TED Controversy 2013 - Rupert Sheldrake & Graham Hancock censorship playlist. Both censored TED talks plus the first interview each speaker gave after the removal of the videos. th-cam.com/play/PLianCjfvCJizbgJqVbbuL9X06g_8uyE6m.html 🙏
Its not censorship its removing pseudoscience from a platform that promotes informative and factual content. They have every right to do so if they feel that the integrity of their platform is damaged by that content. BtW you're most likely infringing their copywrite by reposting it after they removed it.
The monitoring of political statements in 2022 is making the news with Zuckerberg's reporting of being "advised" to censor references to Hunter Biden's laptop. This has nothing to do with science it is fascist control of allowed information; fascist being the union of government and bisiness. Drs. Wilhelm Reich knew about frequencies, along Robert Beck and Royal Rife, to name a fee. All were persecuted and some prosecuted so people could be kept dumbed down. Anyone who denies this is working to suppress information, or is ignorant, or both. Frequency is the premise of life. To detect it, you have to know that it exists. Many know it but collude to keep it occult.
@@Lamster66 Only the integrity of people's right to choose to what to believe is damaged by that action. Everyone, everywhere, can and should talk about anything in any sense they feel like, and it's on people to judge if they agree or not. You're a dangerous specie, actually a part of the problem. Wake up.
@@xphorm Really, have you never heard of "Facts"? You see the problem with "people's right to choose to what to believe is" that when it bears absolutely no resenblance to reality then that can and often is Dangerous. You are a case in point NWO? Go on enlighten me about what you don't know!
@@AstralWalkerOne You're blabbering totally paranoid religious bullshit. Evolution is still proved and works. Your name suggests you believe in utter nonsense and woo-woo.
@@rstevewarmorycom except when you realize that people take evolution and conflate it to fit this mindset that everything we see and hear is purely physical, there is nothing beyond that and once we die we simply cease to exist. Leading to a very egotistical and solipsistic view on reality, where the only one that matters is you Those who claim to be on the side of science have not understood the nature of reality, all they have done is hit an intellectual dead end
@@MasakanSolaris It's not a matter of solipsism. No atheists believe that the world is all just for them, or a figment of their imagination. That kind of stupidity is a christian belief. To imagine that a creator of a whole universe is concerned about little you is the height of ridiculous arrogance. There is simply NO evidence that what we are is anything that is not a result of physical laws. And we have NO evidence of any god or that god doing anything. And we have NO evidence of any existence after death, no matter how nice such a thing might sound. You have trouble coming to grips with that because you were brainwashed from the time you were young with god/jesus/heaven/hell belief. You're clinging for dear life to your imaginary god. Evolution by Natural Selection completely explains how information arises in the world due to random processes that are constrained by selection pressures. It works in computer simulations which produce new information and totally new counter-intuitive designs for things using that method, and all the fossil and DNA evidence supports it. If you took and passed a course in Evolutionary Genetics you would be forced to realize this, but very few creationist christians will do that, usually out of their fear for their faith. Everyone who learns how Evolution works, and how Genetics works loses their faith, because they discover that their faith in any other scenario is totally unwarranted. Any student who comes from a fundamentalist christian background and majors in biology and genetics will leave behind the religion of their youth as a form of abysmal ignorance. They will inevitably pity their parents for the nonsense they believe.
@@rstevewarmorycom And this is why biologists haven't contributed or made any significant discovery in decades. You guys are so convinced you have everything figured out so you're stuck in this little bubble acting like you're the ultimate authority on the fundamentals of reality. Meanwhile any astrophysisist or astronomer worth his salt, will tell you we don't understand jack shit about our existence, hell we barely understand the human consciousness. Yet you're convinced that because you know a thing or to about the creatures living on this one planet in the vast universe you can tell everyone else what and what not to believe. I also love the fact that you immediately assume because i believe in something beyond the pale i must be a christian, which shows me that you are not a man of science at all, but merely someone using the call of science as a shield to hide your anti-theistic bigotry. If you were truly a man of science then the idea that we understand all there is to know should horrify you, because if you understand everything what else is there. Nothing but blindly indulging in your own vices until there's nothing left and you slowly fade away into nothing. On and one more thing, the idea that evolution somehow disproves the existence of a god is idiotic at best, if anything evolution SUPPORTS the idea of a god. Hell those christians you hate so much are actually becoming scientists because they wanna understand how god created the universe. So if you wanna see someone who is truly brainwashed? How about you go and look in the mirror?
Shame on TED to have censored this entertaining and enlightening talk, we are not idiots that can’t evaluate the accuracy of an argument, but surely some of the points he made helped us reflect and investigate further, thank you for allowing this video on TH-cam...
@@jeanvictory1897 Whilst I agree censorship harms freedom of speech one also has to consider whether its a good idea or not to allow that freedom to those that lack the responsibility associated with having that freedom in the first place? Unfortunately we aren't talking about someone speaking out against wrong doing here.,(Which is a good reason to fight for that right) . No what we are talking about here is misleading agenda driven pseudoscience. (This guy wants to sell books or get paid for public speaking) If what he says has the potential to do harm, then in that circumstance it would seem to be a moral obligation to remove it. The point that one decides whether the content is Harmful or not isn't about it being factually incorrect its about the potential damage that can be done by people acting on that false information. Saying that the Earth is flat or that, we never went to the moon in themselves aren't that dangerous however they serve as a gateway to other conspiracy theories like 5G, antivax and certain pandemics being a hoax. You then have a situation where incredulous woke individuals conspire to do harm to others and that is dangerous. So one could then ask is it ethical to remove that gateway?
Imagine being a research scientist your entire career, and then having your talk be called pseudoscientific because you dared to question your own profession.
What he says is pseudoscience bcoz it's incompatible with the scientific method. Actually he's rejecting the scientific method too. The so-called dogmas he points out are inferences based on the available evidence. Know something about science for a bit, ok?
All he did was throw up a bunch of straw-man arguments He was probably horrible since he obviously does not understand the scientific method so he went pseudoscience You never need actual evidence for that lol
Of course they banned it, he points out the huge contradictions of mainstream science and that is inevitably hilarious. And humor is a powerful tool for opening the minds of the audience. Since our current system of scientific education is no different than a church, the ban was inevitable. "If you want to see the truth, don't look at those who take themselves too seriously. Because they can't let go of what they believe even when there's no more reason to believe it except the petty need of being right"
Maybe he has some right on saying that people have been starting to treat science as it is some sort of religión, because some people do believe in everything they are told aimlessly and thats NOT what science is supposed to be But at the same time the rest of the vídeo is he saying that babies are formed because of psychic powers From what i have gathered from a quick investigation while he has certainly do experiments and claims to have amased evidence that proves that what he claims is true, experiments realized by his peers on controled environments have shown that things that he claims (like that people know when they are being watched because of this soo called "morphic resonance") are nothing more than chance or bias You want to know my own hipótesis, my hipótesis is that he came with his morphic resonance theory to explain certain phenomena (that is being studied btw, things like why fetuses take exactly the shape they take of why do we feel like we are being watched are subjects of study in "mainstream" science) and once it was disproved by actual evidence by his peers he changed his subject from trying to prove his obviously mistaken hipótesis to try to disprove science and say things like "the 10 scientific dogmas" because he can't accept that maybe he is wrong and this is not a conspirancy against more "spiritual" subjects of study but it's simply that he is mistaken, because humans sometimes make mistakes And the think is that people are ignoring most of the vídeo and are just centering on the first half And i think your own saying works for him, it does seems pretty petty what he is doing
A man who thought and investigated differently called "Jacob Grinberg" once said "Science is characterized by its methods, not by its results or topics"
What contradictions? There aren't any amongst the Scientists. The word you are looking for is incredulity that being the ignorance and incredulity of the general public about what the science actually says. Those that don't know or understand what the science is are in no position to comment of whether it is correct or not. However those scientists that are experts in a particular field are more than qualified to comment. And most agree with their peers. Then there are the outliers or is that (out and out liers) like Sheldrake who have a contrary opinion that doesn't align with the data collected from research. And thus try to pretend that science is a dogmatic belief system simply because it doesn't agree with their beliefs. Science is the antithesis of dogmatism That is why there is no such thing as a scientific fact! Only theory and Hypothesis because everything remains testable even those things that we have 99.99%certainty are correct. Science is a continuous investigation to search for the evidence to explain the physical reality in which we exist. Anhthing found to be wrong gets thrown out and replaces with a better explanation based on more reliqble evidence how in anyway can that be dogmatic?
As someone who teaches philosophy and physics, the main problem I've noticed is that most universities don't make philosophy of science as core part of curriculum for STEM courses. They don't even have it as an elective, and i think its such a shame because without it, lot of students are fed this dogmatic view that assumptions in science reflect true nature of reality and shouldn't be questioned/challenged. I too, was a victim of this dogma several years ago until I came across philosophy of science and suddenly, it felt so liberating. It felt like coming across a whole world of thought provoking notions that were secretly hidden from me. I wondered why it wasn't talked that often compared to the science we see popularized by media.
This dude has a very compelling way of speaking. His voice is soft, but resonates well. He has a mastery of the English language and yet doesn't sound like he's speaking down to you. So many speakers seem to lack that nuance.
+Jeff Lucky When I was in college, I saw a poster for a presentation by the Flat Earth Society. I decided to go, because I was curious what it was. It literally never occurred to me that it was a group that *actually thought the world was flat*, but in fact, it was. Anyway, I would describe the speaker (Ellis Hillman, probably?) *exactly* the way you described Sheldrake. That didn't make what he was saying any less nonsense than it was. It was actually a very valuable experience. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've heard someone who sounds superficially reasonable and compelling, and then reminded myself "so did the flat earth guy". Bullshit is bullshit, no matter how nice it sounds, and this guy is full of bullshit.
@@abdulkader7104 Who's he...Sheldrake...Buddha....the OP? I imagine the phrase to concur with this obvious should you consider it wisely.... "Everything one assumes oneself to know is never more than one's ignorance in action" ~ My Gran's prefered Proverb.
The whole "intellectual phase-locking" is fascinating because I did some work in Philosophy of Science in graduate school, it was my primary focus. There have been numerous "paradigm shifts" over the history of scientific inquiry, this is where everyone is saying one thing and then someone else comes out and says, "I discovered something different." They're usually shunned and ostracized for awhile until the breakthrough is confirmed and then everybody ends up with egg on their faces. Just like in any field of study, there are things people take for granted and they look around, wanting to be part of the club, so they go along with it. If you think about what we know now, and what we will discover, just based on the history of science you can be certain that "intellectual phase-locking" is going on everywhere on a global scale. We just don't know to what extent, but it is most certainly happening. You only realize how deep it goes later when you find out how wrong you were. People in 100, 500, 1000 years will look back at some of the theories we hold so dear and they will think of us as uncivilized, foolish, child-like.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
The Church of Wikipedia makes sure to introduce him as a parapsychology researcher and makes every effort to discredit him from the start of his bio. Disgusting 👎🏼👎🏼…. but I’am not swayed a bit. You are a true hero sir.
No he is a charlatan. Not one word he says has any basis in science whatsoever and what's worse is he knows this, but choses to pedal this crap to the incredulous so that he can profit from books and talks on the subject.
Yep, using biased, subjective and despective labelling as "facts" against whoever defies the old-school deterministic materialism (such as "pseudoscientist") is a classic in Wikipedia. Quoting biased authors to justify it, and looking aside to whoever thinks different and giving them not space in the article. They'll just label the materialist-club scientist's and expert's opinions as valid, and the views that defy those as "not thorough enough according to the "scientific" method". It's just troll science. A good encyclopedia for what enters the framework of newtonian physics and the relativity theory; and definitely an awful, to avoid encyclopedia regarding whatever goes beyond such frameworks.
"As my friend Terence McKenna used to say, modern science is based on the principle, 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it from nothing in a single instant."
@@omez6900 False dichotomy. The Big Bang theory *explains* how matter and time came into being by describing a theoretical phenomenon. In essence it's identical to "Let there be light" McKenna is correct. Different time, different metaphor. *Something* caused everything to come into being. i.e. They both posit a primary cause. Traditionally religious people name it God. The religion of scientific materialism call it "The Singularity" But primary cause it is.
@saxy1player Standing on ground barefoot is called earthing. When your bare feet comes into contact with the ground it grounds your body. This overall effects your health in keeping your blood pressure normal etc.
I'm a scientist, and what Mr Scheldrake challenges us to prove make perfect sense. We get the willies when it is implied that there may be some things that are not only just unknown, but also unknowable. We get all emotionally defensive and, in desperation, make the only argument at hand, Ad Hominen. Why don't we simply take his points one by one and refute them with science? Face it folks. There is little, if anything, that we truly "know," and can prove scientifically, without embracing non-validated assumptions, and self-evident truths. Its a mystery. We'll never know it, and we'll never control it. We are on a ride. We're generally afraid of what we cannot control. The universe and everything in it is in free-fall. That makes us uncomfortable in our delusion of control. What we call "science" is better described as "technology" or "tool-making." Nothing beyond the fact of existence, of being-consciousness can withstand the simplest of deconstructions. Well, last time around it was "God is Dead" and now, mercifully, it is finally "science is dead" [actually never existed], and we can all sigh a breath of relief, and relax into the reality that there is only "what is" and both religion and science are no more than mental concepts,unsupported by so-called reproducible observations.Religion and Science (and pseudoscience} are simply alternate belief-systems, and beautiful myths, depending on your point of view. I would vote for Religion as the more useful and interesting explanation of reality, but, I'm not religious in the least. Why not just see "what is" in our own direct experience, and let it unfold and reveal itself to us?
Maybe it is interesting to know that the "bible" of Hinduism, the Bhagavad-gita (song of God), speaks about this material universe as "maya", literally meaning "not this" or "that which is not" in Sanskrit. In a nutshell, the Hindu philosophy is that all living beings are eternal, conscious entities, that are separated parts within the topmost conscious reality, or God (Bhagavan). So the only actual substance of Absolute Reality is actually conscious life and the whole of this material energy is "just" a projection on our consciousness, like a virtual reality, and we are going through different lives and bodies, until we reconnect with our eternal source through the process of "yoga" (connection). The point is that not matter is primary but consciousness. By the way, i myself am quite convinced that the knowledge given in the Bhagavad-gita gives us the essential keys, needed to understand ourselves and the total of reality, so please read it, and let "what is" reveal itself to you. Please give special attention to verse 2:16 in this context: "Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance, and of the existent there is no cessation. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both." (asitis.com/2/16.html) So here the definition of "what is" is "everything eternal" and the definition of "what is not" is "everything temporary".
David Trindle - Very good comment, sir. Emotion trumps reason. People seek security first. If you take away their security, they'll be upset with you. For instance, to my eyes, Building 7 WTC looks like a controlled demolition. Pure physics: heat of furniture fire, temperature at which steel melts, symmetrical free-fall collapse, etc. When I try to discuss this - I'm ready to be proved wrong - people react very emotionally because the implications are too horrific to contemplate.
David Trindle - The only thing science does is create models for the purpose of prediction and control. A heuristic tool. A provisional map. When our desires change, the models and tools and maps change to achieve different objecives. When the question changes, the answer changes. The biggest mystery is consciousness - unexplainable - and desire. Where does care come from? Why do we care? What do we care about?
David Trindle - The only thing that validates a model, scientific or otherwise, is that it functions, it works, it gets us where we want to go, not because it mirrors some free-standing reality or truth or substance. The peace is in the movement. We are satisfied.
David Trindle You're a scientist but you don't think science consists of reproducible observations? That's exactly what science is... You think religion provides the most useful and interesting explanation of reality nd yet you're not religious... You seem very confused! I consider myself "scientific" but not dogmatic and this lecture was almost entirely devoid of rational argument . All I gathered from it was "science is too dogmatic" (ok fine) and that "lightspeed may vary" (Ok fine) but then using that to attempt to describe telepathy in animals just makes absolutely no sense. In order to prove the theory that we can sense people are watching us, we can run some very simple scientific experiments and answer that question.
Because he says things that are factually wrong to manipulate people who are ignorant on the subject to conform to his own opinions, for example, the gravitational constant didn't change, errors are not of 1.3%, not even near that. He knows this, he just lies because he wants to act smart, or perhaps got some other gain
@@mikan1546 "So far as we can tell, the gravitational constant has remained constant throughout the entire history of the universe" This is in the very link you cited "In 2013, a group of researchers working out of France took the measurement of the gravitational constant, using the same machine that they’d used some 2 years earlier. Improvements were made on the machine to improve the sensitivity and give a more accurate result. The machine, which uses two independent methods to calculate the constant, averages the results of the two. This, in theory, should help reduce systematic errors. What did they find? A different result!" Of fucking course how else are you gonna get more precision if you get the same exact result? Also errors are not as simple as "we made the machine better so it gives us a better result", there are so many factors that influence the error in a result in such experiments. Just because the error rate changes or doesn't conform to the effort made in making it smaller, it doesn't mean there is no error, your logic is at fault "the researchers surmise that both variations are caused by changing motions in the Earth's core, or perhaps some other geophysical process." There, the very researchers in the article that made those measurements gave a reason as to why such changes happened.
@David Jones Just like a religious zealot when somebody questions their faith, the normie "I love science" with an open gaping mouth crowd will respond emotionally when academian "consensus (because Science™is a democracy, you know) is challenged by an intelligent and factually correct criticism.
It is disgusting for TED to pull this talk because it "borders on pseudoscience." Like all their happy-clappy talks about meditation, positive thinking, etc, don't?
thrillscience you have a good point because TEDx runs all kinds of garbage That being said "temporarily pulled due to reader backlash" is the only real way to describe what has occurred here. Banned wayyy overblown. They gave the man a huge platform and this video has still managed to garner tens of thousands of views. That's a pretty crappy attempt at censorship.
wow its actually scaring me how many people are actually being done in by this. Humans are very emotional beings which tends to get in the way of rational thought.. of course its right to question everything but that is exactly what the scientific method IS.. mark my words what he is suggesting is quite the opposite... which is to make bold claims that appeal to the emotional side of humans with absolutely no proof or data behind it - and then discounting the very method that would be used to question/scrutinise his theory as a way to avoid having to prove it in any way. This is dangerous thinking and I can quite see why TED removed it now.. sometimes bbad ideas/misinformarion can actively harm society e.g causing people to distrust science already causes a huge amount of harm e.g people not vaccinating their children - this not only puts your own child at risk but also all the other children around your child. This is dangerous.. please people try to not let your emotions interfere with your rationality - this is the way you are manipulated.
Scientific advancement is based on questioning so that's not likely to happen anytime soon. You may want to read up on the hundredth monkey effect this man is proposing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
@@roro-mm7cc a Bobcat is dangerous, this man is just questioning the dogma in "science" CULTure. But to people and groups that still believe in this material religion it is dangerous, might actually make you question what the hells going on here!
"Science...the belief that 'science' already understands the nature of reality in principle leaving only the details to be filled in." A wrong premise and horrible strawman. The scientific method is the process of creating taxonomy through observation coupled with establishing verifiable predictions. This method exists because it is a confession that we do not understand the world we live in. The methods of science were created because we don't understand the nature of reality, and is part of our constant quest to know more about it.
revolutionloveevolve Actually I didn't, because there is no such thing as a "science delusion" because the name itself is an oxymoron. Science is not an object - it's a process that always involves gathering, revising, questioning and analyzing in order to make sense of whatever data is being gathered. That process by nature is meant to always test and challenge our credulity. Your misguided illustrious friend Rupert doesn't seem to understand that a materialist worldview has almost nothing to do with this.
Albert Kim thanks Albert Kim - I could not have said it better. As erudite, eloquent, and articulately well-spoken as he may be, Mr. Sheldrake has done little, if anything, more here than cleverly crafting some beautifully, seductively elegant straw men, red herrings, or logical fallacies - whichever you might prefer. I seriously doubt that he could withstand the intellectual rigors of a forensic debate with the likes of Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter - the work and ideas of both of whom virtually epitomize and most closely and faithfully represent, describe and express that space in which the confluence of science and philosophy occurs and can be critically, objectively, and open-mindedly studied, queried, and analyzed.
