with the speaker in your statement that science is just the best explanation for all the evidence, this whole video is about how it should be seen as such and how it should not be treated as dogma. It should constantly be challenged and we should never hold too dear what we believe as fact as in the grand scope of all that is going on we know very little.
This is a brilliant talk! I have no idea why they censor it. This man calls for an open-minded attitude to never stop questioning even the most commonly-known beliefs in the scientific community, so that we may discover new facts and develop new theories that can course-correct our understanding of the universe and ourselves, as opposed to everybody falling for the dogmatic assupmtions and not moving foward. I loved it when he said "Dogmatic assumptions inhibit inquiry".
"I have no idea why they censor it. This man calls for an open-minded attitude to never stop questioning even the most commonly-known beliefs in the scientific community..." That's why.
b/c most of the "progress" that modern science hangs its hat on is actually wrong. Lot of careers, reputations and wasted tax/grant money would come to be questioned. The egos running this sham religion won't stand for that.
Ted merely proved his point
“Dogma inhibits inquiry. “ Well said.
He claims he's listing 10 dogmas, when he's actually just listing 10 things he dogmatically believes scientists believe.
Oh, the irony of the arrogant.
@james83925 are you saying climate never changes?
@@allahspreadshate6486 Most scientists actually do believe the dogmas he listed.
@@christofl6523 - I keep seeing this "most scientists" line. How do YOU know that.
Answer: You don't, but the line supports your argument so you continue to repeat it even though you have ZERO evidence to support it. Do you even know how many scientists there are in the world? I bet you a year's wages you don't without googling it. Am I right again?
@@allahspreadshate6486 Well, they are the ones always saying "scientific consensus."
Science is supposed to question everything except science????
Yea,
Scientists constantly question science! Religious believers and children do not question religion.
@@kristenhansen1843
How do you explain reformations in religions if you think that religion does not question religion?
@@jaras1429 - The Protestant reformation was a result of widespread corruption in the Catholic church. The Catholic church did not allow questions regarding its' dogma. This was why Martin Luther protested and why we have Protestant religions. Today we have religions like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Pentecostals etc who will gladly and piously SHUN you if you question their dogma. By the way, Jehovahs Witness dogma changes practically with every edition of the Watchtower comic book. Hard to pin those guys down.
@@kristenhansen1843 That's not true for all members of those groups. You may have had a bad experience with a few, but it's still both anecdotal and a hasty generalization.
why would this be banned? I think we should question everything ....
How exactly is this banned?
No, unfortunately. Questioning is generally frowned upon if it doesn't fit into the narrative.
ask how that went for Behe.
for the same reason they have kept banning as much important things that threaten their power and the sick world they have build as possible
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I remember my fascination in college learning about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. The professor began the lecture by saying that the key assumption was that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames: everything else in the theory is mathematically rigorous. I recall thinking at the time, "but what if it's not??" Everyone seemed to agree that it must be so, and I dropped the question.....until now. The implications of Dr. Rupert's hypothesis are staggering. When it comes to understanding the Universe, we are like the frog at the bottom of a well who thinks he knows the ocean.
We might be a house fly that’s born in a room, and live for a week thinking we figured out how the coffee maker in the kitchen works.
The problem is our ego and not letting the idea that what we know is in fact just a tiny portion of what’s really going on. And just because it works and we’ve found a way to measure things in our own unit doesn’t mean our perspective is constant.
The theory of relativity which simply says that time is relative, could be said the same about perspective when it comes to knowledge.
Just because it sounds absurd doesn’t mean that it cannot be true.
I mean the thinking of it alone to begin with is such an amazing occurrence in intelligence, which can indicate there are little truths in every thought that forms in our minds. Like a puzzle of information… packets of data in binary code, and each 1 &0’s are the collective thoughts individualized by a single human being; one human can be 1, and the other can be 0.
Einstein's proved right 100 years after... so...
@@saul_usbreja LMAO
GPS working is constant proof albeit only at Earth scale. If we look further into the universe, we might find irregularities in the speed of light in vacuum, but that is beyond our experience.
"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's all right, it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science."
- Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
The best part of that statement that lines up with this talk, is how willing people are to accept the dogmas without taking time to scrutinize the science. It's essentially a religion. It seems like one of the essential needs of humanity is to form common bonds with minimal influence, as long as the same founding principles of a religion are met.
The reason this talk is "disliked" by the science religion, is either they're misinterpreting his points, or they can see how this can be spun as fuel for less popular science-based religions (eg: antivaxxers and flat earthers)
@@ron6625 Something like 50% of all the results that come out of science these days can not be reproduced. That is someone does an experiment. Publishes it, someone else tries it and can't get the same results. But it's still been published as fact. And people use papers in arguments like gospel when it's 50/50 whether it's right or wrong. Science these days isn't worth terribly much until they sort themselves out. Too busy working for government grants to get the 'right results' than looking for truth.
@@JohnSmith-wo2fz Yes, politics have always been damaging to science.
Well just a nice artifact of words from Sagan and opens up a doctrine for science sophistry. by saying there are many hypothesis in science that are wrong you are making two branch for science wrong and unwrong. Then if science is self correcting we have the right to logically say every statement in science is wrong and to become the aperture to find another wrong one
and we saw wht they did to sagan.
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Nikola Tesla
TheVineRhyme 👁
And this does not mean quantum B.S.
Evan Eats ↕️
@@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt I agree
@@gritlup2089 String theory B.S.
"Oh dear, you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."
"We don't like to use the word 'fudge'... we prefer to call it 'intellectual phase locking'."
These are the money quotes.
Uh, what do mean and or intend by "We" or "Our"? My purpose is Do Not include All including myself.
I liked the part where he says the constants are changing maybe regularly. How can it be a constant if it isn't constantly the same?
@@HighSpeedNoDrag Is that I question for me?
@fynes leigh Are you asking me or the presenter?
@@dixietarian No but I used the term "We" once and was corrected by a drunken Teddy Roosevelt Looking circuit court judge Long Ago...……..R.I.P. Sam.
Always remember you get the most flak when you’re over your target
fynes leigh ?
@@freecharles3902 Xer is implying you're ignorant and not speaking from a place of experience.