Vincent Wee I'm not well informed about the debates regarding the gravitational constants, but Sheldrake in his attempt to understand the data was also attempting to inquire and investigate it in order to make sense of it - which is a part of the scientific method itself. You see why such a name like the "Science Delusion" is just an absurdity? There are many reasons and factors as to why we cannot account for fluctuations in any datasets - but the very method we deploy in order to find an answer is via the scientific method itself! It's the limitations of technology that prevent us from finding answers, not the supposed "shortcomings" of the scientific method.
ahkim87 What you had mentioned here on scientific inquiry process is more or less rational, and that should be the spirit for scientific inquiries. But Sheldrake highlighted this has not been the situations as a result of the science delusion, and he also mentioned his inquires for the investigations were systematically and dogmatically suppressed for decades. Just to name a few, this had also happened to many accomplished scientists, such as Halton Arp, Hannes Alfven, who had made groundbreaking discoveries that are against the mainstream dogmas. On the contrary to your view, the "Science Delusion" is not absurd at all. Suggest you should read up the topic on "Critiques of the scientific method with mainstream consensus" in order to be informed. Best to you. www.uvs-model.com/x%20Critiques%20of%20scientific%20method.htm
I've taken many engineering courses (I'm a civil engineer) and I daresay that the more I think I know about the physical reality, the less I'm convinced we know anything about the true nature of the universe.
I find it odd that TED would ban this talk. Open inquiry and questioning dogma is healthy. It spawns debate and re-examination of ideas. This is necessary, if for no other reason than to gut-check our assumptions. He speaks very well.
Having been called a conspiracy theorist because I demanded that the science would form part of a discussion I was having, this talk really resonated with me.
james D The whole idea of science is questioning things. If something is not questioned, it means nobody knows how to provide evidence to the other idea.
tombo4444 You and James didn't watch the video obviously, if so you should noted that this guy is enthusiast of science, he said so in the vid, this guy is just inquiring some flaws on science, even some of that is arguable, not a total bullshit, bc what Darth Cedonya said above.
It helps to see the ten dogmas Sheldrake lists more as social criticisms or criticisms of the collective unconscious. NO, you will never find scientists on record explicitly stating that they believe in these dogmas, but they are implied in how they act and especially in the way they vigorously maintain the status quo.
Jeffrey James Wrong ! I do not hold science as a belief system. It's a process which is simply the best way available to us of increasing our knowledge. The proof of it's efficacy is all around you. Open your eyes!
Jeffrey James I am irritated that Sheldrake is bringing science into ill repute among those who are incapable of understanding that he is talking nonsense.
If you really understood what he was saying you wouldn't feel threatened by it. You'd just think "There's another idea someone had and shared with the world." As a fairly smart and interested in science human being I can listen to him and detach which allows me to really hear what he has to say. I might not agree with all of it, but I understand the feeling he is expressing and it's a conversation worth having even if this particular protest is off the mark.
Damn ted blew it, I used to believe they were about interesting and shocking new science views but it seems they censor anything that doesn't match their agenda. Honestly it's sad cause ted used to be great
@@quasimobius They didn't censor Sheldrake they took his video down altogether. IMO that was the only decent and honest thing they could do to maintain their integrity. If you run a platform where you are trading on the forward thinking on a range of subjects that, are both informative and based in fact. Talks promoting pseudoscience or Amway doesnt fit with your business model. As A privately run media company they totally have the right to refuse or remove any "Ted Talk" they want from their platform. If they have both the responibility and integrity to ensure that all subjects covered are factually correct then people like Sheldrake will rightly no be allowed a platform from them.
Every scientific discovery we have made in history was made by someone thinking outside the box. There is no other way to discover new phenomenon. On another note is Sheldrake barefoot?
+Richard Petek, instead we should simply believe what someone made up 200 years ago that scientists have used ever since simply because it's "scientific tradition?" Sure! Keep believing in your delusions. Science has been caught with its pants down more times than I can count with bogus and muddy thinking, dogma parading around as "logic." The Clovis First dogma took decades to die, and it didn't die soon enough. The science used to date Lucy's bones was also used to date the Valsequillo artifacts; Lucy is gospel; Valsequillo is heresy. One Texas geoarchaeologist said that he would never believe the outrageous dates of Valsequillo no matter what the evidence. Yes, a scientist said his belief trumps evidence. So, when you stop being all pompous about science and declaring someone else to be pseudo-science, then perhaps you'll start to become more "scientific." Scientists today assume so much and dismiss so much without a second thought, not because they have evidence, but because of convenience on the assumptions and inconvenience on the things they dismiss without the same rigorous examination they would give to an original thesis. The study of modern science is perhaps one of sad arrogance. The "climate change" debate is another perfect example of science being derailed. Even NASA has a web page dedicated to the oxymoron "scientific consensus." Critical thinking has become a lost art.
In that aspect we can all learn from him. I hope his efforts will also be acknowledged within the realm of science one day. Even if his personal theories turn out to be false he had the guts to challenge some rigid assumptions and teach us the importance of openness.
was also banned from TED Talks: No matter, they simply do not understand that they do not possess the right based upon their own Grecian Roman orthodoxy or any other dogma or authority to prevent others from free thinking, and deciding for themselves, as to what to believe or not to believe. And in doing so, they will eventually be held accountable as to the consequences and results as to their having done so. The Laws of Physics are the Laws of Mother Nature they are not of mankind The mathematics pertaining to the Laws of Mathematics are those of Mother Nature they are not of mankind. Mother Nature Aka The Great Spirit of the North American Indians - The Universe - The Cosmos - The/Our Creator To Begin Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 - 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8] INCONTROVERTIBLE LAWS OF PHYSICS • For every energetic action there is an equal and opposite *energetic reaction*. • There must be an input of energy for there to be an *output of energy*. • Output of energy cannot exceed *input of energy*. • Energy input (e.g. Solar) may be converted into an alternate energy output (e.g. electricity). • Energy output (e.g. electricity) may be converted into an energy input (e.g. heat and steam). • Energy input (e.g. heat and steam) may be converted into an energy output (e.g. electricity) • One form/cycle of energy may be converted into another form/cycle of energy but energy of itself, *can not be created or destroyed*. SUM • Energy is universally indestructible • The energy of the Cosmos is universally indestructible • The Cosmos is *universally indestructible*, because its cycles of energy have *no beginning or ending*. • Which is why, the Cosmos Aka Mother Nature, is all that has been, all that there is, all that will be, ad infinitude. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 - 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] • Catholic Priest, a heretic of the six days of creation. • Professor of Physics, a heretic of the first law of thermodynamics. First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed. **The Age Of The Universe** Big Bang - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation. The chemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago The Age Newspaper: Published on Saturday the 19th of December 1999 Today astronomers announced that they had observed the oldest supernova to date. This exploding Star called Albinoni being some 18 billion light-years away. A light year being the distance light travels in a year, about 9•5 Trillion kilometres. • One light year is equal to *one year of time*. • Albinoni existed *18 billion years ago*. • Albinoni existed 4.2 billion years before Lemaitre’s theoretical Big Bang of *13.8 billion years ago*. Rhetorical Questions 1. How old was Albinoni when it went supernova? 2. How old was the Star Nursery dust cloud, before Albinoni coalesced within it to become a Star? 3. How long was the Star Nursery pregnant before it gave birth to Albinoni? 4. From where did the Star Nursery dust cloud which gave birth to originate? 5. How much bull dust does it take, to turn theorizing idiots into dumber and dumber ADS Einstein’s? MOTHER NATURE The genius of stupidity is that the stupid are too stupid to realise, that they are too stupid to be geniuses. The genius of intelligence is that the intelligent are humble enough to realise, that there is no such thing as being a genius. For a proclivity toward genius, belongs to, and lies only within the realms of our universally Cosmic Mother Nature. For In Truth: She who is our Cosmic Mother of Nature, and no other than She Mother Nature, Is the natural and fundamental source of the mathematics and geometry, Of all that has been, All that there is, All that there will be. And unlike the mythological and invisible gods of mankind, the presence of our Cosmic Mothers spirit - soul - mind - imagination, is revealed and made apparent to us everywhere. Regardless as to whether we are looking out toward the dust clouds of the Pillars of Creation, or looking into the beauteous marine universe of the Great Barrier reef, looking through the intricate rain-forest realms of her beautiful and wondrous wildlife; or whether we are looking into the eyes of another or looking into our own eyes in a mirror, there She is. For in truth: Every fundamental particle that goes into the makeup of our own existence, is a fundamental particle which is of and belongs to Mother Nature, therefore we can say; that as each of us do exist in Mother Nature, so does She our universal Mother Nature, exist within each and every one of us. Which does not bear well, for disingenuous religious leaders, political leaders, money lenders, corporate gangs, and all other usurers and destroyers, who have waged an unrelentingly and universally parasitic war against their fellow man, and the innocent and defenceless creatures of Mother Natures natural kingdom. Because unlike they of the Grecian-Roman academic realms, who despite their god-like hubris and self-promoted genius cannot hear if a tree falls in a forest. Mother Nature can hear the sound of every tree that falls in her forests, and flutter of the wings of every butterfly as they fly through the branches. And as such: It is the sum of the history of all of the evils they have committed and have caused to be so far, that is the sum of all they are now. And it is the sum of all they are now, that is the history of all that they will come to be, and take with them when they leave this mortal coil, to face the indomitable will and justice of our Cosmic Mother Nature. MOTHER NATURE IS THE UNIVERSAL SOURCE OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN - ALL THAT IS - ALL THAT WILL BE I Think Therefore I Am Rene Descartes Rational None Theoretical Progression Of This Thought I Reason Therefore I Am Without Reason, I Am Not Therefore The Reason I Exist Is To Reason We All Reason Therefore We Are Without Reason, We Are Not Therefore The Reason We Exist Is To Reason That Mother Nature Is The Universe Of The Reasoning Ability Of All LivingThings Therefore SHE IS Within All Reasoning Ability The Reason I Am - You Are - We Are All Participants In The Never Ending Cycles And Stories Of Her Universal Life And Our Never-Ending Quest Which Leads Us On As To Reason Why IT IS I AM - YOU ARE - WE ARE The Never Ending Cycles And Stories Of Eternal And Immortal Energy. www.fromthecircletothesphere.net
No scientist should be muzzled; only their data should be questioned. What the mother***k happened to science, and why are there not more Rupert Sheldrakes. Kudos for turning science back away from politics and dogma.
This guy is the real deal. If quantum physics impacts gravity, the speed of light, and other "constants", then it would be perfectly normal for them to seem to fluctuate.
As a Neuroscientist and epidemiologist, I had an advisor that refused to let me publish in a review article a finding that I had made, because she hadn't found it in her population. When I submitted the article, the reviewer said that it was great.. but you are missing one important topic.... which happened to be the topic I had published on. I told her, and she said if I were to include it that I should drop her as a coauthor. I did and she fired me. My paper (the one she wouldn't let me include) started an explosion of research in the subject! Too often I saw scientists ignoring results that disagreed from their own understanding of reality. I was so bothered by this. Isn't science supposed to be objective and married to the truth? I was doing the same thing he did.. I was assuming what I was reading (although I was more concerned about papers that were from industries that stood to profit from a beneficial finding), to be true, and asking how can we explain this, if both of these results are true in different populations. I think its why I came up with so many good ideas. I now do energy medicine, which makes most of the general public, especially mainstream scientists and MDs extremely squeamish. The field of energy medicine is publishing their work in scientific journals and the field is growing. There are some fantastic papers and in energy psychology alone, there are at least 120 either pre-post or randomized control trials, showing 98% effectiveness in the outcomes examined. Yet most of Western medicine and scientists are still assuming (without asking) that's its due to the placebo effect. Its not. (It works with cats with litter box issues online. ) The work I do is based on morphic resonance. Although we call it universal intelligence. The earth has meridians in which they think is how information travels, and there is evidence to support it! So I am so grateful for Dr. Sheldrake's courage and contributions, because science DOES need to be questioned!!! Thank you! And I am looking forward to his books! The neurological underpinnings for this mainstream rejection of new ideas is explained by science. Neuroscientists discovered this when trying to understand why we stay so stuck in our political beliefs. It's called the Backfire effect. Apparently if a new belief threatens our view of who we are, our amygdala has a temper tantrum and does everything to run from it. My favorite explanation of the backfire effect is brilliant explained in this Oatmeal cartoon: theoatmeal.com/comics/believe?fbclid=IwAR18mjjtZV34kPbAX3ySjIJH9DW8WwYK3abNm4ODPwtehCiJ9WJIlDKSh4M PS. I hope my comment doesn't get banned like his TED talk did!
Isn't Kuhn's thesis that science has a political dimension? And that paradigm shifts finally occur only after scientists have spent a goodly amount of time banging their heads against the break room wall? It's like the old zen saying that a fool who persists in his folly will be become wise.
I don't see anywhere in this video that he's stating anything definitive or unreasonable. I don't see him criticizing the scientific method. It seems to be a plea for vigilance in implementing the scientific method and pointing out the hypocrisy of mythological attachment to science through philosophy. I've personally noticed in my lifetime the corrosive effects of economic philosophy shrouded in scientific fact. University funding leads researchers by the nose to conclusions that commercial interests prefer. Private development in start-ups designed to appeal to free-marketeer investors. Large tech companies pushing the needs of industrialization over all collective or individual human needs or wants. It's this hyper-capitalist bias that prevents me from enjoying any of the science podcasts except for maybe Star Talk. It is very hypocritical to willfully ignore what's leading the scientific community and not consider alternative uses of the indispensible scientific method. The almighty dollar becomes the directive by default. Any higher purpose for science is lost. This seems to be the only difference between Robert Sheldrake and others. The others don't admit to their own mythology-based philosophical bias.
Aleks Osis; Appreciate your very adept outline of the problems incurred, thx, so objectively put...its hard to understand the blind faith assigned in these catagories yourself so adequately defined as 'imposters' posing as truth-seekers when profit-margins are the major concerns overall guiding 'forces' along. Excellent presentation of the reality we're facing, almost at the mercy of 'conspirators of public sentiments' manipulated constantly, hope everyone reads your commentary and learns what it's about.., the dogma of money really, the con... Learn from objective persons as yourself...knowledgeable individuals who know, not only from the outside, outer perspective examing results, but from the inside as experienced, your insightful observations are 'treasures' of wisdom in our midst...broadening the horizon that we may find our way thru.🤗👏💪🖒👍
He says "genes tell you "only" how proteins are made. They don't tell you about size, shape, or the behavior of the organism" This shows how much he knows about genes, and also how much research he does about a topic before talking about it. Genes quite literally have the information about the size, shape, and to some extent behavior of an organism. Each cell has genes to code for proteins which make up the whole body, for ex: the cell in your leg has genes which code for proteins required to produce the necessary materials to form your leg, but it also has the gene to code for eyes! It just doesn't function in the leg because a set of chemical groups called methyl groups bind to the eye coding gene in your leg and don't let it express or code. That's pretty definitive for me.
Aleks Osis; thx for 'red-pilling' the scientific-industry in no uncertain terms..this adept, careful and correct analysis of the 'fractions' as they do occur...pure process starting out 'whole' then 'systematically divided' by 'special interest' do thus the 'anatomic' reductions happen accordingly to reflect outside dictates, within contamination takes place...'shift in direction' is also a 'shift in paradigms' subtle occurrences, leaving the 'shreds' to pose as an whole-identity of authentic research...tough luck for 'blue-pills', when someone in the know speaks out..an insider effectively 'quitting' with rank n' file procedures...positive exposure in reveals, in search of real truth and passes it on to other's the same sojourn, adequately you spelled it out plain enough how deep the rabbit hole goes...all your offering is the truth...nothing more, nothing less.💪👏👊🖒👍
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
A fresh breeze in a world of madness. Rupert may have very well caused a brighter ripple in the cosmic fabric by speaking on it. Only to be attacked by the arcons that keep us blind to the true. I so enjoyed his talk.
+Elfen Ignis You lack the ability to think in the first place, what you said is nothing but bullshit, in this video Rupert evaporated the illusions of that so called "science".. The sacred Cow that a lot of scientists and many people nowadays worship is destroyed ! And btw, constants are everywhere in " science ".
***** You just confirmed by your stupid empty comment that you really lack the ability to think :) You are too stupid to understand what Rupert is talking about Hahaha..
+Elfen Ignis im just taking an intermediate science college course, and one of the first things we learned is that science holds knowledge at best as "Fallible": for all we know, we are right, but our answers could be wrong. facts can change and nothing is really true forever. then someone goes and says something like "X" is constant? that to me is a big red flag in thinking. science is always seeking to better itself.
***** the problem i see here is that even though yes, the tenets of science are progressive in that room for improvement or revisions of hypotheses are always possible, is it the very tenets themselves which are held too high in regard where theyre basically dogmatic. its like saying you can change, but only in the bounds of the framework. take this example: lets say in some other paralleled world, all car manufacturers have their engines in the front. people have just been doing that in the beginning and it has become a conventional pattern. through the decades they have improved their engines in many regards. theyre always testing revising and improving things. but why does the engine have to be in the front? they never thought from another outside perspective. then boom, a company like lambo comes and changes the whole game by creating a mid-rear mounted engine. science would be the engine in this example and the whole car as the entire human intellectual timeline. so my question to you would be, "why does it have to be in the front?". "why would you think you shouldnt question it?". rupert is basically saying the engine doesnt have to be in the front. most importantly, we as intellectual beings have the goal and right to question such scenarios for the better of our kind. why should we limit ourselves? why would we ever create a system where we can't think outside of? i see some comments saying this is useless because he cannot form some sort of hypothesis that can be test and so on - this just goes to show that some people are toooo scientific. he means to say that is it this way of automatically thinking under a system (which happens to be science in this case) that limits us. so even the most trivial day to day beliefs people are have are utterly useless and meaningless if they can't be tested? there's so much more to life. he isnt presenting something specific to be tested. he's making a philosophical claim about the whole scenario of systems. imo, this is really a philosophical talk about science, not a science talk about science.
I'm taking about the list of dogmas he mention, I think they are 10. In the case of the speed of light it is POSTULATED by Einstein that it is a constant. And, in the case of gravity, G is a PROPORTIONALITY CONSTANT, so, given two quantities, if we measure them several times and plot those values we obtain a straight line, the slope of that line is the proportionality constant. In other words it is an empirical fact that it is a constant. In neither of the two cases they are imposed as dogmas.
Daniel Reyes Postulated by Einstein as a constant? Well, that's the problem Rupert Sheldrake is addressing, so you're not really rebutting anything, you're just stating the case from your point of view while using an argument from authority. If it is assumed to be a constant, no one will check and see if it isn't. Also, I'm aware that G is a proportionality constant. So is Rupert Sheldrake. If you watch the lecture, he talks about how the readings vary according to where the measurements are taken (ie, proportionate to variations in mass of two bodies). Also, the obnoxious capitalization doesn't prove anything (shouting at me or something? I'm just trying to discuss an interesting idea.)
David Joseph There are Physicists that are trying to come up with a model where the speed of light is not constant. See Joao Magueijo from Imperial College. Einstein special theory of relatively is so accurate that it must be capturing a great portion of how the Universe at large is working. So we keep it as true. But it is not a dogma in the sense that it can't be changed. We just need to get the right data. Some scientists look at it, but they fail to provide compelling evidence. The dogmas, I call it, assumptions, do not held back science: they are our ways to model the world, and they work well. You can look up the uses in mobile telecommunications. Having the speed of light to be constant has amazing implications like dilation of time, which was verified to the surprise of many and the relief of other. Very recently at CERN the physicists had some discrepancies in the measurements of the speed of some neutrinos, indicating the speed of light had be broken (we think nothing can break this speed), but they finally figure out they had bad measurements. This is to say they were ready to accept it and it would be a revolution. See for instance www.torontostandard.com/technology/oops-scientists-did-not-break-the-speed-of-light-blame-bad-connection It would be a welcomed revolution to understand and reconcile and improve our models of the world if we understand that some constants in physics are not constant in time! But there is only the suspicion and we need to research it. Ideas are welcome. Until then we will use what we figured out, and it was not easy to get there. We will know more. Given what I said, the author seems just tobe capitalizing cheap applauses from an unwarranted room of people, who I suspect of knowing little about the subject. It does not add much to say the hypotheses we work with and that have not yet been falsified might be wrong. We know that. To move forward, we need alternative understanding and data falsifying the previous that carry the same predictive power. For example read this www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
***** I like reading your perspective, thanks for sharing. I feel that Rupert Sheldrake addresses an important issue, and a lot of stagnation in physics is due to his and similar viewpoints not being represented. Whether or not he was contributing anything original to the discussion or getting what you call cheap applause... well, I don't think that matters. He's doing something to represent the spirit of investigation, which seems absent from most academics in present times.
Some of the things which Sheldrake brought up are ELEMENTARY to explain and it seems to stem from Sheldrake's misunderstanding of physics. It's all about experimental techniques essentially, and to misunderstand that is really quite an embarrassment for a scientist. There are much he doesn't understand about how complexity is generated from essentially simple systems. He seems to be ignoring a great deal of science to push what can ONLY be described as absolute bullshit!!!!
Mat Hunt Looking at his qualification, I am not sure if the man is mad or just misleading others by being intellectually dishonest after failing to push his pseudoscience. But the fact remains that even a person with basic but sound understanding of science should be able to see through this.
This man is a genius. He deserves much more credit than he gets. But yet again, who can blame the rigid scientists for being so ignorant about their belief-system they call objective truth.
I'm lucky enough to know Rupert. I say lucky because its always refreshing to meet someone who actually thinks. The most wonderful gift we have as human beings is our ability to think. So let's think for a second... Is Rupert suggesting that all science is wrong? nope. Is Rupert suggesting that he has all the answers? Nope. So what is he suggesting? Simply that we should never stop questioning the conclusions we make from the evidence we perceive. Because in doing so we might just miss something really worthwhile and important. What he's saying is, let's step back and have a think about what we know and what we don't know. Any real scientist will privately, behind closed doors, admit that theres still huge amounts of stuff we aren't even close to understanding. Take quantum physics for example... Rupert is no different. He never suggests that his morphic resonance explains everything and hes very open about that. But hes happy to do experiments to see whether a hypothesis is right or wrong and not throw away a hypothesis simply because it doesn't fit our comfortable scientific assumptoons. And yet the broad public perception is that we know it all but you know, there IS one constant that we never seems to change, and that's human arrogance. History is replete with people who got it right but were ridiculed by the establishment who KNEW categorically, that they were heretics... Darwin springs to mind conveniently... I don't think Rupert is some kind of prophet and frankly neither does he! He just likes to ask uncomfortable questions and you know, looking at the mess we're making of things in the world, maybe its time we all started asking more questions about what we know and what we don't know and face up to uncomfortable truths?
"Any real scientist will privately, behind closed doors, admit that theres still huge amounts of stuff we aren't even close to understanding." -- Why in private? They would even agree openly in public. But what really offends many people is when even fundamental conclusions of science (like say constants in Physics backed up be tons of evidence and measurement uncertainties of less than 1 part in a billion) are labeled as dogma. Now please understand, the issue is not even if they are "Ultimately" and "Absolutely" right or wrong. Take the case of Newtonian Physics. Many aspects of Newtonian had to be modified or abandoned. But is it justified to call people who upheld it as dogmatic? No ! They had good reasons to uphold Newtonian physics and it is still very useful and successful. Only in light of new EVIDENCE borne out by even more sensitive measurements, it had to be abandoned. but it was not dogmatic. So labeling say constants of Physics as one of "10 dogmas" is highly misleading. Even if one or the other constant turns out not to be a constant. Though as of now there no evidence for it. And if Sheldrake do want to assert something, let him back it up by providing experimental evidence to support his claim. And lets not call them dogmatic or delusions. Considering all the evidence it would delusional or dogmatic not to include them science, not the other way around.
invictus1453 Stop ignoring the evidence that already exists. There was a significant variation in the measurements across the board over a period of time.
***** You are just repeating things are already refuted. Nobody has ignored any "evidence". In fact things have been probed to a greater degree by labs around the world and no variation found to less than 1 part in a Billion. So how can you accuse me or researchers around the world of ignoring evidence? "The fact that the redefinition happened more recently is more likely evidence that the dogma still exists." -- How? This is frankly ridiculous. By defining "Meter" using speed of light, scientist have not swept anything "under the rug" or "hand waved". In fact in doing so they have stuck their necks out and shown bold confidence in their assertions. You know what this redefinition means? It means every major calibration lab around the world will use light to actually calibrate devices and our technology and industry will depend on it. Now as a consequence if speed of light varies from time to time, then our calibrations will go wrong resulting in disagreements among devices and manufacturing process. This will show up by creating havoc. And speed of light is still being measured by universities and labs around the world. The redefinition will no way prevents measuring speed of light. In fact the most famous experiments like cavity resonance or interferometer will not even depend on this definition of meter in anyway. And the current measurement uncertainty is less then 1 part in Billion. And yes. Sheldrake and his supporters can and should do experiments to demonstrate speed of light (as well as other constants) are varying before accusing scientists all over the world of dogmatic belief in constants. Let them try to show variation ! LOL
invictus1453 Yes you are ignoring it with excuses about how it's not happening now which are irrelevant. What's more relevant is the "fact" that the meter was defined by this so called constant against isolated but strong data. If there's an issue with the data then please point it out. Just stop hand waving it with irrelevant excuses and unfacilitated attacks on my understanding.
***** I am not providing "excuses", but reasons. You say -- " What's more relevant is the "fact" that the meter was defined by this so called constant against isolated but strong data. " as if there is some link between defining " Meter " using speed of light and sheldrake's so called "isolated but strong data". So lets examine it again more closely. First what the "isolated but strong data"? That is about 80 years ago, the variation in measurement of speed of light was 0.0066 % during a relatively short duration (that is 20 kms variation out of 300,000 kms per second). So there is your "strong data". Now did they immediately redefine "Meter"? Nope. That happened almost 50 years later in 1983. And by that time they had checked with even more sensitive LASER interferometer measurements. And what had they found? That measurement variation was less than 4 parts in a billion (in 1975). And right now its less than 1 part in a billion. No one has been able demostrate any variation. And every theory using these constants have been spectacularly successful (both Relativity and Standard Model). So, how can you assert "meter was defined by this so called constant against isolated but strong data"? That's misrepresentation of facts. Precisely what sheldrake is doing when he calls them "dogma ". And this from a person who dogmatically holds on to empirically discredited "morphic fields" (which requires ALL constants to vary). Now, if you or Sheldrake still assert that constants vary, please demonstrate it experimentally. The burden of justification is upon Sheldrake and those who assert that all constants of physics are "dogmas ". So where are the "irrelevant excuses and unfacilitated attacks" in all this?
And yet, the "scientific" board had no problem with Richard Dawkins' "talk"? The difference between the two is that they WANT Sheldrake to BE proved wrong while they already KNOW that Dawkins is wrong. Science is losing it's social stature/authority and - in trying to salvage it - its mind.
Dawkins has an understanding of science and of the scientific method, so his opinions and interpretations of science and scientific evidence are valid arguments, even if they're wrong. Rupert clearly shows in this talk that he doesn't understand the scientific method. And while I'm sure TED would be completely open to anyone challenging science, I can understand why they'd want to take down a talk where someone who challenges something fails to really understand what they're challenging.
cccincocc I understand what you are saying, but the point that I tried to make and that TED has stated as the reason for taking the talk down is that Sheldrake's talk was NOT based on real science or evidence. His evidence is unscientific, his talk is full of factual errors, and his arguments are weak. It really doesn't have anything to do with open mindedness or social politics. It just wasn't real science, plain and simple.
the0utcastVideos what was weak and not scientific? things start as theories, not proofs. the lack of testing of his hypothesis leaves the door open, not closed. i look forward to your response. thank you.
Amanda Abbot These comments were made a while ago, so I'm not sure I remember all of this argument. However, in response to your comment, it seems evident that you might not be aware of what the definition of a scientific theory is. A quick google search brings me to wiki's page in which a scientific theory is, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." Thus, Sheldrake's ideas are a quick hypothesis at best, based on his personal opinions. There is no evidence or factual data to back up his claims. Actually, the evidence goes against his opinions, which makes his argument that much harder to conceive. I'm all for proving theories wrong, but you can't just ignore what evidence IS in place and make up your own to compel an audience in the direction of your own opinion. That's why I'm saying his argument is not valid or scientific.
This video is hardly banned. Ted moved the video, not banned the video. They wanted to add a written introduction to the video because Rupert Sheldrake is considered by the scientific community to be a pseudo-scientist and he often makes straw man arguments against scientists, like he does in this video. blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/
This point has been made several times before in the comments and you are misinformed. If you were following events at the time you would know that this talk, along with Graham Hancock's, was banned 3 weeks after it was originally posted on TH-cam. They pulled the videos down and notified the event organisers and speakers. There was then a large public backlash, partly due to Hancock making people aware of what was going on via his Facebook page (Sheldrake was out of the country at the time.) So TED then uploaded a non-public embedded Vimeo link to their blog page (presumably to save face and to attempt to quash any accusations of censorship.) They also included a long list of false accusations against both the speakers, which they later had to fully retract as they were demonstrably inaccurate. So yes technically speaking the video is now available in a limited form on the blog section of the TED website (see link in video description.) But the word banned in the title of this video gets the gist of the situation accross well enough I feel. After all it is a video title and therefor needs to be short and concise. The full story is briefly explained in the info box with the approriate link to TED's site and the annotations at the start of the video direct viewers to that very place.
So that's how you guys respond when someone points out the fact that the majority of scientists consider him a pseudo-scientist, you make ad hominem arguments, come up with conspiracy theories, and make red herrings, eh? Very mature and very persuasive. You sure convinced me.
Madame Min It is an argument, whether it is a good argument or not is debatable. Also, because the fallacy of appealing to authority is an informal fallacy and thus is a flaw in reasoning, not logic itself, then appeals to authority are only considered fallacious if the authority is not qualified on the subject or is irreverent-even if you use a Latinized version of the name for the fallacy. For example, appealing to someone who is strictly a physicist when talking about psychology or claiming because Einstein was part of religious group X (or part of non-religious group Y), then religious group X (or non-religious group Y) is therefore correct. (I personally I have seen this done for both of these examples a few times). If you take a college level intro to philosophy or intro to logic, then you would most likely hear about the correct (non-fallacious) and incorrect (fallacious) ways to appeal to an authority.
Ian Hough would you mind linking a few of the reports against Rupert Sheldrake or even Graham Hancock? especially if they aren't personal attacks, just deconstructions of their arguments. I'm interested in where the scientific community draws the line of what is science and what is pseudo-science and this seems like a nice place to start.
R Leakey - "Peer Review is scientific ritual." - I suppose that peer review is a process and so is ritual but what other qualities do they share to justify your assertion? (based, of course on actually definitions from a dictionary rather than ones you've made up)
32shumble Thanks, you agreed at least. I am not minimizing the importance of Peer Review but same time, I am not in the position to agree that Peer Review is only the best way to validate something. In 80s, when I was young graduate student of science, I used to think in similar ways as the most of youths think today but after reading Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos, my perception changed positively. Now I am no more dogmatic in my views. I suggest you think out of box. Here, I would like to quote Feyerabend, "Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methods and unscientific results, ... the separation of science and non-science is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. If we want to understand nature, if we want to master our physical surroundings, then we must use all ideas, all methods, and not just a small selection of them."
I must agree on most things said, but he IS JUST DESCRIBING HOW ONLY SOME BAD "SCIENTISTS" think... most of us do NOT dogmatise science as described. Criticism is the essence of science, and these presentations are completely in line with good sceince. Kind Regards
The latest research including the Double Slit Theory proves that matter comes from mind, not the opposite. People trying to silence him are afraid of the human free conscience, investigations into that which exists beyond the existential should be encouraged not repressed. Dr Sheldrake is a pioneer.
Double slit experiments don't show that matter comes from the mind, but (just as strange) that certain quantum results are dependent on the state of 'which path' information, which is in principle knowable. This isn't to say that a human is required for the quantum effect.
@@joelsunil2138 again, another common debate amongst the scientific community/followers. Where is your proof that it isn’t the case? This is why it’s an ongoing debate because neither hypothesis can be refuted.
why was this talk banned? For that matter why was the title of his book changed from The Science Delusion to Science Set Free in North America? It's cool for a book called The God Delusion to be published but God forbid (err... nvm) that we criticize the holy tenants of science! Reminds me of that episode of South Park where they found a religion of science after Richard Dawkins
I imagine because he was threatened with being sued for his title being too close to 'The God Delusion' and basically using someone else's work to promote his own? This is just a theory...but it seems likely. Either that. or almost nobody's read the God Delusion in the US?;)
I'd imagine because of what he says at 11:15 . Essentially he's making a claim about a bunch of scientists at an institution lying about their research. If he can't provide evidence that they lied they might have the ability to sue him for slander. That would be my guess anyway.
Science will evolve and prove telepathy is real and possible. Just because you haven't experienced something, don't assume it isn't real. I can tell you 100% I KNOW IT AS A FACT that something comes very close to it, and it isn't dependent on technology. It may be dependent on fungi, or it may be dependent on meditation. Not sure which. But I know that it is real and not just in my head. I had a real intimate relationship with a girl and I can tell you now that I am a few years older it all seems like a fucking impossible dream. But I am betting all my hopes on one short moment which was before I ruined my health at about 16 years old. A lot changes when you get older. You harden and become skeptical, less easy to relate with the world and to connect with your perceptions as you trust less. But trust me we don't understand it, I don't even understand it. The closest theory I would use to come close to what I experienced would be some kind of light or heat generated within my own body that other people can feel or sense somehow. We can feel infrared light as heat, for example. But I know from that that telepathy is possible. If you want to know my experience, let me just say that I loved my self on such a deep level that when I looked inward to a special place which seems foreign to me now but back then this woman could feel it and she looked up at me. I appeared as still, I didn't move my body. I maybe moved internally which is what this woman could sense and feel. But really it was all mental. All I did was think of a location that I achieved in meditation. It was no mistake or coincidence. As soon as I looked inward I got a direct response from her. I was taking a lot of mushrooms back then and eating a TONNN of raw fruits and vegetables... I just loved myself, alright? I dropped out of high school to meditate every day for nearly 2 years of my life I did nothing but take a lot of mushrooms and was eating very healthy. But I guess from all my meditation I understood my inner landscape a lot more. Most "spiritual" moment of my life, involving another person. Because looking back on that, I know without a shadow of doubt that telepathy, real telepathy, must be possible. It's all within you. I cannot believe it is possible with the way I am now, but, I do know it is possible. #GoldenYears #Dreams #Goals
My point is that any resistance to Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) model proposed by Penrose and Hamerof has very little to do with atheism. Penrose is an atheist. The real debate here is between Strong AI and it's opponents. Though there are some like John Searl who oppose both Strong AI as well as Penrose / Hamerof hypothesis. I have read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. I enjoyed it. Penrose is attacking Strong AI promoted by people like Douglas Hofstadter in another great book, GEB. The debate is actually very interesting. Penrose uses notions of computability as well as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in his arguments. But his interpretations have been questioned by other Mathematicians / Philosophers. Not possible to go in to details on you tube comment section. It must also be remembered that directly testing Penrose / Hamerof hypothesis is extremely difficult. In fact they have not been able to test it so far (to my knowledge). Testing Quantum Entanglements in general even in a physics lab (let alone in the brain) has not been easy. It was not achieved until until 1980's. And only recently has it been becoming a common experiment. So we should not simply assume some atheist conspiracy behind everything.
Rupert rocks! I was a passenger in a friends car traveling down a residential street at about 30 miles an hour. A van was approaching us from the opposite direction. When the van was about 20ft away from us, a young boy on a bicycle rode out of his driveway right into the path of the van. I tensed up knowing what was about to happen...except nothing happened. As the van passed us we saw the boy on the bike casually crossing the street about 70 feet in front of us. I looked at my friend and we both had the same incredulous reaction. '"Did you see what I just saw?!" "Did you see that?!" "What the hell just happened?!" We are a long, long way from figuring it all out.
It’s extremely clear that TED failed to reasonably disambiguate Sheldrake’s remarks. He is not criticizing Science, or researchers; rather, he is declaring that there’s a branch, within the scientific community as a whole, of Scientism-ists. These are eliminative materialists, and other people who share a bizarre world-view, a kind of unadmitted religion, that claims to be scientific in principle, but (formally) isn’t. It’s a world-view. This causes scientific results to be misinterpreted according to the principles of this view. It creates something that should never really be a part of Science at all: a dominating, materialist world-view, that does what science should not: it tells us what qualities things, beings, situations must have. It pre-determines the meaning of what is discovered. It declares »identity itself, when it should be asking questions. Science, as a way of knowing, is not equipped to declare identity. Rather, it examines relationships. And data (a peculiar form of information). In any case, Sheldrake was highlighting an actual, serious problem. A religion masquerading to the public as science. Science itself is nowhere indicted by Sheldrake - he was trying to disclose an ideological imperative which has infected not merely science but modern 'thought'. This is a branch of the DISC (E. Wienstein - Distributed Information Suppression Complex) that is exceptionally contagious, and represents a collapse of imagination, curiosity, and understanding. TED’s 'interpretation’ of Sheldrake transfers his actually reasonable concern about a cohort within the scientific community to science itself. That’s on them, not Sheldrake. It’s a childishly confused error.
Not so! One can only investigate that which they can physically gain evidence for. That doesn't necessarily mean that something needs to be observed only that it's effects can be observered or measured. The main problem with science is the lack of understanding by the general public and a willingness to accept the views of anybody claiming to be an authority of a subject that they (the public) themselves know little to nothing about. That irrational acceptance of "The facts" has nothing to do with the practices or beliefs of those in the scientific community. What you have in that instance is esentially incredulous people trusting what might appear on the surface to be an argument from authority. Which would be the case IF there wasn't peer review of published papers and these statements were the view of one scientist. They aren't they are the view of a group of scientist that worked in collaboration to produce a paper based on results from their research and experimentation which was then reviewed by 10s if not 100s of experts in that field who either agree or disagree with the findings. Generally that which is considered a scientific theory has undergone the test of time with further discovories being predicted and then found later on to match the prediction. .
Sheldrake abuses the word dogma. None of his 10 claims he calls dogma is a dogma in the sense that it is a "principle laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". These are claims about what has been observed and is believed to be true and they certainly are controvertible (even if there is no controversy, possibly because of the lacking evidence). Someone who could refute, for example, the constant nature of the speed of light c or of acceleration G would surely win a Nobel price. Sheldrake seems not to realise or understand that science is about truth and in particular that the most desired position to be in as a scientist is to refute a claim everybody thought was true before. Every scientist would love to be able to show that the speed of light is not a constant, really! They just don't think they are able and have never been, so far. If there are dogmas in science it is reproducibility and falsifiability (funny that Sheldrake didn't even mention them). These are the core ideas of the scientific method and a successful challenge would entirely change science as we know it.
"Every scientist would love to be able to show that the speed of light is not a constant, really! " - Yes. One only has to remember the sensation produced about a year ago when it was announced by a European lab that neutrinos appeared be traveling faster than light. It produced shock and sensation. Later of course it after taking a deeper look and cross checking that it turned out to be an experimental error. But for a few months physicists were anticipating a revolution in their ideas. So much for so called "Dogma ".
invictus1453 Absolutely. What was less well reported though, was that the Italian lab involved had a discrepancy of about 0.001% and didn't believe themselves that neutrinos traveled faster than light; they just couldn't find where they'd gone wrong. They published anyway and 6 months later it was discovered they'd made two measurement errors. They republished their results with the error corrected and practically no one picked up on the story. The world love the headline: "Einstein Wrong" and no one was interested in "Actually, Einstein Right" - so still when you ask people, they'd say neutrinos travel faster than light, if they could remember the word 'neutrino.' As an aside, the implication was that time travel would be possible, and there was a joke going around Cern at the time that went: "And the barman said we don't serve neutrinos; a neutrino walks into a bar" - I only mention this because it's the funniest thing any scientist ever said.
TED is under the control of many organizations they would never let you speak if you know something that could kick this system into balls, before it didn't look like but now what kind of BS they are doing it's not longer platform there are these sick peoples and it's not watchable anymore.
I’m only a Lawyer, but I consider science as a religion full of dogmas like Christianity but for those that actually have read more books other than the Bible. So they are full of it same as a Christian would say a Jew “good luck where you’re going for you do not believe in The Lord Jesus Christ” and people will keep fighting among themselves out of those dogmas, some of them will kill. Good, if people keep the litis we lawyers can always take advantage of it, so keep fighting.
Sheldrake is a briliant man. His ideas make a lot of sense. Sadly, some of mainstream science and for sure dogmatic scientism is just not ready to hear these ideas.
Was this really banned? Or was it just too uninteresting to keep? Ted talks explicitly stated that it want to record for the benefit of social understanding, those people that have particular and diverse insights to create constructive discussion. This guy....is just making assertions and claiming them to be inherent problems with scientific progress, while promoting himself.
Yeah this talk is almost exactly the same as the first chapter or so of the audio book 'Science Set Free'. He should rename this talk to "Buy My Book, Buy My Book, Buy My Book' .....I think TED is pretty much against that.
Michael Baker yeah, I've never seen any TED talker talk about the book they wrote or the research papers they've done, or the movies they've been in....
When people sing the praises of the scientific method, they often fail to appreciate that the sciences are a very human phenomenon. They fail to recognize that there are prejudices/authorities that will be more open to certain kinds of experiments/evidence than others. They fail to recognize how powerful the underlying metaphysical commitments shared by many in the scientific community (materialism), shapes the community as a whole. Every time someone argues what science is by definition, completely disregarding how it's actually carried out in practice, are similar to people with a religious allegiance--often without even realizing it.