Wind Hammer how would anyone know my experience from one comment. It’s just a saying anyway
Benji sorry big guy but I used both the right versions of “you’re” and “your” and you wrongly trying to correct me is even more embarrassing than if I was wrong in the first place. 🤣🤣
Absolutely! You could sum up the major points of error within science with three dogmatic stances: 1. Determinism 2. Materialism 3. Reductionism - We all have to abandon these in order to advance beyond the plateau we have reached. (paraphrasing Swarru)
Thank you for re-uploading. I'm now enjoying this talk for the 2nd time. I think Rupert Sheldrake is a brilliant thinker, also in his approach to discuss this subject. There's a dry and calm perceptive attitude in him that doesn't allow much room for judgment, but clearly, he points at the factual conditions of our present scientific world, frozen in mid-air between dictations of an illusion and a down-to-earthiness with hands in the soil, and their senses connected to the elements, nature's expression, around them.
Many scientists survive and remain in their job by obeying the commands of the Wizards of Oz, our captains of industry and corporations who need to hide their agenda and crimes against humanity and the planet's environment.
I appreciate Rupert's sense of humor much, standing on bare feet on a circular piece of artificial grass. Or maybe it's the real thing, like the Xmas trees? I hope he chose the props 😊
I find it so amazing that just the questioning is so threatening. Is this because the dogma of science is as much a religion as dogmatic religion which fears and cannot tolerate, contemplate or even let peep deep questioning!
+Norm Babbitt No. It's because there are no dogmas of science.
+Keith ...yeah very funny .... am sure ur right. wow..... hang-on, feel a "Big Bang".... coming-on.
+Keith As a scientist I know that's not actually true. Hence the infamous '100 authors against Einstein'. There is often huge resistance (rather than healthy open minded skepticism) to new scientific ideas that challenge core fundamentally held scientific beliefs.
+Norm Babbitt dogma of science? tell me exactly what part of science tells you to just have faith.
+Norm Babbitt ...............Totally 100% with you Science is the new Religion , we now what Science has given us BUT it can not answer everything . Sad some People can not be OPEN MINDED.
I love a real scientist with a brain that can reason & big enough balls to speak out of the narrow-minded status-quo theory box! Love & respect this man so much! Had to watch it again! So refreshing!
New ager?
Eloquent and mind changing. The only irony I witnessed was the dogma reiterated by Rupert of evolution that is “already answered and no longer discussed. “
People are not as smart as they would have you to believe.
are you trying to insult my intelligence? I can think things people pretend to think and I do it subconsciously while laying a log and reading Shakespeare.
222Lightning *tips fedora*
222Lightning 😂😂😂😂😂 Niiiice! 👍🏻
Brian Drake ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
We are indeed, as a whole, Homo bovis stercus; although I might be bullshitting.
From the outset. His definition of science was that of a religion. It isn't. The whole point of science is discovery of the truth through evidence and reason. Belief plays no part.
It is a religion. Get over it.
It is a religion. Get over it.
riverspirit7 it's not. And your inability to understand that means it's you that has to get over it
riverspirit7 How many times has a country been invaded over science? Has science ever told you that you were evil or is how to live? No it hasn't, because it isn't a belief system which is what a religion is. Science requires no faith. Any law or theory has evidence to back it up or it is trashed. Can the same be said of any religion? I think not. Take a logic course, you'll start to see the invalidity of your own claims.
Richard Dobson it's not as if they're going to Listen.
Everything is connected. EVERYTHING.
All is one. The universe is a single entity, everything is intrinsically connected. You haven't inherented existence, you are inherent to existence.
Everything is tethered to un-manifest inertia i.e. Ether.
Just like a dog on a leash running around a stake.
The dog on the leash = Magnetism
The stake = un-manifest inertia or the Di-Electric Field.
Boom!
I have connected to the universal mind and from this universal consciousness I could come down into the minds of other people/ animals/ rocks/ plants
@@92GreyBlue if that were true, you’d realize that there are no “other” minds and that the mind is a construct of concepts.
A truly creative video. I retired from an engineering career, and had noticed during it how the Speed of Light seemed to be varying somewhat unexplainedly, but Sheldrake has explained it beautifully. No one else ever had, and I had enough experience to be able to guess what the reaction would be. Incidentally, I had also developed an "inspiration" that the researchers were NOT going to "find" electricity by investigating motors , generators, etc. , and in an analogous way, investigators are very soon going to find out that the ancient hindu-buddhists were right in their poetic inspiration that "Consciousness" is analogous to an electromagnetic Field, with the usual field characteristics, which means that you are NOT going to "find" it in the brain, but rather the brain is "inhabited" by consciousness just like a motor is "inhabited" by electricity. And, don't worry, it has been found lately that "Paradoxes" are "REAL".
lol.......
you know someone is on to something when they are banned.
Why do you think that? Do you think there is a conspiracy to prevent this man from speaking "the truth" or perhaps more likely that this man has presented a bunch of out and out bullshit to befuddle poorly educated people? Light changing speed as we move through "patches of dark matter"??? Does he know something about "patches of dark matter" that real scientists don't? He's a "parapsychologist" and believes in things like esp, seances, ghosts etc.
@@kristenhansen1843 you sound frighted
@@gaylandbarney2231 Yup. And frightened people ban shit. It's their only only recourse.
@@gaylandbarney2231 - ...well I'm not.
@@writingonthewall3326 - Nope!
What Dr. Sheldrake is criticizing is the ideology of scientism, not the presuppositions, or the hard conclusions, of science itself. There are many, many scientists who do not subscribe to scientism, and would not accept some, at least, of the 'dogmas' which he identifies.
It seems like you know many scientists and can tell for sure they are dogmatic. How do you know that? Where did you get that conclusion?
Just the opposite. Most scientists (the ones I know & have known) are __not__ dogmatic.
Robert Sarracino Then you see Mr Sheldrake is being deceitful
No. He's confusing (to my way of thinking, with regard to some of his 'dogmas') science with scientism. He's not being deceitful, in my view; he's being unfair to scientists as a whole. I'll amplify on this a little later.
He's being talking about that for years, if it was just a matter of "confusion" he would've amended for it. Also, by the crazy stuff he says you can't excuse his "misuse" of a word, when the very misuse is the central focus of his critic. Science has found no evidence of his insane claims so he resorts to dismissing science as a whole to keep making them, but does so by not getting science in the least bit.
The biggest problem I have with science as a religion is that a certain morality and ethics are sometimes lacking in scientists. There are somethings that shouldn't be created/altered just because you can.
why not? existence is nonsensical. Morality and ethics? Human concepts the universe does not give a fuck about??
"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest."
You were born.
Miracles are purposely hidden by the source, and for very good reasons.
@@seldonwright4345 And continue to breathe in a self contain electrical flesh body on a planet hurling through a violent environment that supplies your every need.?
It was not a miracle, he misrepresented the theory.
Neither the theory nor science says that the materials that made up the singularity came from "nothing" nothing, when science says "nothing" it doesn't mean "no thing at all", we have no reason to believe there ever was "nothing".
@@seldonwright4345 not a miracle.
Fancy actually removing this! I mean, people are free, if they disagree with him, to dismiss his ideas as ill-researched fantasy, or, if they agree, to celebrate the input of a man who can think for himself, yet question entirely scientifically. Personally, I feel cleansed and refreshed by what he says.
Science itself is not dogmatic, but some scientist are.
Zach Dyer
Exactly. Sense some scientists can change their minds when confronted with enough evidence. But there will always be those that will stick to their old beliefs. After all scientists are people too. It took the evidences of Kepler and Newton to convince the community Copernicus was right. But even now some odd ducks believe in the geocentric model. Needless to say, those are now a very small minority. But at first Copernicus had lots of resistance.
hellavadeal "Dogma" is a state-of-mind... LIMITS. "Pragma" is the complete opposite... NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.
One is deemed dogmatic not through their subscription but their state-of-mind.
Einstein was a pragmatic being in a dogmatic world hence he couldn't believe himself.
+IAm NoOne, your trollish assertion that a prior commenter is confused attenuates anything you've said that might otherwise have been worth considering.
That would be interprable if his comment were directed at a particular user; since it is not the commenter is either confused, or confus_ing_.
hellavadeal Scientist like James Randi.
I studied physics at university and then got my degree in Computer Science. I love the sciences and feel its valid .. however .. I have had experiences that science cannot easily explain. When I began having them I talked with a psychologist as I was getting somewhat concerned that I was going mad. If I had to say what these are they suggest one of more of the claires. It has come as quite a surprise for myself. I have thought a lot about some of them that there is a scientific explanation and some of them I have found after contemplation and some I cannot fathom. Dogma in all its forms is restrictive. Stay open and ask important questions about everything especially when it is deemed controversial.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I am in grad school in biophysics and I can relate to what Mr. Sheldrake is discussing. I face many profs and researchers who are stuck in their own mind. Science was about finding truth about everything in the universe, but their own egos get in the way...which in this case is the dogmas of being a scientist. The enemies of scientific progress are the scientists themselves.
My daughter got her first F in University in literature. When she adapted to her Professors line of thinking she passed the course with flying colours... Thinking outside the box how dare you!
111%
It’s healthy to question all dogma. That is the principal of progress and understanding. Be it science, belief or any human activity. Dogma is the power of the elite, customs and tradition reinforce their socio-economic pre-eminence.
In a world of institutions, whose purpose is to calcify and entrench the convention of the day. It often takes the inspired and motivated maverick to expose the emperor has in fact no clothes and often is persecuted for it. Then after a while, or a lifetime, is revered as the new source of universal truth. Institutions then embrace and solidify their position by locking understanding under the new paradigm.
And the scientific cycle begins anew...
Science, like existence and the universe around it isn’t smooth and balanced. There are centres of activity and vast areas of quiet calm. Then an explosion of understanding by some genius insight moves us along the road of discovery until a quiet time is again reached, by the limits of technology and intellectual freedom, until the next revolution leap frogs us again into the future.
I salute you sir.. such eloquent words of wisdom breathed everywhere...refreshing indeed.
Siri Erieott So your saying everything runs in cycles??
Surely not, that's preposterous
@@lukeskywalker2481 Read Thomas Kuhn's On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. There are no genuine "cycles" in nature. A genuine cycle would violate the Second Law and imply a possibilty of a perpetual motion device.
The next "revolution" is looking like it's going to set us back into another dark age.
@Siri Erieott - Almost every episode of inspired genius ends with a dogma revealed to be a dogpa under false hair. Manic harassment of the protagonist ensues to a predictability fine-tuned by the lay scientist, Yakety Sax, who had to blow his own trumpet many times for it to be well known.
He is right of course that dogmatic assumptions should always be looked at and not just accepted. But he completely ignores the fact that the established laws make very accurate predictions. When his new law of "fluctuating gravity" makes accurate predictions about the motions of the planets, or the orbits of satellites, then they will be taken seriously.
Several contradicting causes for predictability exist but go unexamined by 'science'. It should be patent that there is no such thing as constants, but rather SETS within which predictability occurs. That is fundamental to all math, which is wholly immaterial by the way, so how did math come to exist?
He brings up the right questions. Doesn't mean he has all the right answers, nor need he do so. Only a religious 'science' person would demand there be all the right answers.
It is admitted by those who set the "constants" that the constants fluctuate. By definition, the so-called constants are not constants. The questions you should ask yourself after that are:
1) How precise did the "constants" have to be in order to predict the future position of a planet?
2) Are predictions of other things dismissed as incorrect simply because they do not rely on the artificially set "constants?"
3) Are documented experiments showing a fluctuating constant purposely being stifled by the gatekeepers of science?
4) (most importantly) Are these gatekeepers true scientists if they purposely withhold data that indicates their own assumptions or calculations or terminology are incorrect or not universal?
The fact that a formula has predicted the position of planets correctly does not make it universally correct. Afterall, a broken clock is correct twice in a day.
it only gets good at 16:00 IMHO - this kind of talks are necessary anyway, no matter if they're "wrong" or "incorrect", they are thought provoking, even if you want to question what he says, you need to think about things outside the mainstream consensus. That's valuable
Great talk. Shouldn’t be banned. How silly!
You can find it in teds blog. So deffinitely not baned.
Who noticed he's barefoot on stage?!
This is the second time I have watched this. The first thing I noticed when i saw him was "No shoes" ....... I tried to convince myself that he might be wearing beige shoes. But he moves his toes in a way that shoes don't move. Also when he walks away you can see dirt on the soles of his feet. It completely put me off the first time, but I managed to get past it this time.
@@Ballstreetuk :P
He’s probably grounding himself
@@JoshPhoenix11 Lool
Barefoot is healthier, shoes are not very comfy...
From Rupert's Wikipedia page: " Deepak Chopra commended Sheldrake for..."
Says it all. If you're being commended by Deepak Chopra, you have problems!
+LAnonHubbard.... Lots of "woo woo" between those two.
The reason why this TED talk was banned was not because they were trying to hide "the truth" but because it is full of crap.
+LAnonHubbard You are a fanatic and just like those religious zealots because you are using gossip to justify your totally unscientific judgement of this man rather than his content.
+Jocjabes Agree it was a bit "gossipy". Deepak Chopra is a snake oil salesman and charlatan who makes up stuff. I didn't bother watching more than a minute or two of Rupert Sheldrake, especially after skim reading the negative comments here of the man. I don't have time to give a proper scientific rebuttal of Mr Sheldrake. He doesn't respect science by the sounds of it, so what would be the point?