The diference is that you can't battle against what works, science is simply the study of the natural world and the phenomena within it, we know science it's real because it works, as simple as that, and because so far we havent found any instante where it doesnt work
@@roro-mm7cc I find it's almost impossible to make a nuanced critique of something without it being received in some extreme either/or form. I make a comment about problems/dogmatism in the sciences, and people immediately assume it's anti science. I'm not sure what to do about this. I suppose I need to write everything in some insane long form where I assure people I'm not advocating throwing the scientific method out the window and propping up charlatanism or whatever. But, I don't think that will work, either. People look for battle lines whether one makes concessions or not.
@@carso1500 I find it's almost impossible to make a nuanced critique of something without it being received in some extreme either/or form. I make a comment about problems/dogmatism in the sciences, and people immediately assume it's anti science. I'm not sure what to do about this. I suppose I need to write everything in some insane long form where I assure people I'm not advocating throwing the scientific method out the window and propping up charlatanism or whatever. But, I don't think that will work, either. People look for battle lines whether one makes concessions or not.
@@radphilospher I get that in some industries (such as pharmaceuticals) there may be a preference to fund certain avenues of research that may be geared towards creating a profitable treatment, rather than what would be the most efficacious. But that doesn't mean the science behind this research itself is "incorrect" or indeed the scientific method is a delusion - just there may be a more effective treatment pathway that is being ignored and if the scientific method was applied and funded towards researching this it would be discovered.
We are all connected in Consciousness and it is deeply reassuring to know there are great minds bringing this to light. We are beginning to wake up and need this to be discussed. Thank you Rupert.
What do you mean we are all connected? People say this all the time and it sounds like a cliche but what do you actually mean when you say it? Connected how? And do you mean metaphorically, spiritually, or actually?
@@mikepayne2581 it's meant quite literally. Think of it like this: conciousness is "the Mind of God", and the Mind of God is a river, constantly flowing, and within thar flow of water there are thousands upon thousands of whirlpools. Those whirlpools, when looked at individually, give the illusion that they are separate from each other, while they are their own individual identity, they are made of the same substance, water (conciousness) with only the illusion of separation. If you want to think about it mechanically: We are all connected to the same wifi (conciousness), we just have our own fiber optic cable (soul/individual conciousness) and our processors (brain/body) are different, so they process the signal differently. But strip away the cable and the processor and its all coming from the same source, its simply being transferred differently from human machine to human machine
Biomorphic Resonance? In my book that is called pseudoscience. How did this person get to speak at a TED talk? The meter is not defined by the speed of light, it was a measurement of 1/10th millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator. The speed of light measurement from the meter was to fit the meter length in relation to the speed of light. As our calculations of the speed of light gets more precise over time the figure will change BUT the meter length will NOT change. The original meter bar is held in France. The speed of light did not change, only our calculation of it got more refined...any first year physics student knows this. Also was this person not wearing any shoes and socks or what?
Pay attention, you are the one who may not have any socks. The speed of light is DEFINED EXACTLY as 299,792,458 metres per second, that is, a metre is 1/299,792,458 the distance travelled by light in 1 standard second. The speed of light is defined this way and has nothing to do with a metre stick in Paris. I suggest that Mr. Sheldrake is on the ball, you are not.
Yes but you don t understand that the meter is apply to the calculation of the speed of light and not the speed of light applied to the calculation of the meter. The meter as a measurement existed way before we knew the speed of light. That was the point. The way Sheldrake presented it was that as if scientists were guessing or making changes to a fundamental part of physiscs. It wasn't the case. Tomorrow we could say that the speed of light is equal to 1805675879 websites per second as in the number of sites that can be loaded as light travels one second. It would not change the actual speed of light, just the way it is represented as a measurement. Happy New Year
Sorry, I do understand what Mr. Sheldrake's point is. His point is that "constants" may not be constants. The modern definition of the speed of light relies on the distance travelled by light in a standard second, not on a standard rigid body. The subject of rigid bodies in understanding basic physics questions has a very rich history in the development of relativity. It even played a role for Eisntein in his initial thinking about general relativity. You can research the subject. Mr. Sheldrake's point (presumably) is that by eliminating the standard physical (rigid body) metre, and defining distance in terms of the standard second, the unit will always, by definition, be constant. Perhaps a rigid meter measurement would yield a changing value compared to the new standarised definition. The subject I think is actually quite complex. But his point is to show that if you have a certain world view you can rig things to conform with your expectations. Whether or not his other ideas have merit I do not know; I have not researched it enough to make a judgement based on facts, not opinions.
***** You are right about the point sheldrake is trying to make. But let me just add that I do not think that there is any merit in the point he is making. "Meter" is defined using the speed of light. The justification for definition is the invariance of speed of light (according to contemporary framework of physics). However, this definition will not prevent us from noticing if this framework does not hold up. If speed of light is varying, then it has to vary with respect to some physical quantity. In other words, the relationships of contemporary physics should not hold. And that will be noticeable in measurements. Also, the main advantage of this definition is that it's universality helps in calibration. So suppose I calibrate a physical scale using speed of light in a lab. If at a later point of time I calibrate another rod, and these two rods do not match, then the discrepancy will be noticeable. In other words, calibrations done by calibration labs will not hold up. Speed of light is still being measured using various techniques. From cavity resonance to interferometers. For example, astronomical measurements use the reciprocal of speed of light. And in 2009, "relative uncertainty in these measurements is 0.02 parts per billion" (it is in Wikipedia). Lastly, physicists have always considered and are considering various speculative theories that speculate as to what would happened if speed of light in changing. For example, less than a year ago there was a speculative paper written about how quantum fluctuations (specifically Fermion pair production) may result in variation in electric and magnetic permeability in vacuum, which in turn will might lead to variation in speed of light. However, since no variation has so far been found up to one part in a billion, this paper predicts an extremely small variation at the order of a Femtosecond. This is yet to be tested and the authors of the paper wrote that they plan to test it. So much for speed of light being a "Dogma" in physics.
Professor Sheldrake, thank you (years late!) - a fascinating talk, and I really enjoyed your stock-market analogy on constants. To me, Scientific Thinking has always been a procedural thing, and dogmatic thinking an Anathema, whether in its religious, cultural, historical, national, international, scientific, or philosophical aspects, etc.. That is, perhaps, the main reason I cannot stop learning, every day…
I don't understand why this is banned. This man seems very reasonable, despite that I don't agree with everything he says. He didn't berate or make fun of anybody-he just stated what is wrong with the current scientific mindset and what questions should be asked when studying the universe.
Noble prize winner, Szent-Györgyi also brilliantly presented the outcome of the mechanistic view of an organism: “As scientists attempt to understand a living system, they move down from dimension to dimension, from one level of complexity to the next lower level. I followed this course in my own studies. I went from anatomy to the study of tissues, then to electron microscopy and chemistry, and finally to quantum mechanics. This downward journey through the scale of dimensions has its irony, for in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps, trying to fight my way back.”4 Traditionally, in both eastern and western philosophy, life is understood as a cognitive or sentient principle. Sentience cannot be manufactured artificially by any noble mechanical and chemical arrangement of dead atoms and molecules. In the ancient eastern philosophy based on the Vedāntic or Bhagavat paradigm, for example, the invocation of Śrī Īśopanisad provides the concept of ‘Organic Wholism’:5 “oḿ pūrnam adah pūrnam idaḿ pūrnāt pūrnam udacyate pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya pūrnam evāvaśisyate - The ‘Organic Whole’ produces ‘organic wholes’. An ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be assembled. That process can only produce inorganic, mechanical or chemical processes, not living organisms.” A similar conclusion was made by Rudolph Virchow in 1858, “omnis cellula e cellula” (“every cell comes from a cell”) *Knowledge in the mode of ignorance increases ignorance, not knowledge* Suppose a person goes deep into an unending dark tunnel. The deeper they go into the tunnel, the further they go from the light. Similar is the result of cultivating knowledge in the mode of ignorance. It is the state where we get caught in one fragment of reality while forgetting the rest of reality (Bhagavad-gita 18.22). To understand, consider a surgeon who operates a patient’s heart carefully but neglects the rest of the body and ends up cutting the lungs. Result? Operation successful, patient dead. Similarly, today’s predominant ideology of materialism reduces science to scientism. Whereas science seeks material explanations for material phenomena, scientism presumes, unscientifically, that matter is all that exists. But matter doesn’t seek to study science or understand reality; we seek to. Evidently, that seeker is something more than matter. That trans-material self is the source of the consciousness that enables us to seek any knowledge, including scientific knowledge. By the materialist ideology, whatever else we may know, we know not the knower that knows. The deeper we go into the dark tunnel of materialism, the further we go from the great bright sky outside. Tragically, we celebrate our descent into darkness as the progressive march of knowledge, while labelling the open sky as the fantasy of regressive ignoramuses. Nonetheless, Gita wisdom stimulates our longing for light with an intellectually stimulating depiction of that vast sky: Reality comprises matter, spirit and the unlimited source of both. In our pursuit of knowledge, matter is meant to be instrumental, not terminal. The orderliness of matter that is revealed through science is a pointer to a transcendental organizer. This holistic vision of matter shows us the way from the tunnel to the light. Walking the Gita’s way, we gradually realize our spirituality and relish enduring harmony with our source. Bg. 18.22 यत्तु कृत्स्नवदेकस्मिन्कार्ये सक्तमहैतुकम् । अतत्त्वार्थवदल्पं च तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥२२॥ Translation And that knowledge by which one is attached to one kind of work as the all in all, without knowledge of the truth, and which is very meager, is said to be in the mode of darkness.
There are two issues in this video and I think a lot of people end up conflating the two. The first is whether or not science and scientists in general assume too much about their knowledge of the universe and need to double check their basic beliefs from time to time. The second is his own theories on the nature of the universe. It is important to look at these two as different points because even if he's wrong in his own theories of the universe it doesn't mean that it isn't worth looking at how science is done and whether it is a bit to ridged. I tend to agree that he is probably wrong about a lot of these things, but that's the great thing about science. You can actually check your beliefs and see if they are right and it's generally more exciting to find out you were wrong than to confirm that you were right because being wrong means you've actually discovered something.
Excellent point. I was thinking the same thing myself. Holding the traditions of science accountable for whatever biases we see in them is commendable. Accepting this does not mean that we accept Sheldrake's morphic resonance idea or his other ideas.
Science can never be to rigid, that is why it is science. Without Rigid we end up thinking like this speaker in that he forms incorrect assumptions about things and never double checks them. That is the problem I have about this talk. He talks about a lot of things as though he understands them when he does not. He claims to know what scientist think and what science says about various topics and then swings and misses the entire video because he has no clue. He formed his own Dogmas and just ran with it never double checking which is ironic because he is acting exactly like what he is complaining about. Science is not acting like that... he is. Science double checks its work constantly and forever. This guy reads it on a webpage than forms a million theories about that half piece of information he just read before understanding what he read. Than he forms more theories based on his theories which spawn more theories until he is miles from the truth. I have seen people like him before and if you have any clue about science it is obvious what TED had issues with in this video. The guy was just serious wrong on many levels.
@@seditt5146 He does have Ph.D. in natural sciences from Cambridge; I would image that many of his frustrations with how scientific practices contradict the basic principles of scientific research actually stem from his experiences as a researcher. For sure, the "dogmas" he's pointing out are strawman arguments - what else could they be, if we're talking on such level of generality as this. So each one of them can easily be refuted - kind of - by pointing out a case where a scientist doesn't align with one of the dogmas in some case. It's not hard to find such examples. What's shocking, though, is that it's also fairly easy to find proponents of each of the dogmas within the scientific community, where there should really be none (if science really is as scientific as it purports to be). That's why I think Sheldrake's project is laudable.
Interestingly enough, one can find many similar arguments in Richard Feynman's work, for instance in his autobiographical books. He could provide a more "credible" reference for some of these questions, even though (as you write) a real scientific mind should also be able to dismiss the Ad Hominem and actually consider Sheldrake's arguments about scientific practice, distinct from his original theories that may be somewhat dubious.
@@samijarvinen1585 I know he has a PhD however that really does not make him any less of a crackpot. He is no longer a scientist and has not practiced science in many decades. Instead I guess he found it more lucrative to peddle pseudo-science as he purposefully cranks out one bullshit hypothesis after another, stuff that would make tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist blush. Many of the "Dogmas" he discusses in this talk alone show he has a complete lack of general understanding about Science and how it works which is likely why he spends much of his life now attacking "Skeptics" aka anyone that disagrees with him that he has telekinetic powers. I wish that was a fucking joke but it's not. This guy is fucking insane and he knows just enough big science words to sucker in most of the population with Quantum Woo but those of us that know about the stuff he is talking about know he is completely and utterly clueless about how anything he talks about works. It seems like he reads a Science book and goes to lectures yet only hears keywords and stuff he wants to hear... the rest he just fills in with imaginary stuff he wants to be real yet every single person that has done any kind of peer review on his work has proven without a doubt is fake. Despite constantly being proven wrong he insist it is the skeptics who are wrong and the bad guys, not the insane washed up scientist that couldn't hack it in the field. That is why he hates science... He wants his hypothesis to be true but they are not true. Instead of doing Science and altering your hypothesis he instead still believes his disproved hypothesis is true and it is instead the scientific method that is wrong. The scientific method can not be wrong and we have proven that using the scientific method ironically enough.
There is nothing to ban here, but probably his talk should be ridiculed and appropriately vetted. Rupert is thinking freely and critically thinking. This is what science is all about. He is not trying to sneak "god" in through the back door, like the intelligent design people do. Rather he is just trying to shake the foundations a bit. However, I find some of his statements suspect, like the universe "popping out of nothing", the "goodness" of alternative therapies, and ESP as a property of the mind. He has not overcome those dogmas yet it seems.
***** Modern cosmology does not accept the notion that the universe popped out of "nothing". Dark matter and dark energy are not observable but they are assumed to exist, and supported by evidence, so the idea that he puts it forward as a "science" dogma, is nonsense or easily refuted.
Andrew Lohbihler I'm not a scientist and I appreciate we are talking generally about big questions...is an assumption scientific in this context...? If it is unobservable how is there 'evidence'? This would all appear to be pseudo science to me? At some point even well researched opinion is simply just opinion. Maybe we are at a threshold where words can no longer function to describe the 'physical' universe perhaps in the same way that science whose beauty is to my mind the creation of questions not answers...when did art, philosophy. spirituality and science drift so far apart anyway...
Andrew Lohbihler it did not pop out of nothing but there is dark matter dark energy brilliant thank you mr i almost doubted my atheist religion but you saved me
They banned this? I have watched much poorer presentations on TED, this talk is quite interesting. Why should anyone feel so threatened? LOL. Rupert Sheldrake is just challenging, that's all there is to it. Can you imagine the bleating mess it would make of physics if constants turned out inconstant? I shudder at the meer thought of it.
By "poorer" you mean less entertaining or less understandable to you? He claims himself as a scientist. He should have done simple research about the constants and publish it, yet he just presented some "dialog". And where is that "evidence" about global crystal growth and rat learning or esp? He is a fraud, that is why they banned this. The speech is inspiring, but it is useless.
***** Less interesting and more delusional or kinky, imho. I haven't seen any of the evidence for crystal growth and the rest, but I hope it's all in his latest book "The Science Delusion", which I am thinking of getting a copy of. Anything that does not go with one's convictions and thoughts of what truth is is a threat to one's integrity and naturally unpleasant to deal with. That's why, for instance, some religious people have a massive tantrum just hearing something like "Mohammad was a pervert". This illustrates what the power of belief can do to our rational side. What is useless is discarding what challenges us to critically examine our conventions. Do you think RS is lying about the discrapancies in the measured values of constants?
wow its actually scaring me how many people are actually being done in by this. Humans are very emotional beings which tends to get in the way of rational thought.. of course its right to question everything but that is exactly what the scientific method IS.. mark my words what he is suggesting is quite the opposite... which is to make bold claims that appeal to the emotional side of humans with absolutely no proof or data behind it - and then discounting the very method that would be used to question/scrutinise his theory as a way to avoid having to prove it in any way. This is dangerous thinking and I can quite see why TED removed it now.. sometimes bbad ideas/misinformarion can actively harm society e.g causing people to distrust science already causes a huge amount of harm e.g people not vaccinating their children - this not only puts your own child at risk but also all the other children around your child. This is dangerous.. please people try to not let your emotions interfere with your rationality - this is the way you are manipulated.
wow its actually scaring me how many people are actually being done in by this. Humans are very emotional beings which tends to get in the way of rational thought.. of course its right to question everything but that is exactly what the scientific method IS.. mark my words what he is suggesting is quite the opposite... which is to make bold claims that appeal to the emotional side of humans with absolutely no proof or data behind it - and then discounting the very method that would be used to question/scrutinise his theory as a way to avoid having to prove it in any way. This is dangerous thinking and I can quite see why TED removed it now.. sometimes bbad ideas/misinformarion can actively harm society e.g causing people to distrust science already causes a huge amount of harm e.g people not vaccinating their children - this not only puts your own child at risk but also all the other children around your child. This is dangerous.. please people try to not let your emotions interfere with your rationality - this is the way you are manipulated.
Unbelievable that this was censored. Everything this brilliant man says in this talk is actually obvious once you get outside the paradigm (or ideology). How unscientific it is to censor facts about science! Sheldrake is a scientific treasure: sadly, like so many brilliant people, he probably won't be appreciated by the establishment until after he's dead.
My opinion is that TED was right on this one. Its not presenting an idea that can help the future (which is the aim of TED) its saying all assertions are dogma. All beliefs are dogma and the way to open up evolution is to refute all attempts at building a 'structure of concepts' as unscientific. What happens when you tear down all structures? You are homeless, in chaos. The inability to hold structured concepts is like altzeimers. Or deep level anxiety. There is no ground to stand on. Its a path to mental illness. You cant just stand there and trash everything thats not what TEDS about. TED is ideas not about broadcasting a DOGMA that ideas are closeminded and shrinking reality and slowing down evolution
@@Lamster66 you can’t progress any scientific field and discover new things without questioning past works and also proposing new hypothesis. This is the entire scientific process
@@ozone8839 No what you have described is what a Scientific process should be. However there is nothing Scientific in this Idiots "Hypothesis". If you could even call it that. A hypothesis is usually based on some evidence that suggests a particular cause or outcome. Not a random idea pulled out of your ass! Usually Physical constraints result in a lack of data meaning that a Hypothesis remains theoretical rather than having further evidence to support it and progessing to a Scientific theory.. Hypothesis that have been shown to be correct are called Theories Hypothesis that have no evidence to back them up are called B.S!
@@Lamster66 Hence why I used the word hypothesis and not theory. You’re not going to get a hypothesis without asking questions whether they’re based on past works or are a completely new idea. You can’t propose a hypothesis without questioning. And if you can’t propose a hypothesis then you can’t develop a theory. It all starts with a question so for you to say that you’re a bad scientist if you’re questioning things is just plain wrong. And who are you to question this mans hypothesis. Like you say they’re hypothesis so there is nothing more to say. They’re not proven and we can only speculate. But you’re contradicting yourself when you yourself can say that this man is factually wrong. You have no idea whether he is wrong or not. The best scientists are open minded. How do you think Copernicus proposed Heliocentrism. By being intuitive and challenging prior scientific theories to prove them wrong and provide a better theory. He didn’t do that without asking questions I can assure you that.
@@ozone8839 Except that isn't what I said! What I said is that a hypothesis is based on some kind of evidence that suggests a cause or outcome. It isn't an Idea that you pull out of your arse based on a feeling about something! The guy talking in the video has done exactly that there is neither evidence to suggest or confirm what he is saying. And without that it is merely the illogical ramblings of an Idiot!
Calling these as dogmas is misleading. There's no reason to assume anything, if there is no proof of that. For instance: why would anyone assume that matter HAS consciousness?
Thank you Rupert Sheldrake. Your ideas are a liberation to us all. They may or may not all be necessarily correct, but i suspect many of them are. More importantly you are a model of open mindedness, reminding us how crucial it is to question the assumptions that underlie the current paradigm and dominant world view. It is remarkable that so many in the so called 'scientific' community have felt so threatened by your willingness to scrutinise the beliefs, the dogmas, that form the foundation of established orthodoxy. Ironic that so many 'scientists' should be so reluctant to consider new ideas, isn't that after all meant to be the very heart of scientific enquiry. And a special thank you also to TEDx for banning this talk, highlighting this suspicion of new ideas in such a graphic manner, your act of trying to censor free thought has in fact made this talk ever so more appealing and i dare say far more popular.
One issue I've always taken within science is that we can build upon what others have done. When expanding science becomes limited then we'll have a problem.
A favorite story of mine, from studying physics... Back at the turn of the century, when the 3 'fundamental particles', the electron, the proton, and the neutron, were being discovered, Rutherford's opinion was that the neutron was simply a proton and electron 'bound together in some way'. Later physicists claimed this was incompatible with quantum physics. But, then later still, it was discovered that a neutron (particularly when not confined within the nucleus of an atom) decays....into a proton and an electron (and a neutrino).