I only had time to quickly take the piss and get out of here.
+Michael Hill Fucking spot on!
Discussed the ideas in your books with Ralph N. Maud, my deceased partner, who understood and appreciated your views. You joined us once for lunch. Happy to hear you again.
Finally! I never thought thought modern science would be allowed to be questioned, bravo!!!
Apparently it is not. This video is reportedly banned.
I was just about to say whar I now see Quincy Litigator already responded here... except QL was too reserved: because Modern Science is NOT allowed to be questioned, alas... hence the shit we're in now. Modern Science is no longer Science; it has regressed to little more than a kind of voodoo. The CCP operates under this assumption in order to gain the upper hand; with our eager compliance they are succeeding, amazingly.
They banned this Tedtalk.
Did the speed of light change between 1928 and 1945? Or did the ability to measure it become more accurate in 1945 than in 1928?
Rupert Sheldrake HUGE change is 1 part in 15,000.
i believe they wanted to solidify the speed of light as a constant rather than a relativity...it made the math work for their construct and create a world of followers through the university ...don't think outside the box shit or you can't be one of us nonsense....remember, it's all theory ONLY!
Mmmm ??? 😭😂😭
Could be either. We need to test this hypothesis. The expanding universe may cause small variations.
Donnie Young - Theories are more important than 'facts' and lead the way to new discoveries. 'Facts', like constants are given to make it easier to understand complex relationships. No one is going to tell you the exact value of the square root of 2 or the exact value of Pi and it's not necessary. The symbol for the square root of 2, or the symbol for Pi or the symbol for infinity are totally understandable and used all the time in scientific discussions, even by high school students.
Not even halfway through the talk and I must say I'm impressed and glad I clicked. We must periodically ask what are our foundations on which we are building knowledge.
Amen, Jesus was actually called Yeshua and he live to the age of 80 in North Central India.
@@HighSpeedNoDrag Well your first claim is correct...
@@SeraphimGoose Thanks and So many have no Idea that he was Never called Jesus. It's incomprehensible main stream.
HighSpeedNoDrag ...
Nope
@@sonlover62 The Letter J did not exist in the Hebrew Language back then. Do your own research. Also, Yeshua Was Not a white man.
Why was that banned? It all made perfect sense !! The established scientific community needs to progress.
You can't question science
@@AnarchyEnsues sounds the exact same as “you can’t question religion”. Wake up, little sheep.
@@Brainsore. the more you learn about acceptable science, the more I'm skeptical of it. From diet, to psychology... Weather to theoretical physics.
All make wild claims with inseficient knowledge
all your comments try to sound so heady but nobody noticed he wasn't wearing any shoes?
I did
+cnrgfilm thanks. for validating my sanity.
showing connectivity to the earth.
That was my favourite part.
seen another video of him where he was 'shoeless'
Yes! Finally someone asking these questions!
No, he's just a dogmatic moron. He claims he's listing 10 dogmas, when he's actually just listing 10 things he dogmatically believes scientists believe.
Oh, the irony of the arrogant.
@@allahspreadshate6486 its called observation. It's what you do when you meet Christians I bet.
@@davidw.4524 - Christianity is responsible for a LOT of bad shit, even today they're enabling child rape within the organised churches. That's ignoring the countless deaths it's responsible for.
@Eric Flaquer - Yes, but science has given us everything that makes modern life so good. What exactly has religion given us? And please don't say morality, we had that long before we had gods. Morality is a product of man's social nature.
Allah SpreadsHate Let me guess, you hate God because He didn’t save you from your father?
Sheldrake isn't questioning and criticizing science, he is questioning a "science delusion", the way people misinterpret and identify with science as their belief system, and judging from all the butt-hurt comments below; yes, these deluded people are defending science as if it is their substitute religion and somebody just insulted it. Lot of emotional and illogical identification for an abstract word that represents a rational and logical practice.
Fuck God..Fuck Jesus.
+Rahul Kumar What does your comment have ANYTHING to do with what you replied to?
nope, abusing for no specific reason!!
+Chaka Caca You nailed it!
They resort to insult and bashing so they dont have to defend their arguments. They learned that from the likes of Richard Dawkins.
+Chaka Caca Which is why I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the people's comments, laugh at how stupid they're being or cry because humanity isn't as smart as I thought it was.
What the hell is TED so scared of? You banned this, thus I no longer wish to follow you.
Dr Terry CREAGH good
Here is an informative audio about other things that are not commonly brought out in the open. I hope it is a benefit to you. th-cam.com/video/WP3TZh6A6Vg/w-d-xo.html
They had banned many videos that directly show when and about what "science" has been exposed
(it's very often about history, archaeology and topics like that - which aren't really scientific by themselves - most of it is based on opinions, notable examples are Sphinx and Great Pyramid, both of which were dated by "who else, we don't see any civilizations older than that age" and most likely faked 2 word inscription in Great Pyramid - because grammar was incorrect and that error was very common among Egyptology at the time of dating it; plus all the Egyptian texts they found clearly stated "Repaired by Pharaoh XXX" not built by XXX(I don't remember who was exactly at the time), plus when Egyptians restored or repaired buildings they used Granite at notable places indicating that this building was restored - all egyptologists agree on that, except Great Pyramid with the same technique official "scientific" response: "built by XXX")
By banning this talk they proved his point for him. In every banned ted talk there are some jewels of knowledge, as crazy as it may sound to normies.
I don't think they were scared (is there something to be scared of?), but embarrased. Anyways, I agree that baning it is a wrong decision and only creates confusion.
6 years later and this is still legendary!
Isn't it funny that science is about questioning everything and attempting to better understand this reality in a way that we can conceptualize, yet people will quickly criticize the questioners when the topics they are questioning are typically hardly understood by the critics.
Mh, the criticism is insubstantial. If someone says that a scientific model is wrong he has to present a "better" model. Better in a way that the new model presents better predictions.
We already know that quantum theory and the theory of relativity can't coexist they contradict each other. Yet they are both the best models we have in their domain. Present a better model with better predictions and they (the old theories) become history.
Greetings
@@TheKhanQ That is rather shockingly wrong. Falsification is not reliant on the existence of anything but errors in current knowledge ("models")> A model that doesn't work, or work well, that produces consistent errors, is a model BY SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION that needs to be improved or replaced. The peculiar notion that we can't dispute the adequacy of a "model" because we haven't a better on offer would stop scientific inquiry. Worse, since the goal or addtional research would be to replace a model already falsified by its failures, but that existing model is treated as doctrine or dogma rather than a legitimate target for inquiry, you could not get funding or research time. There is an immense and growing literature on problems created by scientific dogmatism in every field from medicine to cosmology. In some cases, such as medicine, this adherence to dogma is genuinely dangerous.
It is funny, because all that is necessary is the acknowledgement that there COULD be intelligence behind it all. Failing to acknowledge that possibility, while at the same time saying it all had to occur naturally, is not science, it's philosophy.
@Frauenarzt Dr. Stefan Frank No, not at all. Ridiculous statement.
@@TheKhanQWell I wouldn't say anybody is saying that the model is wrong. The model is good for lot's of things and helps to produce technology of all sorts. I think the problem is that science claims to be able to explain everything using purely mathematical contructs that inevitably leads to mechanistic model no matter how complex the mechanism is. In the process it runs into many paradoxes(e.g. it claims no event propagates faster than light by gravitational force denies this fact and all cosmological computations work because gravitational force vector effect is instant). It uses many absolute minimal and maximum values (actually speed of light is a variable constant:)) for many things saying that what we cannot observe doesn't exist, but there's no evidence for that is there?. It also ,in many cases, uses terms "intellect" and "intelligence" interchangeably grosly degrading intelligence to be again mechanistic, this would open the whole discussion about AI guess:)
When he talks about the speed of light being fixed, he is right because the meter definition became a count of wave lengths of light rather than the standard meter. This has blinded science making such variations impossible to see. It is literally defining distance by the speed of light.
That's bullshit, because we still have other measurement lengths than only the meter. The meter is no longer defined in count of wavelengths of light (which was adopted in 1960 and retired 1981), but as "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum in
1/299 792 458th of a second"
The "second" is subsequently defined as follows: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
So combining the two means that the meter is really the distance that light travels in a vacuum during 30,66331898849837 transitions of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
The wavelengths of light (which is NOT the same as the *speed* of light, but denotes its energy) can be measured in non-units like Planck lengths for instance. Or any other measurement system you want.
Base units are man-made abstract constructs and have to necessarily be based on something else that is real. The older definitions were:
"The meter was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole - as a result the Earth's circumference is approximately 40,000 km today. In 1799, it was redefined in terms of a prototype meter bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889)."
Do you really think such definitions are sufficient to measure the speed of light accurately? Had they still used those definitions, yes the speed of light would be varying constantly with the shape of the earth or that bar (and the measurement equipment used to measure that bar), but that would be completely artificial.
We don't need such units at all, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
@@terrencedekat9359 I'll fully admit to punching above my weight by even entering into this discussion, but I have a question. How do we know that the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods doesn't fluctuate? It seems to me that measurement of any kind has to be compared to a standard that is constant in order for it itself to be considered a constant as well, as in our definition of what the duration of a second is. But if the constant we're comparing to is not really constant, how would we know?
@@markbader4942 bcoz it work ?? If it was wrong out GPS systems would be useless. They are so sensitive they have to take into account relativity of time between earth and low earth orbit.
I tend not to rely on GPS besides getting me to the general location, I always assumed the satellites involved weren't updated frequently enough. Men are funny creatures, once believed they were the center of the universe, only to come to know the mechanisms of it, even though they've only peered a fraction of a percent of it... I admittedly am not remotely as intellectual as others, but through my 30 or so years of wanderings, I've personally only found one thing to truly be constant: change.
@@GrimSleepy ofcoz the laws of nature might change over time.. who knows.. but if it does, then it's on such a timescale that it on a human level seems to stand still and is impossible for us to measure. And something we cannot measure or predict in a meaningful way, that's a religion.
"Education is a system of imposed ignorance" Noam Chomsky
What do we have to indicate that consciousness is anything more than a result of brain activity? As far as I understand it, the only consciousness we've been able to observe has been that of brain activity. Also as I understand it, nothing is considered an unalterable fact in science. For example, if we DID discover measurable consciousness emitting from somewhere other than a brain, science wouldn't keep asserting that consciousness is only a result of brain activity.
***** How do you know anything to be factual?
+Geoff Stockton how do you know anything ?
We don't have anything that indicates that brain activity is the same as consciousness, if we did then neuroscientists and psychologists would not call it "The hard problem of consciousness" which there are Ted talks about by other more orthodox scientists. Conventional approaches hope to prove that consciousness is in the brain, that is their hypothesis, but we don't have a theory that explains it and there are lots of reputable people who think it will turn out to be an irreducible emergent complexity that we won't be able to narrow down to just the brain. There is a decent sized brain in your intestines for example, are they part of your consciousness ? It is part of a materialist assertion to insist consciousness is in the brain, this seems reasonable but we still cannot prove it so skepticism should continue in the mind of a good scientist.
supercoolio120 If you really want to go down that road it can be easily said that absolutely nothing can be certain to be true. We're left with no choice but to live according to certain pre-suppositions.
These pre-suppositions were once based on religion. Now they're based on scientific observation. Would the speaker of this video prefer that we go back to the old way?
I just don't know what in the hell he's really suggesting here.
Science may not be a perfect and easy path to having all the answers but it sure beats the hell out of anything else we have.
+Giles Tully What's the alternative if consciousness doesn't stem from the brain? I'd like to hear a coherent, scientific answer? Does consciousness live outside our heads? If so, what proof do you have? I think you're making a very large leap in thinking that consciousness is something outside of ourselves. Where does it come from then?
this guy even questions the purpose of shoes..so based
I once commented adversely on a talk and it was removed.
Imagine how I feel 🤣🤣
@Jeremy Mettler what the actual fuck are you trying to communicate?
At its best, science is not a “system” based on primitive beliefs, but a way of observing the actual world in a systematic manner which has as its core objective logic and rigorous experimentation.
Despite my research in parapsychology and science, I actually do kinda agree with Rupert Sheldrake. Science is a beautiful tool, I agree, but it is far from perfect. In order to understand dogma in science, you must first distinguish its meaning for religion. Unlike science, religion relies on some supernatural deity(s) without any empirical evidence. Everything in religion is considered to be true at face-value, even if there is evidence against it. Science is actually quite the opposite.
Everything that science explains or tests originates from a presumption (e.g. a hypothesis/claim). If the hypothesis is widely supported via empirical evidence, it becomes a scientific theory. A scientific theory scientifically speaking cannot be proven to be true. It can only be supported in the basis of experimental evidence and falsified if shown otherwise. This "support" and "falsification" are the golden rules of science. If anyone violates these two golden rules, then it becomes a scientific dogma. A dogma where the opposition will be ridiculed and degraded, regardless of evidence in favor.