Actually science needs 2 free miracles - 1) the big bang, 2) the beginning of life. Neither can be explained properly by science, though scientists do try to make educated guesses that kind of sound sort of semi-believable if you squint and don't focus too hard on the facts xD Edit: And that's not to say I'm against science - I studied Biochemistry at Uni and I was very interested in the origin of life in particular, I am also not at all religious... though I do feel like the Universe is conscious, and that everything in the Universe (including us) are parts of that greater consciousness, the same way that I am conscious and all my cells are little parts of that consciousness....
There’s definitely a few free miracles but I wouldn’t say the beginning of life is one. At the beginning life was just a random chemical reaction that happened to not be extinguished.
Believing that our universe is mechanical, while scoffing at the idea of an electric universe, (while at the same time relying completely on electricity in *all* we do), is a perfect example of the dillusion referred to here.
What is so scandalous about this? He is basically making the argument that Hume made like 250 years ago. Science isn't god. Duh! The fact that people react with such kneejerk disgust says much more about their intellectual depth than anything else.
I really don’t understand why this was banned. He’s basically saying dogmatic scientists need to go back to what science is really all about, asking theses questions and actually research and study it instead of assuming everything is answered, we won’t progress that way. And it’s true! Everything is not answered and stopping now and just going on assumptions is pretty ignorant, especially if you’re a scientist.
If you go deeper into figuring out why it's banned, you'll see there's typically some financial interest behind it. Always is something like that. It's easier for a dishonest scientist to keep their job when they've studied the same thing for 3 decades and don't want to open their minds to the possibility that they're wrong, or else they'll lose funding, their livelihood, and basically undergo an existential crisis because they built their whole career around something that they don't want to see disproven. It's groupthink but at a corrupt level and very widespread. It's also like an authoritarian disease, now that phrases such as "trust the science" are being weaponized for political and monetary benefit
one of the first things my ninth grade biology teacher taught us was that dogma kills science - im happy that other people are seeing that there are dogmatic beliefs in science that are probably prohibiting us from advancing further :)
Very interesting guy, who raises some very important points on how we deal with science. What is the motivation behind these TED people banning him I wonder?
Do you see a similarity? "And yet it moves" or "Albeit it does move" (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the immovable[1] Sun rather than the converse during the Galileo affair.
![[FULL EP.16] เซียนพาลุย "เผือก-ฟรอยด์" กรี๊ดลั่น จนปูหนี | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FsqUvwS3b-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
TED Controversy 2013 - Rupert Sheldrake & Graham Hancock censorship playlist. Both censored TED talks plus the first interview each speaker gave after the removal of the videos. th-cam.com/play/PLianCjfvCJizbgJqVbbuL9X06g_8uyE6m.html 🙏
Its not censorship its removing pseudoscience from a platform that promotes informative and factual content. They have every right to do so if they feel that the integrity of their platform is damaged by that content.
BtW you're most likely infringing their copywrite by reposting it after they removed it.
@@Lamster66 ah, the refined, camouflaged censorship of close-minded deterministic materialist lobbies? Hehehe...
The monitoring of political statements in 2022 is making the news with Zuckerberg's reporting of being "advised" to censor references to Hunter Biden's laptop. This has nothing to do with science it is fascist control of allowed information; fascist being the union of government and bisiness. Drs. Wilhelm Reich knew about frequencies, along Robert Beck and Royal Rife, to name a fee. All were persecuted and some prosecuted so people could be kept dumbed down. Anyone who denies this is working to suppress information, or is ignorant, or both. Frequency is the premise of life. To detect it, you have to know that it exists. Many know it but collude to keep it occult.
@@Lamster66 Only the integrity of people's right to choose to what to believe is damaged by that action. Everyone, everywhere, can and should talk about anything in any sense they feel like, and it's on people to judge if they agree or not. You're a dangerous specie, actually a part of the problem. Wake up.
@@xphorm Really, have you never heard of "Facts"?
You see the problem with "people's right to choose to what to believe is" that when it bears absolutely no resenblance to reality then that can and often is Dangerous.
You are a case in point NWO? Go on enlighten me about what you don't know!
"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." - Rupert Sheldrake
@@AstralWalkerOne you've misunderstood the quote
@@AstralWalkerOne
You're blabbering totally paranoid religious bullshit. Evolution is still proved and works. Your name suggests you believe in utter nonsense and woo-woo.
@@rstevewarmorycom except when you realize that people take evolution and conflate it to fit this mindset that everything we see and hear is purely physical, there is nothing beyond that and once we die we simply cease to exist. Leading to a very egotistical and solipsistic view on reality, where the only one that matters is you
Those who claim to be on the side of science have not understood the nature of reality, all they have done is hit an intellectual dead end
@@MasakanSolaris
It's not a matter of solipsism. No atheists believe that the world is all just for them, or a figment of their imagination. That kind of stupidity is a christian belief. To imagine that a creator of a whole universe is concerned about little you is the height of ridiculous arrogance. There is simply NO evidence that what we are is anything that is not a result of physical laws. And we have NO evidence of any god or that god doing anything. And we have NO evidence of any existence after death, no matter how nice such a thing might sound. You have trouble coming to grips with that because you were brainwashed from the time you were young with god/jesus/heaven/hell belief. You're clinging for dear life to your imaginary god. Evolution by Natural Selection completely explains how information arises in the world due to random processes that are constrained by selection pressures. It works in computer simulations which produce new information and totally new counter-intuitive designs for things using that method, and all the fossil and DNA evidence supports it. If you took and passed a course in Evolutionary Genetics you would be forced to realize this, but very few creationist christians will do that, usually out of their fear for their faith. Everyone who learns how Evolution works, and how Genetics works loses their faith, because they discover that their faith in any other scenario is totally unwarranted. Any student who comes from a fundamentalist christian background and majors in biology and genetics will leave behind the religion of their youth as a form of abysmal ignorance. They will inevitably pity their parents for the nonsense they believe.
@@rstevewarmorycom And this is why biologists haven't contributed or made any significant discovery in decades. You guys are so convinced you have everything figured out so you're stuck in this little bubble acting like you're the ultimate authority on the fundamentals of reality.
Meanwhile any astrophysisist or astronomer worth his salt, will tell you we don't understand jack shit about our existence, hell we barely understand the human consciousness. Yet you're convinced that because you know a thing or to about the creatures living on this one planet in the vast universe you can tell everyone else what and what not to believe.
I also love the fact that you immediately assume because i believe in something beyond the pale i must be a christian, which shows me that you are not a man of science at all, but merely someone using the call of science as a shield to hide your anti-theistic bigotry.
If you were truly a man of science then the idea that we understand all there is to know should horrify you, because if you understand everything what else is there. Nothing but blindly indulging in your own vices until there's nothing left and you slowly fade away into nothing.
On and one more thing, the idea that evolution somehow disproves the existence of a god is idiotic at best, if anything evolution SUPPORTS the idea of a god.
Hell those christians you hate so much are actually becoming scientists because they wanna understand how god created the universe. So if you wanna see someone who is truly brainwashed? How about you go and look in the mirror?
The day we can’t question science, we are doomed.
We are living in that period right now!
Laugh my body parts off!
Always been that way, look at Darwin Newton etc etc. Used to use religion to suppress things now it's social media-SSDD
We haven't been allowed to question it since January 2020.
Today, gender
Shame on TED to have censored this entertaining and enlightening talk, we are not idiots that can’t evaluate the accuracy of an argument, but surely some of the points he made helped us reflect and investigate further, thank you for allowing this video on TH-cam...
Not censored, just moved to a more appropriate place. That would be the bin if it was me.
@@paulspence7600 it always starts that way…
@@jeanvictory1897
Whilst I agree censorship harms freedom of speech one also has to consider whether its a good idea or not to allow that freedom to those that lack the responsibility associated with having that freedom in the first place?
Unfortunately we aren't talking about someone speaking out against wrong doing here.,(Which is a good reason to fight for that right) . No what we are talking about here is misleading agenda driven pseudoscience.
(This guy wants to sell books or get paid for public speaking) If what he says has the potential to do harm, then in that circumstance it would seem to be a moral obligation to remove it. The point that one decides whether the content is Harmful or not isn't about it being factually incorrect its about the potential damage that can be done by people acting on that false information. Saying that the Earth is flat or that, we never went to the moon in themselves aren't that dangerous however they serve as a gateway to other conspiracy theories like 5G, antivax and certain pandemics being a hoax. You then have a situation where incredulous woke individuals conspire to do harm to others and that is dangerous.
So one could then ask is it ethical to remove that gateway?
We have an intelligent being teaching drooling morons, what else could happen?
@@Lamster66 And i suppose it's you who gets to decide...
Imagine being a research scientist your entire career, and then having your talk be called pseudoscientific because you dared to question your own profession.
What he says is pseudoscience bcoz it's incompatible with the scientific method. Actually he's rejecting the scientific method too. The so-called dogmas he points out are inferences based on the available evidence. Know something about science for a bit, ok?
All he did was throw up a bunch of straw-man arguments
He was probably horrible since he obviously does not understand the scientific method so he went pseudoscience
You never need actual evidence for that lol
Well said
Almost everything he said is pseudoscience and conjecture though.. I was hoping he’d make good points.
@@zafran20 He does make good points. Can you explain how any of the dogmas he lists are irrefutably proven?
"The science is settled" - only for people whose careers depend on it.
Very relevant this year
Fauci is humanity’s Judas
It’s almost impossible to convince a man of something on which his salary doesn’t depend
This is how they convinced people that COWYDvaxes were "safe and effective."
100%
Of course they banned it, he points out the huge contradictions of mainstream science and that is inevitably hilarious. And humor is a powerful tool for opening the minds of the audience. Since our current system of scientific education is no different than a church, the ban was inevitable.
"If you want to see the truth, don't look at those who take themselves too seriously. Because they can't let go of what they believe even when there's no more reason to believe it except the petty need of being right"
Maybe he has some right on saying that people have been starting to treat science as it is some sort of religión, because some people do believe in everything they are told aimlessly and thats NOT what science is supposed to be
But at the same time the rest of the vídeo is he saying that babies are formed because of psychic powers
From what i have gathered from a quick investigation while he has certainly do experiments and claims to have amased evidence that proves that what he claims is true, experiments realized by his peers on controled environments have shown that things that he claims (like that people know when they are being watched because of this soo called "morphic resonance") are nothing more than chance or bias
You want to know my own hipótesis, my hipótesis is that he came with his morphic resonance theory to explain certain phenomena (that is being studied btw, things like why fetuses take exactly the shape they take of why do we feel like we are being watched are subjects of study in "mainstream" science) and once it was disproved by actual evidence by his peers he changed his subject from trying to prove his obviously mistaken hipótesis to try to disprove science and say things like "the 10 scientific dogmas" because he can't accept that maybe he is wrong and this is not a conspirancy against more "spiritual" subjects of study but it's simply that he is mistaken, because humans sometimes make mistakes
And the think is that people are ignoring most of the vídeo and are just centering on the first half
And i think your own saying works for him, it does seems pretty petty what he is doing
A man who thought and investigated differently called "Jacob Grinberg" once said "Science is characterized by its methods, not by its results or topics"
What contradictions?
There aren't any amongst the Scientists.
The word you are looking for is incredulity that being the ignorance and incredulity of the general public about what the science actually says. Those that don't know or understand what the science is are in no position to comment of whether it is correct or not.
However those scientists that are experts in a particular field are more than qualified to comment. And most agree with their peers. Then there are the outliers or is that (out and out liers) like Sheldrake who have a contrary opinion that doesn't align with the data collected from research. And thus try to pretend that science is a dogmatic belief system simply because it doesn't agree with their beliefs. Science is the antithesis of dogmatism That is why there is no such thing as a scientific fact!
Only theory and Hypothesis because everything remains testable even those things that we have 99.99%certainty are correct.
Science is a continuous investigation to search for the evidence to explain the physical reality in which we exist. Anhthing found to be wrong gets thrown out and replaces with a better explanation based on more reliqble evidence how in anyway can that be dogmatic?
As someone who teaches philosophy and physics, the main problem I've noticed is that most universities don't make philosophy of science as core part of curriculum for STEM courses. They don't even have it as an elective, and i think its such a shame because without it, lot of students are fed this dogmatic view that assumptions in science reflect true nature of reality and shouldn't be questioned/challenged. I too, was a victim of this dogma several years ago until I came across philosophy of science and suddenly, it felt so liberating. It felt like coming across a whole world of thought provoking notions that were secretly hidden from me. I wondered why it wasn't talked that often compared to the science we see popularized by media.
That sounds like whiny loser nonsense if I've ever heard it.
This dude has a very compelling way of speaking. His voice is soft, but resonates well. He has a mastery of the English language and yet doesn't sound like he's speaking down to you. So many speakers seem to lack that nuance.
+Jeff Lucky This is probably why he can spread bullshit so effectively. It's sad really.
Wow, what a profound comment
+Jeff Lucky When I was in college, I saw a poster for a presentation by the Flat Earth Society. I decided to go, because I was curious what it was. It literally never occurred to me that it was a group that *actually thought the world was flat*, but in fact, it was. Anyway, I would describe the speaker (Ellis Hillman, probably?) *exactly* the way you described Sheldrake. That didn't make what he was saying any less nonsense than it was.
It was actually a very valuable experience. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've heard someone who sounds superficially reasonable and compelling, and then reminded myself "so did the flat earth guy".
Bullshit is bullshit, no matter how nice it sounds, and this guy is full of bullshit.
+ejonp oh? Any particular reason/s the bullshit is strong?
+HotaruZoku Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking about Sheldrake or the Flat Earth Society?
"It takes a long time to understand nothing." ~ A Zen Proverb
Lol xD
did he understand this phrase?
@@abdulkader7104 do u understand it?
@@princeatom6755 plz answer me
Before asking me a question
@@abdulkader7104 Who's he...Sheldrake...Buddha....the OP?
I imagine the phrase to concur with this obvious should you consider it wisely....
"Everything one assumes oneself to know is never more than one's ignorance in action" ~ My Gran's prefered Proverb.
The whole "intellectual phase-locking" is fascinating because I did some work in Philosophy of Science in graduate school, it was my primary focus. There have been numerous "paradigm shifts" over the history of scientific inquiry, this is where everyone is saying one thing and then someone else comes out and says, "I discovered something different." They're usually shunned and ostracized for awhile until the breakthrough is confirmed and then everybody ends up with egg on their faces. Just like in any field of study, there are things people take for granted and they look around, wanting to be part of the club, so they go along with it. If you think about what we know now, and what we will discover, just based on the history of science you can be certain that "intellectual phase-locking" is going on everywhere on a global scale. We just don't know to what extent, but it is most certainly happening. You only realize how deep it goes later when you find out how wrong you were. People in 100, 500, 1000 years will look back at some of the theories we hold so dear and they will think of us as uncivilized, foolish, child-like.
Science progresses one funeral at a time.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
They got their because of us. Standing on the shoulders of the giant. Maybe they should be more humble or they're doomed as well.
Isn't phase locking what Sheldrake predicts with morphic resonance? 🤔🙂
@@gregmorehouse7238 Lolol
The Church of Wikipedia makes sure to introduce him as a parapsychology researcher and makes every effort to discredit him from the start of his bio. Disgusting 👎🏼👎🏼…. but I’am not swayed a bit.
You are a true hero sir.
Wikipedia is full of bootlickers, nothing unusual
He's so full of shit
No he is a charlatan. Not one word he says has any basis in science whatsoever and what's worse is he knows this, but choses to pedal this crap to the incredulous so that he can profit from books and talks on the subject.
Which part of the Wikipedia entry isn’t accurate and on what basis?
Yep, using biased, subjective and despective labelling as "facts" against whoever defies the old-school deterministic materialism (such as "pseudoscientist") is a classic in Wikipedia.
Quoting biased authors to justify it, and looking aside to whoever thinks different and giving them not space in the article. They'll just label the materialist-club scientist's and expert's opinions as valid, and the views that defy those as "not thorough enough according to the "scientific" method".
It's just troll science. A good encyclopedia for what enters the framework of newtonian physics and the relativity theory; and definitely an awful, to avoid encyclopedia regarding whatever goes beyond such frameworks.
"As my friend Terence McKenna used to say, modern science is based on the principle, 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it from nothing in a single instant."
Faith = explanatory
Science = descriptive
Scientism = faulty religion
This is why I hate the big bang theory. It explains nothing. It gives religious nuts a target.
@@omez6900 False dichotomy.
The Big Bang theory *explains* how matter and time came into being by describing a theoretical phenomenon.
In essence it's identical to "Let there be light"
McKenna is correct.
Different time, different metaphor.
*Something* caused everything to come into being.
i.e. They both posit a primary cause.
Traditionally religious people name it God.
The religion of scientific materialism call it "The Singularity"
But primary cause it is.
I didn't got
He is barefoot on stage. This man is definitely enlightened
They put a patch of grass on the stage, why not be barefoot? :D
If this shocks you. New Zealand would blow your mind
@saxy1player Standing on ground barefoot is called earthing. When your bare feet comes into contact with the ground it grounds your body. This overall effects your health in keeping your blood pressure normal etc.
@@thystaff742 oh.
Huh.
Absolutely...At least a pound lighter without shoes
I'm a scientist, and what Mr Scheldrake challenges us to prove make perfect sense. We get the willies when it is implied that there may be some things that are not only just unknown, but also unknowable. We get all emotionally defensive and, in desperation, make the only argument at hand, Ad Hominen. Why don't we simply take his points one by one and refute them with science? Face it folks. There is little, if anything, that we truly "know," and can prove scientifically, without embracing non-validated assumptions, and self-evident truths. Its a mystery. We'll never know it, and we'll never control it. We are on a ride. We're generally afraid of what we cannot control. The universe and everything in it is in free-fall. That makes us uncomfortable in our delusion of control. What we call "science" is better described as "technology" or "tool-making." Nothing beyond the fact of existence, of being-consciousness can withstand the simplest of deconstructions. Well, last time around it was "God is Dead" and now, mercifully, it is finally "science is dead" [actually never existed], and we can all sigh a breath of relief, and relax into the reality that there is only "what is" and both religion and science are no more than mental concepts,unsupported by so-called reproducible observations.Religion and Science (and pseudoscience} are simply alternate belief-systems, and beautiful myths, depending on your point of view. I would vote for Religion as the more useful and interesting explanation of reality, but, I'm not religious in the least. Why not just see "what is" in our own direct experience, and let it unfold and reveal itself to us?
Maybe it is interesting to know that the "bible" of Hinduism, the Bhagavad-gita (song of God), speaks about this material universe as "maya", literally meaning "not this" or "that which is not" in Sanskrit. In a nutshell, the Hindu philosophy is that all living beings are eternal, conscious entities, that are separated parts within the topmost conscious reality, or God (Bhagavan). So the only actual substance of Absolute Reality is actually conscious life and the whole of this material energy is "just" a projection on our consciousness, like a virtual reality, and we are going through different lives and bodies, until we reconnect with our eternal source through the process of "yoga" (connection). The point is that not matter is primary but consciousness. By the way, i myself am quite convinced that the knowledge given in the Bhagavad-gita gives us the essential keys, needed to understand ourselves and the total of reality, so please read it, and let "what is" reveal itself to you. Please give special attention to verse 2:16 in this context: "Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance, and of the existent there is no cessation. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both." (asitis.com/2/16.html) So here the definition of "what is" is "everything eternal" and the definition of "what is not" is "everything temporary".
David Trindle - Very good comment, sir. Emotion trumps reason. People seek security first. If you take away their security, they'll be upset with you. For instance, to my eyes, Building 7 WTC looks like a controlled demolition. Pure physics: heat of furniture fire, temperature at which steel melts, symmetrical free-fall collapse, etc. When I try to discuss this - I'm ready to be proved wrong - people react very emotionally because the implications are too horrific to contemplate.
David Trindle - The only thing science does is create models for the purpose of prediction and control. A heuristic tool. A provisional map. When our desires change, the models and tools and maps change to achieve different objecives. When the question changes, the answer changes. The biggest mystery is consciousness - unexplainable - and desire. Where does care come from? Why do we care? What do we care about?
David Trindle - The only thing that validates a model, scientific or otherwise, is that it functions, it works, it gets us where we want to go, not because it mirrors some free-standing reality or truth or substance. The peace is in the movement. We are satisfied.
David Trindle You're a scientist but you don't think science consists of reproducible observations? That's exactly what science is...
You think religion provides the most useful and interesting explanation of reality nd yet you're not religious...
You seem very confused!