This is where dogma in science stands. It is no surprise, really. Charles Darwin, Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Wegener (the creator for the Plate Tectonics Theory) were all ridiculed and degraded by scientists simply because it didn't follow their paradigm or should I say, scientific dogma. It just shows how much the scientific community are full of prejudices, knee-jerk reactions, and confirmation biases. It seems that paranoia and cognitive dissonance play a huge role in what we call the scientific community. So yeah, scientists are pretty much on the same high horse as politicians. Thinking nothing but protecting their paradigm with an "If you don't agree with me, go fuck yourself" attitude.
Why not read Buddha Dharma if you are keen to know the truth, just read my comment and see if there is any truth, my comment is written about a month ago
What makes you think life has to have any "meaning" other than what we give it?
If a scientific theory can't be proven to be true and relies on experimental or observational evidence, then why would someone ever call a scientific theory a fact? This is what they say. Scientific theories are not facts. Actually what a fact is is an issue which science does not have the capacity to address in itself. It requires philosophy. This shows you that science is full of fraud, and that scientism and logical empiricism are fraudulent as well.
This man is my hero - he opened a major door with class wit patience - go Rupert
Grounding. Teslas qouted we are frequency and vibration
Yep...if you scroll around on BoobTube long enough, you are bound to eventually come across a video that shares whatever batshit crazy thing you may believe.
Yey.
@fynes leigh "There are none more religious than the devout atheist"
Oh jeez...here we go with another painter.
"just as impossible to put a cigarette paper between believing and not believing - both are equally irrational"
Then by all means explain why with a rational argument instead of a silly analogy. But are you suggesting that you believe all gods exist?
"The mister god teddybear is indistinguishable from the there-is-no-mister-god teddy bear."
Not really, but it doesn't help that you don;t know what the definition if "atheism" is. Because it doesn't suggest there is no "teddy bear", only that based on the evidence, we are not convinced an invisible teddy bear exists. But I do not think it irrational to suggest that based on what we know of reality, there is no invisible teddy bear.
"or even attention seeking children still seething from their lack of being breastfed as infants."
Then blame your mother, why share your dirty laundry here? I mean, that's kind of personal isn't it? Maybe you bit her nipples too hard, or maybe you kept falling off onto your head?
Have you asked her why?
And have you looked into a hobby? Or perhaps the Boy scouts? I'm sure they will give you some attention.
Then you're an idiot!
Here is an informative audio about other things that are not commonly brought out in the open. I hope it is a benefit to you. th-cam.com/video/WP3TZh6A6Vg/w-d-xo.html
There IS no difference between Galileo being banned by Church and Sheldrake's talked being banned by them.
Galileo had EVIDENCE , Sheldrake only has his misundertsanding of how science works and affirmations without evidence
th-cam.com/video/FMrQme-DEas/w-d-xo.html
@@sevgar5128 The only thing Sheldrake is trying to prove is that these things are dogmas and might not be true. Different from Galileo.
Following the link in the description clarifies a lot. The link leads to a general explanation of the reason why this video was removed from a channel (not banned). There are two more links that give space for a debate on two talks. Ultimately he made comments that were not true based on history, not on knowledge. But TED does invite debate with the videos still uploaded on their blog. The title to this TH-cam video is misleading.
this comments section is a great example of the three stages of truth
+Harry Parkinson if you’re claiming that something is true, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate this claim. if you can’t demonstrate it, you don’t get to label it as ’truth’.
+Rabsputin ok I'll play along,
A: Scientific Study Of Telepathy And Remote Viewing: goo.gl/xFdStH
B: Plant perception: goo.gl/yWRN0x
and we meet at the collision of faith masquerading as science and 'science', I guess more fundamentally reality as we make it comes from thought so it's really a failure of ego checking that gets us to the unbalanced greed of dogmatic materialism
Harry Parkinson psychicreviewonline? fuck off pal. go and get a peer reviewed white paper and not this confirmation bias crap.
Duck Life so your suggestion is 'accept this woowoo crap, just because'.
great idea. /sarcasm
+Rabsputin got 1 4 that to; goo.gl/3bMtYf
wheres your white paper now el capitan,
also, heres another one for free; goo.gl/okG3pm
lol call the fire bregade, cos +Rabsputin got that burn, nice Bandit though
I remember in class talking about fluctuations. My Asian friend blurted out fluk you white folk too! Priceless!
Bahahahaha!
Had he been my science teacher during my school years, I imagine my interest for science would've been far greater than being merited an F!
and generally would've enjoyed learning the subject. Because as you get older, interest in the broad spectrum related to science spikes up!
@fynes leigh well in school, students are taught the basic elements of science which consists of; physics, chemistry and biology. It was just generalised literature but never was interested perhaps due to the teachers inability to deliver in an engaging context
Those principles were the general literally
"There are more thing in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you dream of in your philosophy".
Nothing more needs to be said here. Brilliant response Julio Sanchez
Saucy boy!
To Thine own Self be true.
Science isn't a philosophy. Please, look up science in the dictionary or Google the definition. Thanks, have a great life.
Pᴀʀᴀsᴇʟᴇɴᴇ Tᴀᴏ The dictionary definition doesn’t match what it has turned into. Look up the word “feminism”, lol.
If they fear the question...your on to something...
“Intellectual phase locking...” 😂
Which I prefer to shorten to "intellectual phocking"
There are dark corners of reality which science does not yet illuminate. None of us can afford to be too arrogant or certain about what we will find there.
Like what?
Doapsique Gaming
Jesus Christ
Get out of here, Stalker!
"dark corners"???....that justifies the attitude of people who pretend to know things that they don't......and you call scientific standards arrogant??? lol
ok mr I know it all....
Key word is "yet". Not so long ago people thought rain was caused by frantic dancing to entertain Gods. Now we know better. Be patient. The smart money will always be on the side of science. Every. Single. Time.
The fact that TED banned this says so much more about them than it does about him
Did anyone else notice that it looked like he was barefoot?
Once before I though that, too, and then in a close up where the camera showed a foot for a second I could see he had on tan, cloth or cloth-like slip-on loafers (an aspect of comfort, I suspect). He seems like a "comfortable" sort of chap, and I have a great deal of respect for the man.
This is no secret that Sheldrake is known as the "Barefoot Scientist". I do my best work when I have the comfort of being barefoot. Its no big deal.
He's grounding/earthing. It's to stay connected electrically to the earth.
@@KingOfTheLosers13 👍
He dressed like Paul on the cover of Abbey Road. lol
Independent thought is the only hope against either side. I can't make anybody shut up, but I don't have to listen either.
Luis Martinez good comment sir
@ Luis Martinez : _listen_ or _believe?_
Not listening only leads to less understanding of things, at the least it leads less understanding of how someone gets the wrong ideas stuck in their head.
I would be inclined to think you meant _not believe them,_ but since you want them to _shut up,_ I am uncertain. I almost never fully agree with anyone, but I do read their comments and opinions before I decide if I agree, and if they are _shut up,_ I will never know if I agreed or not with all they said.
Freedom of speech is as much for the listener as it is for the speaker.
9:00 he left out his 'evidence' for that theory. Crystal formation occurs because of energy distribution (minimising potential energy according to what elements are there), NOT magic.
@Martin Svensson energy is count of photons, which can literally be seen with your eyes (energy is is light), unless it's outside of our visible spectrum
@fynes leigh it's a similar principle of how things fall down hills, rather than go up. They minimise potential energy by falling under gravity. But for a crystal solid, atoms arrange themselves so that there isn't too much repelling. I was told by a science teacher AND it makes sense, just like how things don't roll up hill of their own accord
@fynes leigh there's no need to be rude for when it comes to understanding things, otherwise rudeness/pride can hold us back from learning the truth.
It is so curious how entertaining alternative hypotheses which vary from the norm is looked down upon, treated with almost disgust, and those who consider such ideas are seen in some way as crazy or hostile. This is such an extraordinary attitute to have considering that all progress in human history has by definition been through individuals entertaining alternative hypotheses.
Prime example.. Einstein and relativity. Etc
Many examples. Yet we continue being dogmatic as a society
NTL 99 Those who automatically reject alternative thinking are simply afraid of losing what little control they feel they have over reality. It is fear which causes people to act this way not knowledge or reason.
Great! People who don't know anything about science talking about science. Woo Woo!
he knows absolutely everything about science
+David Roberts He knows a little bit though. But his examples and comparisons are a little stupid. Some very stupid.
I was taking the piss out of david. Davids a dork.
who? better if you refered to somthing specific.
+David Roberts Rupert is a scientist. I would venture to say he knows more than you in the area of biology. But you miss the point... do you take what is stated out of blind faith by the scientific community? Rather than trashing his ideas out of turn, I think it is a good thing to question everything especially when you don't find a good response. Most of us don't have the time to verify our questions but I appreciate those who do question and bring forth alternative views based on their investigations. Even if you disagree, it can give you a new perspective.
The more options we have on ideas, the better. Some fall by the wayside (and some may be downright stupid) but there is the potential to have a diamond of an idea which is better than dismissing everything and missing some new thinking.
Question everything including this man
Why?
Because you are a fool if you don't
@@donaldbutcher1260 I was following your suggestion and questioning you, sir XD
@@KB-ur4nk
Well done.
No one has all the answers the best we can do is ask questions.
More like don't be afraid to question the ideas you took for granted.
Beautiful presentation Rupert. Thanks so much Tom !
We were crystallizing cobalt? salts in honors chemistry lab at UC (Cincinnati) about 1980. The chemistry head said it’s hard to get it to crystallize but when I did it, it crystallized with high yield. He was amazed, but didn’t say anything. Then I moved on. Debt slavery pushed us on and away from interesting things and much more.
'In my view' 'in my view' 'in my view'..... 'There is in fact good evidence' what evidence?!?? Cite ffs
+mediamonkey93 read his books
+readmycomments100 fuck that. i’m not giving a quack money because he refuses to provide citations in argument.
Rabsputin Who's he arguing with? When did he refuse? This is a TED talk, not a debate. It would be a pretty fucking boring talk if he was constantly referring you to various research. He provides citations in his books.
readmycomments100 he was 'making an argument'. you don't have to have an opponent to make an argument.
like i said, fuck giving him money until he can support his claims in argument. demanding money for answers is the act of a con man.
+Rabsputin The whole Idea of the big bang theory cant be supported with hard fact only "educated" hypothesis. Even Dawkins himself said this. Lennox vs Dawkins.
Only human arrogance assumes their scientific constructs to be absolute, and therefor not to be questioned, let alone debated.
Any real scientist or believe of the sciences knows that human science is simply a way of explaining that which we do not fully understand. Also, it is well known that nothing in science is concrete.
Nothing in science is absolute. Science improves or changes based on whatever existing evidences there is, if soon uncovered. Scientific community questions everything. Even science.
@JP Duffy pat yourself on the back for exposing those evil scientists and their dogma, I'm sure your father is very proud of you. BTW, if science is bad and worthless, how should we investigate the world? If proof and maths is banned, how can we agree on ideas? As a fellow revolutionary genius, we should start planning this stuff out.
Mr. Sheldrake is a great speaker, very mind expanding. I thought that TED talks were all about sharing new ideas not censoring them.
The best Ted talk ever! We are not skeptical enough about science.
IT'S OFFICIAL - ATHEISM IS A RELIGION !
ATHEISM IS A RELIGION according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, as well as the Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. The court described “SECULAR HUMANISM AS A RELIGION.".
nonsense.
That's why I'm agnostic. No human alive today, or who has ever lived, can say, for fact, that there is, or isn't, a "god", due to our limited understanding of the universe, or even what constitutes "god". To say unequivocally one way or the other is the height of human ignorance.
Cool they should start a church and get tax exempt status.
Joe Ruden No human alive can say the same for either Zeus, the Sun God Ra, Hades, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Little fairies, or magical unicorns.
Are you an agnostic about magical unicorns too? Gremlins, goblins, and Santa Claus?
Joe Ruden You should Google the difference between atheism and agnosticism because they are not mutually exclusive positions. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist, a Gnostic atheist, a agnostic believer (deist), and Gnostic believer (theist).
For example, I am an agnostic atheist. I am agnostic because I do not have a definite belief about whether god(s) exists or not. I am atheist because I have no reason to believe that any god(s) exist(ed).
Atheism shouldn't even be a word. We don't have words for people who don't believe specifically in Bigfoot, or Lochness Monster, or Space Aliens. We just have skeptics, people who are skeptical of others' claims that can not be demonstrated by evidence.
Gnostic - Claim of knowledge
Agnostic - Claim of not knowing
Theist - Believes there is a personal God
Atheist - Does not believe there is a personal God
If we don't get outside the box we're destined to live in it.
If we live outside the real world we don't live in the real world!
@@terrywilder9 you sound like white bread, ham and cheese... nothing exciting... move along.
@@scirustech Still pushing pseudoscience?
Indeed. Someone may come up with hilarious idea that make absolutely no sense. Still the act of picking those ideas apart may still result in new viewpoints that otherwise would not be contemplated.