I consider myself "scientific" but not dogmatic and this lecture was almost entirely devoid of rational argument . All I gathered from it was "science is too dogmatic" (ok fine) and that "lightspeed may vary" (Ok fine) but then using that to attempt to describe telepathy in animals just makes absolutely no sense.
In order to prove the theory that we can sense people are watching us, we can run some very simple scientific experiments and answer that question.
Why is these talk banned? These are logical questions and remarks.
Because he says things that are factually wrong to manipulate people who are ignorant on the subject to conform to his own opinions, for example, the gravitational constant didn't change, errors are not of 1.3%, not even near that.
He knows this, he just lies because he wants to act smart, or perhaps got some other gain
Because it doesn’t fit today’s narrative that science is beyond criticism.
@@mikan1546 "So far as we can tell, the gravitational constant has remained constant throughout the entire history of the universe"
This is in the very link you cited
"In 2013, a group of researchers working out of France took the measurement of the gravitational constant, using the same machine that they’d used some 2 years earlier. Improvements were made on the machine to improve the sensitivity and give a more accurate result. The machine, which uses two independent methods to calculate the constant, averages the results of the two. This, in theory, should help reduce systematic errors. What did they find? A different result!"
Of fucking course how else are you gonna get more precision if you get the same exact result?
Also errors are not as simple as
"we made the machine better so it gives us a better result", there are so many factors that influence the error in a result in such experiments. Just because the error rate changes or doesn't conform to the effort made in making it smaller, it doesn't mean there is no error, your logic is at fault
"the researchers surmise that both variations are caused by changing motions in the Earth's core, or perhaps some other geophysical process."
There, the very researchers in the article that made those measurements gave a reason as to why such changes happened.
@David Jones Just like a religious zealot when somebody questions their faith, the normie "I love science" with an open gaping mouth crowd will respond emotionally when academian "consensus (because Science™is a democracy, you know) is challenged by an intelligent and factually correct criticism.
@@chappie3642 Let me guess, you're an atheist materialist skeptic?
It is disgusting for TED to pull this talk because it "borders on pseudoscience." Like all their happy-clappy talks about meditation, positive thinking, etc, don't?
+thrillscience They did not ban it, they just moved it and included an explanation. It can still be found on their website.
+youtubkeeper Why did they move it? GUESS WHAT...you are about to see truth. STAY TUNED.
thrillscience i'm not buddhist, but the mindfulnesse is tesable and observable by scientific method and peer reviewed in the magazines
That's what I said. It was wrong for TED to pull this talk.
thrillscience you have a good point because TEDx runs all kinds of garbage
That being said "temporarily pulled due to reader backlash" is the only real way to describe what has occurred here. Banned wayyy overblown.
They gave the man a huge platform and this video has still managed to garner tens of thousands of views. That's a pretty crappy attempt at censorship.
When science can no longer be questioned, it has become a radical religion.
wow its actually scaring me how many people are actually being done in by this. Humans are very emotional beings which tends to get in the way of rational thought.. of course its right to question everything but that is exactly what the scientific method IS.. mark my words what he is suggesting is quite the opposite... which is to make bold claims that appeal to the emotional side of humans with absolutely no proof or data behind it - and then discounting the very method that would be used to question/scrutinise his theory as a way to avoid having to prove it in any way. This is dangerous thinking and I can quite see why TED removed it now.. sometimes bbad ideas/misinformarion can actively harm society e.g causing people to distrust science already causes a huge amount of harm e.g people not vaccinating their children - this not only puts your own child at risk but also all the other children around your child. This is dangerous.. please people try to not let your emotions interfere with your rationality - this is the way you are manipulated.
@Roman 213. Pretty much what I’ve thought from the first time I heard sheldrake spouting off
@@vladimir0700 then why did you come back for more?
Scientific advancement is based on questioning so that's not likely to happen anytime soon. You may want to read up on the hundredth monkey effect this man is proposing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
@@roro-mm7cc a Bobcat is dangerous, this man is just questioning the dogma in "science" CULTure. But to people and groups that still believe in this material religion it is dangerous, might actually make you question what the hells going on here!
"Science...the belief that 'science' already understands the nature of reality in principle leaving only the details to be filled in." A wrong premise and horrible strawman. The scientific method is the process of creating taxonomy through observation coupled with establishing verifiable predictions. This method exists because it is a confession that we do not understand the world we live in. The methods of science were created because we don't understand the nature of reality, and is part of our constant quest to know more about it.
Albert Kim It's only a strawman when you take the quote out of context and conveniently omit part of it!
revolutionloveevolve Actually I didn't, because there is no such thing as a "science delusion" because the name itself is an oxymoron. Science is not an object - it's a process that always involves gathering, revising, questioning and analyzing in order to make sense of whatever data is being gathered. That process by nature is meant to always test and challenge our credulity. Your misguided illustrious friend Rupert doesn't seem to understand that a materialist worldview has almost nothing to do with this.
Albert Kim thanks Albert Kim - I could not have said it better. As erudite, eloquent, and articulately well-spoken as he may be, Mr. Sheldrake has done little, if anything, more here than cleverly crafting some beautifully, seductively elegant straw men, red herrings, or logical fallacies - whichever you might prefer. I seriously doubt that he could withstand the intellectual rigors of a forensic debate with the likes of Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter - the work and ideas of both of whom virtually epitomize and most closely and faithfully represent, describe and express that space in which the confluence of science and philosophy occurs and can be critically, objectively, and open-mindedly studied, queried, and analyzed.
Vincent Wee I'm not well informed about the debates regarding the gravitational constants, but Sheldrake in his attempt to understand the data was also attempting to inquire and investigate it in order to make sense of it - which is a part of the scientific method itself. You see why such a name like the "Science Delusion" is just an absurdity? There are many reasons and factors as to why we cannot account for fluctuations in any datasets - but the very method we deploy in order to find an answer is via the scientific method itself! It's the limitations of technology that prevent us from finding answers, not the supposed "shortcomings" of the scientific method.
ahkim87 What you had mentioned here on scientific inquiry process is more or less rational, and that should be the spirit for scientific inquiries. But Sheldrake highlighted this has not been the situations as a result of the science delusion, and he also mentioned his inquires for the investigations were systematically and dogmatically suppressed for decades. Just to name a few, this had also happened to many accomplished scientists, such as Halton Arp, Hannes Alfven, who had made groundbreaking discoveries that are against the mainstream dogmas. On the contrary to your view, the "Science Delusion" is not absurd at all. Suggest you should read up the topic on "Critiques of the scientific method with mainstream consensus" in order to be informed. Best to you.
www.uvs-model.com/x%20Critiques%20of%20scientific%20method.htm
his message : dogmatic thinking blocks inquiries that would actually help discover something new..
youtube comments : he's a crook
because some of us have actually studied the sciences, and this dude is worse than an armchair scientist.
sudeb you're a sheep
Danny Rw please tell me what courses in science you've taken.
I've taken many engineering courses (I'm a civil engineer) and I daresay that the more I think I know about the physical reality, the less I'm convinced we know anything about the true nature of the universe.
+Sudeb Sarkar sheep...
I find it odd that TED would ban this talk. Open inquiry and questioning dogma is healthy. It spawns debate and re-examination of ideas. This is necessary, if for no other reason than to gut-check our assumptions. He speaks very well.
Well we've not been able to question "the science" for the last 3 years so nothing surprises me tbh.
But TED is nothing but an NWO outlet, right? What do you expect.
Wheres the evidence it was banned,very doubtful.
Having been called a conspiracy theorist because I demanded that the science would form part of a discussion I was having, this talk really resonated with me.
Let's hear why you were called a conspiracy theorist first
The theory is that we live 6 months behind current time.. you asked 5 months ago.. they'll see it in a month and get right to answering lol
@@delboytrotter2042😂
This guys great. Great to hear someone calling the science community on its bullshit.
Yep, science is bullshit. Maybe the scientists shouldn't have invented the computer for you to comment on this video.
well I guess every things fine then. Since thats the only option. Nice one Einstein.
DurpenHeimer
"I Didn't watch the video so I'll attack you instead" - Durpenheimer
james D The whole idea of science is questioning things. If something is not questioned, it means nobody knows how to provide evidence to the other idea.
tombo4444 You and James didn't watch the video obviously, if so you should noted that this guy is enthusiast of science, he said so in the vid, this guy is just inquiring some flaws on science, even some of that is arguable, not a total bullshit, bc what Darth Cedonya said above.
It helps to see the ten dogmas Sheldrake lists more as social criticisms or criticisms of the collective unconscious. NO, you will never find scientists on record explicitly stating that they believe in these dogmas, but they are implied in how they act and especially in the way they vigorously maintain the status quo.
"Sheldrake's 10 dogmas" are.....well Sheldrake's 10 dogmas indeed. lol
invictus1453 There I edited it for you because I love you so much
Pythagoras211 LOL
Because there's no evidence for it to change.
Except for empirical evidence, of course.
I'm gonna show this to my science students in class on the last day 😊
😂😂😂😂
Why not the first day?!
Everyone who is so butthurt about this: You totally hold science as a belief system.
Jeffrey James Wrong ! I do not hold science as a belief system. It's a process which is simply the best way available to us of increasing our knowledge. The proof of it's efficacy is all around you. Open your eyes!
so you're saying you are butthurt by this video?
Jeffrey James I am irritated that Sheldrake is bringing science into ill repute among those who are incapable of understanding that he is talking nonsense.
Does science need its reputation defended?
If you really understood what he was saying you wouldn't feel threatened by it. You'd just think "There's another idea someone had and shared with the world." As a fairly smart and interested in science human being I can listen to him and detach which allows me to really hear what he has to say. I might not agree with all of it, but I understand the feeling he is expressing and it's a conversation worth having even if this particular protest is off the mark.
Damn ted blew it, I used to believe they were about interesting and shocking new science views but it seems they censor anything that doesn't match their agenda. Honestly it's sad cause ted used to be great
Rupert opens the mind better than LSD. It''s too bad TED believes in censorship of a real "free-thinker" like Mr. Sheldrake.
TED are the same as all the rest! It's classed as MSM now and censorship is rife and only getting worse by the day!
@@quasimobius
They didn't censor Sheldrake they took his video down altogether. IMO that was the only decent and honest thing they could do to maintain their integrity.
If you run a platform where you are trading on the forward thinking on a range of subjects that, are both informative and based in fact. Talks promoting pseudoscience or Amway doesnt fit with your business model.
As A privately run media company they totally have the right to refuse or remove any "Ted Talk" they want from their platform. If they have both the responibility and integrity to ensure that all subjects covered are factually correct then people like Sheldrake will rightly no be allowed a platform from them.
TEDs always been the glossy too-expensive guitar in the shop window for the lazy man that will never play anything.
Every scientific discovery we have made in history was made by someone thinking outside the box. There is no other way to discover new phenomenon. On another note is Sheldrake barefoot?
Yes
All you "pro-science" people bashing him in the comments, youre acting the same way christian fundamentalists do. Let that sink in.
No, people should just go beyond his pseudo-science talking, like hypothesis = I made up something out-of-the-blue with no evidence.
So pointing out stupidity is not acceptable anymore? Ad hominem much?
+Richard Petek, instead we should simply believe what someone made up 200 years ago that scientists have used ever since simply because it's "scientific tradition?" Sure! Keep believing in your delusions.
Science has been caught with its pants down more times than I can count with bogus and muddy thinking, dogma parading around as "logic." The Clovis First dogma took decades to die, and it didn't die soon enough. The science used to date Lucy's bones was also used to date the Valsequillo artifacts; Lucy is gospel; Valsequillo is heresy. One Texas geoarchaeologist said that he would never believe the outrageous dates of Valsequillo no matter what the evidence. Yes, a scientist said his belief trumps evidence.
So, when you stop being all pompous about science and declaring someone else to be pseudo-science, then perhaps you'll start to become more "scientific."
Scientists today assume so much and dismiss so much without a second thought, not because they have evidence, but because of convenience on the assumptions and inconvenience on the things they dismiss without the same rigorous examination they would give to an original thesis.
The study of modern science is perhaps one of sad arrogance. The "climate change" debate is another perfect example of science being derailed. Even NASA has a web page dedicated to the oxymoron "scientific consensus."
Critical thinking has become a lost art.
Yet science as we now understand it could only have come to being under Christianity.
If it could have under any other religion, why didn't it?
Science could only have come under Christianity? How have you came to that conclusion?
I admire people who have ideas and opinions differing from my own as it helps me expand my perception of life and reality.
Kudos to Rupert Sheldrake.
In that aspect we can all learn from him. I hope his efforts will also be acknowledged within the realm of science one day. Even if his personal theories turn out to be false he had the guts to challenge some rigid assumptions and teach us the importance of openness.
was also banned from TED Talks: No matter, they simply do not understand that they do not possess the right based upon their own Grecian Roman orthodoxy or any other dogma or authority to prevent others from free thinking, and deciding for themselves, as to what to believe or not to believe. And in doing so, they will eventually be held accountable as to the consequences and results as to their having done so.
The Laws of Physics are the Laws of Mother Nature they are not of mankind
The mathematics pertaining to the Laws of Mathematics are those of Mother Nature they are not of mankind.
Mother Nature Aka The Great Spirit of the North American Indians - The Universe - The Cosmos - The/Our Creator
To Begin
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 - 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]
INCONTROVERTIBLE LAWS OF PHYSICS
• For every energetic action there is an equal and opposite *energetic reaction*.
• There must be an input of energy for there to be an *output of energy*.
• Output of energy cannot exceed *input of energy*.
• Energy input (e.g. Solar) may be converted into an alternate energy output (e.g. electricity).
• Energy output (e.g. electricity) may be converted into an energy input (e.g. heat and steam).
• Energy input (e.g. heat and steam) may be converted into an energy output (e.g. electricity)
• One form/cycle of energy may be converted into another form/cycle of energy but energy of itself, *can not be created or destroyed*.
SUM
• Energy is universally indestructible
• The energy of the Cosmos is universally indestructible
• The Cosmos is *universally indestructible*, because its cycles of energy have *no beginning or ending*.
• Which is why, the Cosmos Aka Mother Nature, is all that has been, all that there is, all that will be, ad infinitude.
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 - 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1]
• Catholic Priest, a heretic of the six days of creation.
• Professor of Physics, a heretic of the first law of thermodynamics.
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.
**The Age Of The Universe**
Big Bang - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation. The chemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago
The Age Newspaper: Published on Saturday the 19th of December 1999
Today astronomers announced that they had observed the oldest supernova to date. This exploding Star called Albinoni being some 18 billion light-years away. A light year being the distance light travels in a year, about 9•5 Trillion kilometres.
• One light year is equal to *one year of time*.
• Albinoni existed *18 billion years ago*.
• Albinoni existed 4.2 billion years before Lemaitre’s theoretical Big Bang of *13.8 billion years ago*.
Rhetorical Questions
1. How old was Albinoni when it went supernova?
2. How old was the Star Nursery dust cloud, before Albinoni coalesced within it to become a Star?
3. How long was the Star Nursery pregnant before it gave birth to Albinoni?
4. From where did the Star Nursery dust cloud which gave birth to originate?
5. How much bull dust does it take, to turn theorizing idiots into dumber and dumber ADS Einstein’s?
MOTHER NATURE
The genius of stupidity is that the stupid are too stupid to realise, that they are too stupid to be geniuses.
The genius of intelligence is that the intelligent are humble enough to realise, that there is no such thing as being a genius. For a proclivity toward genius, belongs to, and lies only within the realms of our universally Cosmic Mother Nature.
For In Truth: She who is our Cosmic Mother of Nature, and no other than She Mother Nature, Is the natural and fundamental source of the mathematics and geometry,
Of all that has been, All that there is, All that there will be.
And unlike the mythological and invisible gods of mankind, the presence of our Cosmic Mothers spirit - soul - mind - imagination, is revealed and made apparent to us everywhere.
Regardless as to whether we are looking out toward the dust clouds of the Pillars of Creation, or looking into the beauteous marine universe of the Great Barrier reef, looking through the intricate rain-forest realms of her beautiful and wondrous wildlife; or whether we are looking into the eyes of another or looking into our own eyes in a mirror, there She is.
For in truth: Every fundamental particle that goes into the makeup of our own existence, is a fundamental particle which is of and belongs to Mother Nature, therefore we can say; that as each of us do exist in Mother Nature, so does She our universal Mother Nature, exist within each and every one of us.
Which does not bear well, for disingenuous religious leaders, political leaders, money lenders, corporate gangs, and all other usurers and destroyers, who have waged an unrelentingly and universally parasitic war against their fellow man, and the innocent and defenceless creatures of Mother Natures natural kingdom.
Because unlike they of the Grecian-Roman academic realms, who despite their god-like hubris and self-promoted genius cannot hear if a tree falls in a forest. Mother Nature can hear the sound of every tree that falls in her forests, and flutter of the wings of every butterfly as they fly through the branches.
And as such: It is the sum of the history of all of the evils they have committed and have caused to be so far, that is the sum of all they are now.
And it is the sum of all they are now, that is the history of all that they will come to be, and take with them when they leave this mortal coil, to face the indomitable will and justice of our Cosmic Mother Nature.
MOTHER NATURE
IS
THE
UNIVERSAL SOURCE
OF
ALL THAT HAS BEEN - ALL THAT IS - ALL THAT WILL BE
I Think Therefore I Am
Rene Descartes
Rational None Theoretical Progression Of This Thought
I Reason Therefore I Am
Without Reason, I Am Not
Therefore
The Reason I Exist Is To Reason
We All Reason Therefore We Are
Without Reason, We Are Not
Therefore
The Reason We Exist Is To Reason
That
Mother Nature Is The Universe Of The Reasoning Ability Of All LivingThings
Therefore
SHE IS
Within All Reasoning Ability
The Reason
I Am - You Are - We Are
All
Participants
In
The Never Ending Cycles And Stories Of Her Universal Life
And
Our Never-Ending Quest Which Leads Us On As To Reason Why
IT IS
I AM - YOU ARE - WE ARE
The Never Ending Cycles And Stories Of Eternal And Immortal Energy.
www.fromthecircletothesphere.net
@@realityversusfiction9960
You're blabbering garbage. You're delusional, nobody will read a long delusional comment.
I read it. And loved it.
rstevewarmorycom did you end up reading it?
No scientist should be muzzled; only their data should be questioned. What the mother***k happened to science, and why are there not more Rupert Sheldrakes.
Kudos for turning science back away from politics and dogma.
Its not science itself, its the scientific community, and its filled with quite a lot of assholes.
This guy is the real deal. If quantum physics impacts gravity, the speed of light, and other "constants", then it would be perfectly normal for them to seem to fluctuate.
th-cam.com/video/NP_ENJanw7w/w-d-xo.html
Underfortunarely,he isnt the real deal,none of his ideas have any evidence to back them up.
As a Neuroscientist and epidemiologist, I had an advisor that refused to let me publish in a review article a finding that I had made, because she hadn't found it in her population. When I submitted the article, the reviewer said that it was great.. but you are missing one important topic.... which happened to be the topic I had published on. I told her, and she said if I were to include it that I should drop her as a coauthor. I did and she fired me. My paper (the one she wouldn't let me include) started an explosion of research in the subject! Too often I saw scientists ignoring results that disagreed from their own understanding of reality. I was so bothered by this. Isn't science supposed to be objective and married to the truth? I was doing the same thing he did.. I was assuming what I was reading (although I was more concerned about papers that were from industries that stood to profit from a beneficial finding), to be true, and asking how can we explain this, if both of these results are true in different populations. I think its why I came up with so many good ideas.
I now do energy medicine, which makes most of the general public, especially mainstream scientists and MDs extremely squeamish. The field of energy medicine is publishing their work in scientific journals and the field is growing. There are some fantastic papers and in energy psychology alone, there are at least 120 either pre-post or randomized control trials, showing 98% effectiveness in the outcomes examined. Yet most of Western medicine and scientists are still assuming (without asking) that's its due to the placebo effect. Its not. (It works with cats with litter box issues online. )
The work I do is based on morphic resonance. Although we call it universal intelligence. The earth has meridians in which they think is how information travels, and there is evidence to support it!
So I am so grateful for Dr. Sheldrake's courage and contributions, because science DOES need to be questioned!!! Thank you! And I am looking forward to his books!
The neurological underpinnings for this mainstream rejection of new ideas is explained by science. Neuroscientists discovered this when trying to understand why we stay so stuck in our political beliefs. It's called the Backfire effect. Apparently if a new belief threatens our view of who we are, our amygdala has a temper tantrum and does everything to run from it. My favorite explanation of the backfire effect is brilliant explained in this Oatmeal cartoon: theoatmeal.com/comics/believe?fbclid=IwAR18mjjtZV34kPbAX3ySjIJH9DW8WwYK3abNm4ODPwtehCiJ9WJIlDKSh4M
PS. I hope my comment doesn't get banned like his TED talk did!