"“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~ William Paley
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~Herbert Spencer I guess great minds think alike! ;)
The exact quote you've used was famously and usefully [mis]attributed to Spencer. It has been traced back to Paley -- the Watchmaker -- but not in that exact form.
@@deborahthompsoncox5709see above.
I know where you got it and I rely on it.
Thank you Sheldrake for teaching us to look at our world from a different perspective..
Rapper here. I wrote a bit over a decade ago that said "Its metaphorical mentality, as theoretical as gravity"
🔥🔥👁👏💯
Keep going, did you write more?
Gravity is what we ignorantly call magnetic attraction. Boom! mystery solved.
Everything is tethered to un-manifest inertia i.e. Ether.
Just like a dog on a leash running around a stake.
The dog on the leash = Magnetism
The stake = un-manifest inertia or the Di-Electric Field.
As I Circumscribe rhyme circuits, welcome to my circus of rhythm, a symbol circling gyms as priceless gem's,..........,..I am some dude named Fu , awesome comment column
Snoop?
Look at all the silly rationalists , materialists hating on Rupert. If you people think the physical science of things is the key to understanding the universe you are sadly mistaken
When I was a young boy, my sister and I had an encounter with what can only be described as a being from another dimension. We still vividly remember it today and often talk about it. Some fields of dogmatic science told me such things do not exist, going against my direct experience. I am all for science by the way. Christianity gave me a reasonable explanation for such an experience as being an angelic being, and I realised I was not the first person to ever have such an encounter with a being from another dimension. I have spent my whole life studying theology, philosophy and science, and see no conflict with faith unless one chooses a bias against it. I think this speaker's views are very well thought out, and it is such a shame this talk was banned, ironically proving exactly what he says that some in science want to close their minds to evidence that undermines their own thesis and ideas.
I had experienced the same thing. Preferably a few seconds before sleeping. There was vibrations and so forth. And it is still happening.
Well, you can watch the full account of my personal story on my channel for I tell it on there. Schizophrenia has multiple symptoms, not just one. Neither I or my sister hallucinated, and neither do we suffer any form of mental health issues. I have studied psychology as well as theology and philosophy, and I know how the brain works in various states. The incident I refer to cannot now be scientifically measured I agree, but it was a very real phenomena and is also the experience of many people who have seen things that appear from beyond the physical reality. All the time science is discovering new things, and just because it has not yet worked out how to investigate other dimensions, most scientists believe other dimensions do exist.
The brain experience a very slow cycle of wave called delta state. Our beta state or wake state experience what we call reality. But there is more than one state of consciousness. I studied the Silva Mind Control Method for years. I never thought when I fell asleep my conscious state threw me out of my body.
That could be the experience of one person @@johnmikkocapoy5985 but we are talking about two people who had the same experience at the same time and still remember it vividly. If we question what two people see as physical reality, we have to question all physical reality which of course takes us into the realms of philosophy and deeper science.
Two people can share the same experience. Science does not have the capabilities yet to explain a neural phenomenon. Cause Science neglects consciousness study. It is way beyond reach of experimentation unless you have to monitor the brain activity for an entire city of people 24/7 for the rest of their lives and encode the data receive each day.
Great Talk. Really glad Tom Huston uploaded this video. Thank you.
For all those who believe faith in God is religiun should know, science not only takes much for faith, but if you dare to question it you might loose your job, reputation,your pention and anything thats left over, keep talking and its your life.
Oh I agree, there's so much dogma in many forms of science.
So, you use "unscience" to make things/develop products?
I don't know what that means, but IF IT WORKS, it ISN'T "FAITH" doing the curing, but some UNKNOWN PRINCIPLES are coming into play.
Thusly, DEFINITELY, *proper science* is in the mix.
+Arthur White .... science=science
There will ALWAYS be SWINDLERS out there.
Don't mix the two things to make SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS look bad.
your an asshole! You wrote this out with your laptop & still you cant spell,even with spellcheck,there should be a special name for people this thick,oh there is one?
20 km/s compared to the speed of light _is_ decimal places of error. It's 0.0067% of the speed of light.
As for "What if [the gravitational constant] is really changing?" Well, then satellites, moons, and planets would go flying out of their orbits and crashing into the sun. Personally, I'm very happy the gravitational constant remains constant.
I fell down today. I wish the gravitational constant would've temporarily changed, so I didn't skin my knee.
your argument is a little short sighted! It assumed that G only changed on earth!
@@danielkraus2627 falling and being pulled are not the same thing, tho they do sometimes have the same effect
I didn't say anything about Earth, @@draco_bane.
What utter bollocks!!!
Eloquent enough but is any of what he talked about can be proven? More so, I don't think most of the claims he is making are even true.
Both your observations bring up two of the errors in his talk.
the C values bit is true light speed ain't that constant
I think we should rethink the postulates of mainstream materialistic science
Are you saying that everything we accept as being "true" scientifically can be proven to be absolutely factual? I think not.
He wasn't trying to PROVE anything, only QUESTION dogma.
The current scientific paradigm is based on a number of assumptions, YES. But to say that our assumptions are as arbitrary as human laws, is a complete misunderstanding. There are very good reasons why our top scientists make those materialistic assumptions.
"Every single one of them [dogmas] is questionable. If one questions it, new forms of research, new possibilities open up. And I think as we question these dogmas that have held back science for so long, science will undergo a re-flowering, a renaissance."
This man just explained his worldview, not any groundbreaking ideas. Never trust a person who says, "I think" and then calls it science. That's just an effing opinion.
When did he do that...? Lol so many trigged people in the comments. It's fucking hilarious. "How dare he challenge my world views?!?"
julsHz but thats the problem it really is just what experts "think" that determines the popular belief.
A good book is 'Slaughter of the Dissidents.' For shame, that someone should question what is 'science.' A classic old time book is 'Science is a Sacred Cow.' Hopefully, the scientific method will return: rigorous testing/observation to actually support the hypothesis, instead of science by consensus.
I plan on reading Dr. Sheldrake's books. Thanks.
Dr. Sheldrake is a true, uninhibited scientist whose clarity of mind and its expression empowered him to present the limitedness of the present-day science in such an unbelievable , yet absolutely argumentative way. Our education needs such scientists that can inspire to question every existing dogma to help students be open-minded and creative.
Thanks, Dr. Sheldrake and TED.
It was a true pleasure to listen to such a clear-cut evolutionary view.
Dr. Rimaletta Ray
If the video is available on the TED blog, then... it's not censored, is it???
They probably did it just for the views. Nice profile photo by the way ;)