Go forth and keep going girl. This world needs new thinkers and brave explorers. GOD BLESS YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK
Isn't Kuhn's thesis that science has a political dimension? And that paradigm shifts finally occur only after scientists have spent a goodly amount of time banging their heads against the break room wall? It's like the old zen saying that a fool who persists in his folly will be become wise.
🤣🤣 nice one grifter
I don't see anywhere in this video that he's stating anything definitive or unreasonable. I don't see him criticizing the scientific method. It seems to be a plea for vigilance in implementing the scientific method and pointing out the hypocrisy of mythological attachment to science through philosophy. I've personally noticed in my lifetime the corrosive effects of economic philosophy shrouded in scientific fact. University funding leads researchers by the nose to conclusions that commercial interests prefer. Private development in start-ups designed to appeal to free-marketeer investors. Large tech companies pushing the needs of industrialization over all collective or individual human needs or wants. It's this hyper-capitalist bias that prevents me from enjoying any of the science podcasts except for maybe Star Talk. It is very hypocritical to willfully ignore what's leading the scientific community and not consider alternative uses of the indispensible scientific method. The almighty dollar becomes the directive by default. Any higher purpose for science is lost. This seems to be the only difference between Robert Sheldrake and others. The others don't admit to their own mythology-based philosophical bias.
Aleks Osis epic post beyond belief! Right over the target!!!
Aleks Osis; Appreciate your very adept outline of the problems incurred, thx, so objectively put...its hard to understand the blind faith assigned in these catagories yourself so adequately defined as 'imposters' posing as truth-seekers when profit-margins are the major concerns overall guiding 'forces' along. Excellent presentation of the reality we're facing, almost at the mercy of 'conspirators of public sentiments' manipulated constantly, hope everyone reads your commentary and learns what it's about.., the dogma of money really, the con...
Learn from objective persons as yourself...knowledgeable individuals who know, not only from the outside, outer perspective examing results, but from the inside as experienced, your insightful observations are 'treasures' of wisdom in our midst...broadening the horizon that we may find our way thru.🤗👏💪🖒👍
He says "genes tell you "only" how proteins are made. They don't tell you about size, shape, or the behavior of the organism" This shows how much he knows about genes, and also how much research he does about a topic before talking about it. Genes quite literally have the information about the size, shape, and to some extent behavior of an organism. Each cell has genes to code for proteins which make up the whole body, for ex: the cell in your leg has genes which code for proteins required to produce the necessary materials to form your leg, but it also has the gene to code for eyes! It just doesn't function in the leg because a set of chemical groups called methyl groups bind to the eye coding gene in your leg and don't let it express or code.
That's pretty definitive for me.
Aleks Osis; thx for 'red-pilling' the scientific-industry in no uncertain terms..this adept, careful and correct analysis of the 'fractions' as they do occur...pure process starting out 'whole' then 'systematically divided' by 'special interest' do thus the 'anatomic' reductions happen accordingly to reflect outside dictates, within contamination takes place...'shift in direction' is also a 'shift in paradigms' subtle occurrences, leaving the 'shreds' to pose as an whole-identity of authentic research...tough luck for 'blue-pills', when someone in the know speaks out..an insider effectively 'quitting' with rank n' file procedures...positive exposure in reveals, in search of real truth and passes it on to other's the same sojourn, adequately you spelled it out plain enough how deep the rabbit hole goes...all your offering is the truth...nothing more, nothing less.💪👏👊🖒👍
Very much agree with you.
History will prove that RS was a man that should have been taken seriously alongside his ideas.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
what is self evident and what is your truth? Woo woo that has 0 evidence
A fresh breeze in a world of madness. Rupert may have very well caused a brighter ripple in the cosmic fabric by speaking on it. Only to be attacked by the arcons that keep us blind to the true. I so enjoyed his talk.
I concur absolutely.
regards alls Legends
Lmao the guy is a clown imbecile
why was this banned, this is the best TED talk I've ever seen
+Elfen Ignis What is so blatantly wrong?
+Elfen Ignis You lack the ability to think in the first place, what you said is nothing but bullshit, in this video Rupert evaporated the illusions of that so called "science".. The sacred Cow that a lot of scientists and many people nowadays worship is destroyed !
And btw, constants are everywhere in " science ".
***** You just confirmed by your stupid empty comment that you really lack the ability to think :)
You are too stupid to understand what Rupert is talking about Hahaha..
+Elfen Ignis im just taking an intermediate science college course, and one of the first things we learned is that science holds knowledge at best as "Fallible": for all we know, we are right, but our answers could be wrong. facts can change and nothing is really true forever. then someone goes and says something like "X" is constant? that to me is a big red flag in thinking. science is always seeking to better itself.
*****
the problem i see here is that even though yes, the tenets of science are progressive in that room for improvement or revisions of hypotheses are always possible, is it the very tenets themselves which are held too high in regard where theyre basically dogmatic. its like saying you can change, but only in the bounds of the framework.
take this example: lets say in some other paralleled world, all car manufacturers have their engines in the front. people have just been doing that in the beginning and it has become a conventional pattern. through the decades they have improved their engines in many regards. theyre always testing revising and improving things. but why does the engine have to be in the front? they never thought from another outside perspective. then boom, a company like lambo comes and changes the whole game by creating a mid-rear mounted engine. science would be the engine in this example and the whole car as the entire human intellectual timeline. so my question to you would be, "why does it have to be in the front?". "why would you think you shouldnt question it?".
rupert is basically saying the engine doesnt have to be in the front. most importantly, we as intellectual beings have the goal and right to question such scenarios for the better of our kind. why should we limit ourselves? why would we ever create a system where we can't think outside of?
i see some comments saying this is useless because he cannot form some sort of hypothesis that can be test and so on - this just goes to show that some people are toooo scientific. he means to say that is it this way of automatically thinking under a system (which happens to be science in this case) that limits us. so even the most trivial day to day beliefs people are have are utterly useless and meaningless if they can't be tested? there's so much more to life. he isnt presenting something specific to be tested. he's making a philosophical claim about the whole scenario of systems. imo, this is really a philosophical talk about science, not a science talk about science.
His whole talk is about those such called science dogmas, but I'm a physicist and I've never heard them in my life.
Never heard of the gravitational constant or speed of light?
I'm taking about the list of dogmas he mention, I think they are 10. In the case of the speed of light it is POSTULATED by Einstein that it is a constant. And, in the case of gravity, G is a PROPORTIONALITY CONSTANT, so, given two quantities, if we measure them several times and plot those values we obtain a straight line, the slope of that line is the proportionality constant. In other words it is an empirical fact that it is a constant.
In neither of the two cases they are imposed as dogmas.
Daniel Reyes Postulated by Einstein as a constant? Well, that's the problem Rupert Sheldrake is addressing, so you're not really rebutting anything, you're just stating the case from your point of view while using an argument from authority. If it is assumed to be a constant, no one will check and see if it isn't.
Also, I'm aware that G is a proportionality constant. So is Rupert Sheldrake. If you watch the lecture, he talks about how the readings vary according to where the measurements are taken (ie, proportionate to variations in mass of two bodies). Also, the obnoxious capitalization doesn't prove anything (shouting at me or something? I'm just trying to discuss an interesting idea.)
David Joseph There are Physicists that are trying to come up with a model where the speed of light is not constant. See Joao Magueijo from Imperial College. Einstein special theory of relatively is so accurate that it must be capturing a great portion of how the Universe at large is working. So we keep it as true. But it is not a dogma in the sense that it can't be changed. We just need to get the right data. Some scientists look at it, but they fail to provide compelling evidence. The dogmas, I call it, assumptions, do not held back science: they are our ways to model the world, and they work well. You can look up the uses in mobile telecommunications. Having the speed of light to be constant has amazing implications like dilation of time, which was verified to the surprise of many and the relief of other. Very recently at CERN the physicists had some discrepancies in the measurements of the speed of some neutrinos, indicating the speed of light had be broken (we think nothing can break this speed), but they finally figure out they had bad measurements. This is to say they were ready to accept it and it would be a revolution.
See for instance www.torontostandard.com/technology/oops-scientists-did-not-break-the-speed-of-light-blame-bad-connection
It would be a welcomed revolution to understand and reconcile and improve our models of the world if we understand that some constants in physics are not constant in time! But there is only the suspicion and we need to research it. Ideas are welcome. Until then we will use what we figured out, and it was not easy to get there. We will know more.
Given what I said, the author seems just tobe capitalizing cheap applauses from an unwarranted room of people, who I suspect of knowing little about the subject. It does not add much to say the hypotheses we work with and that have not yet been falsified might be wrong. We know that. To move forward, we need alternative understanding and data falsifying the previous that carry the same predictive power.
For example read this
www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
***** I like reading your perspective, thanks for sharing. I feel that Rupert Sheldrake addresses an important issue, and a lot of stagnation in physics is due to his and similar viewpoints not being represented. Whether or not he was contributing anything original to the discussion or getting what you call cheap applause... well, I don't think that matters. He's doing something to represent the spirit of investigation, which seems absent from most academics in present times.
Some of the things which Sheldrake brought up are ELEMENTARY to explain and it seems to stem from Sheldrake's misunderstanding of physics. It's all about experimental techniques essentially, and to misunderstand that is really quite an embarrassment for a scientist.
There are much he doesn't understand about how complexity is generated from essentially simple systems. He seems to be ignoring a great deal of science to push what can ONLY be described as absolute bullshit!!!!
If they are elementary, then why does no one follow them? Seriously. Why do so few people know it if it's so "elementary"?
Terrell345 Sheldrakes mistakes are elementary.
Terrell345 Good question. No idea. But a matter of grave concern. But nevertheless it is elementary.
Mat Hunt Looking at his qualification, I am not sure if the man is mad or just misleading others by being intellectually dishonest after failing to push his pseudoscience.
But the fact remains that even a person with basic but sound understanding of science should be able to see through this.
invictus1453 He has good qualifications but it seems as if he had just lost his way in science.
This man is a genius. He deserves much more credit than he gets. But yet again, who can blame the rigid scientists for being so ignorant about their belief-system they call objective truth.
Personally I prefer Paul Feyerabend. Sheldrake actually isn't saying anything new, but I guess he wanted to state his own piece.
I'm lucky enough to know Rupert. I say lucky because its always refreshing to meet someone who actually thinks. The most wonderful gift we have as human beings is our ability to think. So let's think for a second... Is Rupert suggesting that all science is wrong? nope. Is Rupert suggesting that he has all the answers? Nope. So what is he suggesting? Simply that we should never stop questioning the conclusions we make from the evidence we perceive. Because in doing so we might just miss something really worthwhile and important. What he's saying is, let's step back and have a think about what we know and what we don't know. Any real scientist will privately, behind closed doors, admit that theres still huge amounts of stuff we aren't even close to understanding. Take quantum physics for example... Rupert is no different. He never suggests that his morphic resonance explains everything and hes very open about that. But hes happy to do experiments to see whether a hypothesis is right or wrong and not throw away a hypothesis simply because it doesn't fit our comfortable scientific assumptoons. And yet the broad public perception is that we know it all but you know, there IS one constant that we never seems to change, and that's human arrogance. History is replete with people who got it right but were ridiculed by the establishment who KNEW categorically, that they were heretics... Darwin springs to mind conveniently... I don't think Rupert is some kind of prophet and frankly neither does he! He just likes to ask uncomfortable questions and you know, looking at the mess we're making of things in the world, maybe its time we all started asking more questions about what we know and what we don't know and face up to uncomfortable truths?
"Any real scientist will privately, behind closed doors, admit that theres still huge amounts of stuff we aren't even close to understanding." -- Why in private? They would even agree openly in public.
But what really offends many people is when even fundamental conclusions of science (like say constants in Physics backed up be tons of evidence and measurement uncertainties of less than 1 part in a billion) are labeled as dogma.
Now please understand, the issue is not even if they are "Ultimately" and "Absolutely" right or wrong.
Take the case of Newtonian Physics. Many aspects of Newtonian had to be modified or abandoned. But is it justified to call people who upheld it as dogmatic? No ! They had good reasons to uphold Newtonian physics and it is still very useful and successful. Only in light of new EVIDENCE borne out by even more sensitive measurements, it had to be abandoned. but it was not dogmatic.
So labeling say constants of Physics as one of "10 dogmas" is highly misleading. Even if one or the other constant turns out not to be a constant. Though as of now there no evidence for it.
And if Sheldrake do want to assert something, let him back it up by providing experimental evidence to support his claim.
And lets not call them dogmatic or delusions. Considering all the evidence it would delusional or dogmatic not to include them science, not the other way around.
invictus1453 Stop ignoring the evidence that already exists.
There was a significant variation in the measurements across the board over a period of time.
***** You are just repeating things are already refuted. Nobody has ignored any "evidence". In fact things have been probed to a greater degree by labs around the world and no variation found to less than 1 part in a Billion. So how can you accuse me or researchers around the world of ignoring evidence?
"The fact that the redefinition happened more recently is more likely evidence that the dogma still exists." -- How? This is frankly ridiculous.
By defining "Meter" using speed of light, scientist have not swept anything "under the rug" or "hand waved". In fact in doing so they have stuck their necks out and shown bold confidence in their assertions.
You know what this redefinition means? It means every major calibration lab around the world will use light to actually calibrate devices and our technology and industry will depend on it.
Now as a consequence if speed of light varies from time to time, then our calibrations will go wrong resulting in disagreements among devices and manufacturing process. This will show up by creating havoc.
And speed of light is still being measured by universities and labs around the world. The redefinition will no way prevents measuring speed of light. In fact the most famous experiments like cavity resonance or interferometer will not even depend on this definition of meter in anyway. And the current measurement uncertainty is less then 1 part in Billion.
And yes. Sheldrake and his supporters can and should do experiments to demonstrate speed of light (as well as other constants) are varying before accusing scientists all over the world of dogmatic belief in constants. Let them try to show variation ! LOL
invictus1453 Yes you are ignoring it with excuses about how it's not happening now which are irrelevant. What's more relevant is the "fact" that the meter was defined by this so called constant against isolated but strong data. If there's an issue with the data then please point it out. Just stop hand waving it with irrelevant excuses and unfacilitated attacks on my understanding.
***** I am not providing "excuses", but reasons.
You say -- " What's more relevant is the "fact" that the meter was defined by this so called constant against isolated but strong data. " as if there is some link between defining " Meter " using speed of light and sheldrake's so called "isolated but strong data". So lets examine it again more closely.
First what the "isolated but strong data"? That is about 80 years ago, the variation in measurement of speed of light was 0.0066 % during a relatively short duration (that is 20 kms variation out of 300,000 kms per second). So there is your "strong data".
Now did they immediately redefine "Meter"? Nope. That happened almost 50 years later in 1983. And by that time they had checked with even more sensitive LASER interferometer measurements. And what had they found? That measurement variation was less than 4 parts in a billion (in 1975). And right now its less than 1 part in a billion. No one has been able demostrate any variation. And every theory using these constants have been spectacularly successful (both Relativity and Standard Model).
So, how can you assert "meter was defined by this so called constant against isolated but strong data"? That's misrepresentation of facts. Precisely what sheldrake is doing when he calls them "dogma ". And this from a person who dogmatically holds on to empirically discredited "morphic fields" (which requires ALL constants to vary).
Now, if you or Sheldrake still assert that constants vary, please demonstrate it experimentally. The burden of justification is upon Sheldrake and those who assert that all constants of physics are "dogmas ".
So where are the "irrelevant excuses and unfacilitated attacks" in all this?
And yet, the "scientific" board had no problem with Richard Dawkins' "talk"? The difference between the two is that they WANT Sheldrake to BE proved wrong while they already KNOW that Dawkins is wrong. Science is losing it's social stature/authority and - in trying to salvage it - its mind.
Dawkins has an understanding of science and of the scientific method, so his opinions and interpretations of science and scientific evidence are valid arguments, even if they're wrong. Rupert clearly shows in this talk that he doesn't understand the scientific method. And while I'm sure TED would be completely open to anyone challenging science, I can understand why they'd want to take down a talk where someone who challenges something fails to really understand what they're challenging.
cccincocc I understand what you are saying, but the point that I tried to make and that TED has stated as the reason for taking the talk down is that Sheldrake's talk was NOT based on real science or evidence. His evidence is unscientific, his talk is full of factual errors, and his arguments are weak. It really doesn't have anything to do with open mindedness or social politics. It just wasn't real science, plain and simple.
the0utcastVideos what was weak and not scientific? things start as theories, not proofs. the lack of testing of his hypothesis leaves the door open, not closed. i look forward to your response. thank you.
Amanda Abbot These comments were made a while ago, so I'm not sure I remember all of this argument. However, in response to your comment, it seems evident that you might not be aware of what the definition of a scientific theory is. A quick google search brings me to wiki's page in which a scientific theory is, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." Thus, Sheldrake's ideas are a quick hypothesis at best, based on his personal opinions. There is no evidence or factual data to back up his claims. Actually, the evidence goes against his opinions, which makes his argument that much harder to conceive. I'm all for proving theories wrong, but you can't just ignore what evidence IS in place and make up your own to compel an audience in the direction of your own opinion. That's why I'm saying his argument is not valid or scientific.
This video is hardly banned. Ted moved the video, not banned the video. They wanted to add a written introduction to the video because Rupert Sheldrake is considered by the scientific community to be a pseudo-scientist and he often makes straw man arguments against scientists, like he does in this video. blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/
This point has been made several times before in the comments and you are misinformed.
If you were following events at the time you would know that this talk, along with Graham Hancock's, was banned 3 weeks after it was originally posted on TH-cam. They pulled the videos down and notified the event organisers and speakers. There was then a large public backlash, partly due to Hancock making people aware of what was going on via his Facebook page (Sheldrake was out of the country at the time.) So TED then uploaded a non-public embedded Vimeo link to their blog page (presumably to save face and to attempt to quash any accusations of censorship.) They also included a long list of false accusations against both the speakers, which they later had to fully retract as they were demonstrably inaccurate.
So yes technically speaking the video is now available in a limited form on the blog section of the TED website (see link in video description.) But the word banned in the title of this video gets the gist of the situation accross well enough I feel. After all it is a video title and therefor needs to be short and concise. The full story is briefly explained in the info box with the approriate link to TED's site and the annotations at the start of the video direct viewers to that very place.
So that's how you guys respond when someone points out the fact that the majority of scientists consider him a pseudo-scientist, you make ad hominem arguments, come up with conspiracy theories, and make red herrings, eh? Very mature and very persuasive. You sure convinced me.
Scientific community? Argumentum ab auctoritate is not argument.
Madame Min It is an argument, whether it is a good argument or not is debatable. Also, because the fallacy of appealing to authority is an informal fallacy and thus is a flaw in reasoning, not logic itself, then appeals to authority are only considered fallacious if the authority is not qualified on the subject or is irreverent-even if you use a Latinized version of the name for the fallacy. For example, appealing to someone who is strictly a physicist when talking about psychology or claiming because Einstein was part of religious group X (or part of non-religious group Y), then religious group X (or non-religious group Y) is therefore correct. (I personally I have seen this done for both of these examples a few times). If you take a college level intro to philosophy or intro to logic, then you would most likely hear about the correct (non-fallacious) and incorrect (fallacious) ways to appeal to an authority.
Ian Hough would you mind linking a few of the reports against Rupert Sheldrake or even Graham Hancock? especially if they aren't personal attacks, just deconstructions of their arguments. I'm interested in where the scientific community draws the line of what is science and what is pseudo-science and this seems like a nice place to start.
I can tell why this was banned. Misinformation should be taken down.
Failing peer review is now considered a 'cover-up'. Being shown to be demonstrably inaccurate is the latest thing in credibility, don't you know.
It's a *constant* =]
Peer Review is scientific ritual.
R Leakey It sure is ! It is not commonly known that part of the ritual entails eating live babies.
R Leakey - "Peer Review is scientific ritual." - I suppose that peer review is a process and so is ritual but what other qualities do they share to justify your assertion? (based, of course on actually definitions from a dictionary rather than ones you've made up)
32shumble Thanks, you agreed at least. I am not minimizing the importance of Peer Review but same time, I am not in the position to agree that Peer Review is only the best way to validate something. In 80s, when I was young graduate student of science, I used to think in similar ways as the most of youths think today but after reading Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos, my perception changed positively. Now I am no more dogmatic in my views. I suggest you think out of box. Here, I would like to quote Feyerabend, "Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methods and unscientific results, ... the separation of science and non-science is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. If we want to understand nature, if we want to master our physical surroundings, then we must use all ideas, all methods, and not just a small selection of them."
I must agree on most things said, but he IS JUST DESCRIBING HOW ONLY SOME BAD "SCIENTISTS" think... most of us do NOT dogmatise science as described. Criticism is the essence of science, and these presentations are completely in line with good sceince.
Kind Regards
Thank you.
yes
The latest research including the Double Slit Theory proves that matter comes from mind, not the opposite. People trying to silence him are afraid of the human free conscience, investigations into that which exists beyond the existential should be encouraged not repressed. Dr Sheldrake is a pioneer.
Kronos my account got hacked - hey can you point towards this research plz? Sounds interesting
You mean double slit experiment, and it does not show that matter comes from mind.
Double slit experiments don't show that matter comes from the mind, but (just as strange) that certain quantum results are dependent on the state of 'which path' information, which is in principle knowable. This isn't to say that a human is required for the quantum effect.
@@joelsunil2138 again, another common debate amongst the scientific community/followers. Where is your proof that it isn’t the case? This is why it’s an ongoing debate because neither hypothesis can be refuted.
@@joelsunil2138 I think you’d enjoy madebyjimbobs content. Who knows,
Maybe you’ll openly debate him and learn a thing or two from him.
IF ADMITING A MISTAKE WASNT LOOKED UPON WITH SUCH DISDAIN IN OUR SOCIETY MAYBE SUCH PROBLEMS WOULDN'T OCCUR
why was this talk banned? For that matter why was the title of his book changed from The Science Delusion to Science Set Free in North America? It's cool for a book called The God Delusion to be published but God forbid (err... nvm) that we criticize the holy tenants of science! Reminds me of that episode of South Park where they found a religion of science after Richard Dawkins
I imagine because he was threatened with being sued for his title being too close to 'The God Delusion' and basically using someone else's work to promote his own? This is just a theory...but it seems likely. Either that. or almost nobody's read the God Delusion in the US?;)
I'd imagine because of what he says at 11:15 . Essentially he's making a claim about a bunch of scientists at an institution lying about their research. If he can't provide evidence that they lied they might have the ability to sue him for slander. That would be my guess anyway.
The change in title is due to the politics of international publishing. Publisher A cannot use the same title as Publisher B. How stupid is that?
That is not true you do illustrate the problem of scientific dogma
Science will evolve and prove telepathy is real and possible. Just because you haven't experienced something, don't assume it isn't real. I can tell you 100% I KNOW IT AS A FACT that something comes very close to it, and it isn't dependent on technology. It may be dependent on fungi, or it may be dependent on meditation. Not sure which. But I know that it is real and not just in my head. I had a real intimate relationship with a girl and I can tell you now that I am a few years older it all seems like a fucking impossible dream. But I am betting all my hopes on one short moment which was before I ruined my health at about 16 years old. A lot changes when you get older. You harden and become skeptical, less easy to relate with the world and to connect with your perceptions as you trust less. But trust me we don't understand it, I don't even understand it. The closest theory I would use to come close to what I experienced would be some kind of light or heat generated within my own body that other people can feel or sense somehow. We can feel infrared light as heat, for example. But I know from that that telepathy is possible.
If you want to know my experience, let me just say that I loved my self on such a deep level that when I looked inward to a special place which seems foreign to me now but back then this woman could feel it and she looked up at me. I appeared as still, I didn't move my body. I maybe moved internally which is what this woman could sense and feel. But really it was all mental. All I did was think of a location that I achieved in meditation. It was no mistake or coincidence. As soon as I looked inward I got a direct response from her. I was taking a lot of mushrooms back then and eating a TONNN of raw fruits and vegetables... I just loved myself, alright? I dropped out of high school to meditate every day for nearly 2 years of my life I did nothing but take a lot of mushrooms and was eating very healthy. But I guess from all my meditation I understood my inner landscape a lot more. Most "spiritual" moment of my life, involving another person. Because looking back on that, I know without a shadow of doubt that telepathy, real telepathy, must be possible. It's all within you. I cannot believe it is possible with the way I am now, but, I do know it is possible. #GoldenYears #Dreams #Goals
He must have had some quite heroic doses... This was refreshing to watch
Resistance to quantum mind research ,postulated by Roger Penrose and Hamerof ,is a perfect example of atheist influenced scientific dogma.
From Wikipedia: " Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,[25] and refers to himself as an atheist.[26] "
invictus1453
I know it makes all the more stranger there's so much Resistance
JayDee284
exactly , Penrose is open minded.
My point is that any resistance to Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) model proposed by Penrose and Hamerof has very little to do with atheism. Penrose is an atheist. The real debate here is between Strong AI and it's opponents. Though there are some like John Searl who oppose both Strong AI as well as Penrose / Hamerof hypothesis.
I have read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. I enjoyed it. Penrose is attacking Strong AI promoted by people like Douglas Hofstadter in another great book, GEB.
The debate is actually very interesting. Penrose uses notions of computability as well as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in his arguments. But his interpretations have been questioned by other Mathematicians / Philosophers. Not possible to go in to details on you tube comment section.
It must also be remembered that directly testing Penrose / Hamerof hypothesis is extremely difficult. In fact they have not been able to test it so far (to my knowledge). Testing Quantum Entanglements in general even in a physics lab (let alone in the brain) has not been easy. It was not achieved until until 1980's. And only recently has it been becoming a common experiment.
So we should not simply assume some atheist conspiracy behind everything.
invictus1453 never thought there was but if there is its from Materialist's
Rupert rocks! I was a passenger in a friends car traveling down a residential street at about 30 miles an hour. A van was approaching us from the opposite direction. When the van was about 20ft away from us, a young boy on a bicycle rode out of his driveway right into the path of the van. I tensed up knowing what was about to happen...except nothing happened. As the van passed us we saw the boy on the bike casually crossing the street about 70 feet in front of us. I looked at my friend and we both had the same incredulous reaction. '"Did you see what I just saw?!" "Did you see that?!" "What the hell just happened?!" We are a long, long way from figuring it all out.
It’s extremely clear that TED failed to reasonably disambiguate Sheldrake’s remarks. He is not criticizing Science, or researchers; rather, he is declaring that there’s a branch, within the scientific community as a whole, of Scientism-ists. These are eliminative materialists, and other people who share a bizarre world-view, a kind of unadmitted religion, that claims to be scientific in principle, but (formally) isn’t. It’s a world-view.
This causes scientific results to be misinterpreted according to the principles of this view. It creates something that should never really be a part of Science at all: a dominating, materialist world-view, that does what science should not: it tells us what qualities things, beings, situations must have. It pre-determines the meaning of what is discovered. It declares »identity itself, when it should be asking questions.
Science, as a way of knowing, is not equipped to declare identity. Rather, it examines relationships. And data (a peculiar form of information).
In any case, Sheldrake was highlighting an actual, serious problem. A religion masquerading to the public as science.
Science itself is nowhere indicted by Sheldrake - he was trying to disclose an ideological imperative which has infected not merely science but modern 'thought'. This is a branch of the DISC (E. Wienstein - Distributed Information Suppression Complex) that is exceptionally contagious, and represents a collapse of imagination, curiosity, and understanding.
TED’s 'interpretation’ of Sheldrake transfers his actually reasonable concern about a cohort within the scientific community to science itself. That’s on them, not Sheldrake. It’s a childishly confused error.
Not so!
One can only investigate that which they can physically gain evidence for. That doesn't necessarily mean that something needs to be observed only that it's effects can be observered or measured.
The main problem with science is the lack of understanding by the general public and a willingness to accept the views of anybody claiming to be an authority of a subject that they (the public) themselves know little to nothing about. That irrational acceptance of "The facts" has nothing to do with the practices or beliefs of those in the scientific community.
What you have in that instance is esentially incredulous people trusting what might appear on the surface to be an argument from authority.
Which would be the case IF there wasn't peer review of published papers and these statements were the view of one scientist. They aren't they are the view of a group of scientist that worked in collaboration to produce a paper based on results from their research and experimentation which was then reviewed by 10s if not 100s of experts in that field who either agree or disagree with the findings. Generally that which is considered a scientific theory has undergone the test of time with further discovories being predicted and then found later on to match the prediction.
.
Am I the only one who would've loved to see a Ted talk featuring Terence Mckenna on, oh I don't know, the subject of psychedelics?
Plenty of that material exists online, without the TED label. Just type his name into the search bat
Sheldrake abuses the word dogma. None of his 10 claims he calls dogma is a dogma in the sense that it is a "principle laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". These are claims about what has been observed and is believed to be true and they certainly are controvertible (even if there is no controversy, possibly because of the lacking evidence). Someone who could refute, for example, the constant nature of the speed of light c or of acceleration G would surely win a Nobel price. Sheldrake seems not to realise or understand that science is about truth and in particular that the most desired position to be in as a scientist is to refute a claim everybody thought was true before. Every scientist would love to be able to show that the speed of light is not a constant, really! They just don't think they are able and have never been, so far. If there are dogmas in science it is reproducibility and falsifiability (funny that Sheldrake didn't even mention them). These are the core ideas of the scientific method and a successful challenge would entirely change science as we know it.
"Every scientist would love to be able to show that the speed of light is not a constant, really! " - Yes. One only has to remember the sensation produced about a year ago when it was announced by a European lab that neutrinos appeared be traveling faster than light. It produced shock and sensation.
Later of course it after taking a deeper look and cross checking that it turned out to be an experimental error. But for a few months physicists were anticipating a revolution in their ideas.
So much for so called "Dogma ".
invictus1453 Absolutely. What was less well reported though, was that the Italian lab involved had a discrepancy of about 0.001% and didn't believe themselves that neutrinos traveled faster than light; they just couldn't find where they'd gone wrong. They published anyway and 6 months later it was discovered they'd made two measurement errors. They republished their results with the error corrected and practically no one picked up on the story. The world love the headline: "Einstein Wrong" and no one was interested in "Actually, Einstein Right" - so still when you ask people, they'd say neutrinos travel faster than light, if they could remember the word 'neutrino.'
As an aside, the implication was that time travel would be possible, and there was a joke going around Cern at the time that went: "And the barman said we don't serve neutrinos; a neutrino walks into a bar" - I only mention this because it's the funniest thing any scientist ever said.
Mike Taylor Interesting. Thanks.
In 100 years this will be the only Ted talk that remains.
“Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest” that’s a big miracle we can’t rap our heads around.
Fast forward to 2020, science doesn't even pretend to be open minded inquiry anymore. Pure dogma, all politics, little truth.
Read "13 things that don't make sense" for a much more scientific version of this. Lots of hypocrisy in science.
Insane that this was banned, I thought TED was all about the exchange of ideas? So narrow minded.
Only sanctioned ideas.
TED is under the control of many organizations they would never let you speak if you know something that could kick this system into balls, before it didn't look like but now what kind of BS they are doing it's not longer platform there are these sick peoples and it's not watchable anymore.
I’m only a Lawyer, but I consider science as a religion full of dogmas like Christianity but for those that actually have read more books other than the Bible. So they are full of it same as a Christian would say a Jew “good luck where you’re going for you do not believe in The Lord Jesus Christ” and people will keep fighting among themselves out of those dogmas, some of them will kill. Good, if people keep the litis we lawyers can always take advantage of it, so keep fighting.
Sheldrake is a briliant man. His ideas make a lot of sense. Sadly, some of mainstream science and for sure dogmatic scientism is just not ready to hear these ideas.
And tards like you know better than contemporary scientists.
Was this really banned? Or was it just too uninteresting to keep? Ted talks explicitly stated that it want to record for the benefit of social understanding, those people that have particular and diverse insights to create constructive discussion. This guy....is just making assertions and claiming them to be inherent problems with scientific progress, while promoting himself.
Yeah this talk is almost exactly the same as the first chapter or so of the audio book 'Science Set Free'. He should rename this talk to "Buy My Book, Buy My Book, Buy My Book' .....I think TED is pretty much against that.
Michael Baker
yeah, I've never seen any TED talker talk about the book they wrote or the research papers they've done, or the movies they've been in....
You could say the same for Copernicus, back in the day.
Michael Baker At least Copernicus had logic and reason on his side , here there's nothin'
***** but you don't risk being burned at the stake in this climate.
While at a Cosmo Sheldrake concert (his son), I heard someone shout at Cosmo, "I love your dad". I see why. Such a thought-provoking speech.
The fact that this video had so many likes really disturbs me.
When people sing the praises of the scientific method, they often fail to appreciate that the sciences are a very human phenomenon. They fail to recognize that there are prejudices/authorities that will be more open to certain kinds of experiments/evidence than others. They fail to recognize how powerful the underlying metaphysical commitments shared by many in the scientific community (materialism), shapes the community as a whole. Every time someone argues what science is by definition, completely disregarding how it's actually carried out in practice, are similar to people with a religious allegiance--often without even realizing it.
The diference is that you can't battle against what works, science is simply the study of the natural world and the phenomena within it, we know science it's real because it works, as simple as that, and because so far we havent found any instante where it doesnt work
Materialism works because it provides evidence, your woo woo doesn't work because it doesn't provide evidence. It's very simple.
@@roro-mm7cc I find it's almost impossible to make a nuanced critique of something without it being received in some extreme either/or form. I make a comment about problems/dogmatism in the sciences, and people immediately assume it's anti science. I'm not sure what to do about this. I suppose I need to write everything in some insane long form where I assure people I'm not advocating throwing the scientific method out the window and propping up charlatanism or whatever. But, I don't think that will work, either. People look for battle lines whether one makes concessions or not.
@@carso1500 I find it's almost impossible to make a nuanced critique of something without it being received in some extreme either/or form. I make a comment about problems/dogmatism in the sciences, and people immediately assume it's anti science. I'm not sure what to do about this. I suppose I need to write everything in some insane long form where I assure people I'm not advocating throwing the scientific method out the window and propping up charlatanism or whatever. But, I don't think that will work, either. People look for battle lines whether one makes concessions or not.
@@radphilospher I get that in some industries (such as pharmaceuticals) there may be a preference to fund certain avenues of research that may be geared towards creating a profitable treatment, rather than what would be the most efficacious. But that doesn't mean the science behind this research itself is "incorrect" or indeed the scientific method is a delusion - just there may be a more effective treatment pathway that is being ignored and if the scientific method was applied and funded towards researching this it would be discovered.
We are all connected in Consciousness and it is deeply reassuring to know there are great minds bringing this to light. We are beginning to wake up and need this to be discussed. Thank you Rupert.
th-cam.com/video/NP_ENJanw7w/w-d-xo.html
What do you mean we are all connected? People say this all the time and it sounds like a cliche but what do you actually mean when you say it? Connected how? And do you mean metaphorically, spiritually, or actually?
@@mikepayne2581 it's meant quite literally. Think of it like this: conciousness is "the Mind of God", and the Mind of God is a river, constantly flowing, and within thar flow of water there are thousands upon thousands of whirlpools. Those whirlpools, when looked at individually, give the illusion that they are separate from each other, while they are their own individual identity, they are made of the same substance, water (conciousness) with only the illusion of separation.
If you want to think about it mechanically: We are all connected to the same wifi (conciousness), we just have our own fiber optic cable (soul/individual conciousness) and our processors (brain/body) are different, so they process the signal differently. But strip away the cable and the processor and its all coming from the same source, its simply being transferred differently from human machine to human machine
@@mikepayne2581maybe the abiogenesis , the BELIEF scientific
@@techtutorvideos best part is we'll all find out when we die, friend
I can imagine Richard Dawkins seething with anger.
Questioning science itself is science
Biomorphic Resonance? In my book that is called pseudoscience. How did this person get to speak at a TED talk?
The meter is not defined by the speed of light, it was a measurement of 1/10th millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator. The speed of light measurement from the meter was to fit the meter length in relation to the speed of light. As our calculations of the speed of light gets more precise over time the figure will change BUT the meter length will NOT change. The original meter bar is held in France. The speed of light did not change, only our calculation of it got more refined...any first year physics student knows this.
Also was this person not wearing any shoes and socks or what?
Pay attention, you are the one who may not have any socks. The speed of light is DEFINED EXACTLY as 299,792,458 metres per second, that is, a metre is 1/299,792,458 the distance travelled by light in 1 standard second. The speed of light is defined this way and has nothing to do with a metre stick in Paris. I suggest that Mr. Sheldrake is on the ball, you are not.
Yes but you don t understand that the meter is apply to the calculation of the speed of light and not the speed of light applied to the calculation of the meter.
The meter as a measurement existed way before we knew the speed of light. That was the point. The way Sheldrake presented it was that as if scientists were guessing or making changes to a fundamental part of physiscs. It wasn't the case.
Tomorrow we could say that the speed of light is equal to 1805675879 websites per second as in the number of sites that can be loaded as light travels one second. It would not change the actual speed of light, just the way it is represented as a measurement.
Happy New Year
Sorry, I do understand what Mr. Sheldrake's point is. His point is that "constants" may not be constants. The modern definition of the speed of light relies on the distance travelled by light in a standard second, not on a standard rigid body. The subject of rigid bodies in understanding basic physics questions has a very rich history in the development of relativity. It even played a role for Eisntein in his initial thinking about general relativity. You can research the subject. Mr. Sheldrake's point (presumably) is that by eliminating the standard physical (rigid body) metre, and defining distance in terms of the standard second, the unit will always, by definition, be constant. Perhaps a rigid meter measurement would yield a changing value compared to the new standarised definition. The subject I think is actually quite complex. But his point is to show that if you have a certain world view you can rig things to conform with your expectations. Whether or not his other ideas have merit I do not know; I have not researched it enough to make a judgement based on facts, not opinions.
***** You are right about the point sheldrake is trying to make. But let me just add that I do not think that there is any merit in the point he is making.
"Meter" is defined using the speed of light. The justification for definition is the invariance of speed of light (according to contemporary framework of physics). However, this definition will not prevent us from noticing if this framework does not hold up.
If speed of light is varying, then it has to vary with respect to some physical quantity. In other words, the relationships of contemporary physics should not hold. And that will be noticeable in measurements.
Also, the main advantage of this definition is that it's universality helps in calibration. So suppose I calibrate a physical scale using speed of light in a lab. If at a later point of time I calibrate another rod, and these two rods do not match, then the discrepancy will be noticeable. In other words, calibrations done by calibration labs will not hold up.
Speed of light is still being measured using various techniques. From cavity resonance to interferometers. For example, astronomical measurements use the reciprocal of speed of light. And in 2009, "relative uncertainty in these measurements is 0.02 parts per billion" (it is in Wikipedia).
Lastly, physicists have always considered and are considering various speculative theories that speculate as to what would happened if speed of light in changing. For example, less than a year ago there was a speculative paper written about how quantum fluctuations (specifically Fermion pair production) may result in variation in electric and magnetic permeability in vacuum, which in turn will might lead to variation in speed of light. However, since no variation has so far been found up to one part in a billion, this paper predicts an extremely small variation at the order of a Femtosecond. This is yet to be tested and the authors of the paper wrote that they plan to test it.
So much for speed of light being a "Dogma" in physics.
invictus1453
Professor Sheldrake, thank you (years late!) - a fascinating talk, and I really enjoyed your stock-market analogy on constants. To me, Scientific Thinking has always been a procedural thing, and dogmatic thinking an Anathema, whether in its religious, cultural, historical, national, international, scientific, or philosophical aspects, etc.. That is, perhaps, the main reason I cannot stop learning, every day…
I don't understand why this is banned. This man seems very reasonable, despite that I don't agree with everything he says. He didn't berate or make fun of anybody-he just stated what is wrong with the current scientific mindset and what questions should be asked when studying the universe.
I'm honestly kind of surprised I haven't seen any _Zero Escape_ references in the comments after this talk.
excellent, excellent speech. hearing him spell out the dogmas one by one makes you realize how ridiculous and limiting the really are.
Rupert is one of my favourite philosophers. He is a real truth seeking mind, and soul.
th-cam.com/video/NP_ENJanw7w/w-d-xo.html
he is an idiot like you.
He is still a Dr isn't he and we wish there were more like him.
kind regards Legends
He is just a laughable clown.
Noble prize winner, Szent-Györgyi also brilliantly presented the outcome of the mechanistic view of an organism:
“As scientists attempt to understand a living system, they move down from dimension to dimension, from one level of complexity to the next lower level. I followed this course in my own studies. I went from anatomy to the study of tissues, then to electron microscopy and chemistry, and finally to quantum mechanics. This downward journey through the scale of dimensions has its irony, for in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps, trying to fight my way back.”4
Traditionally, in both eastern and western philosophy, life is understood as a cognitive or sentient principle. Sentience cannot be manufactured artificially by any noble mechanical and chemical arrangement of dead atoms and molecules. In the ancient eastern philosophy based on the Vedāntic or Bhagavat paradigm, for example, the invocation of Śrī Īśopanisad provides the concept of ‘Organic Wholism’:5 “oḿ pūrnam adah pūrnam idaḿ pūrnāt pūrnam udacyate pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya pūrnam evāvaśisyate - The ‘Organic Whole’ produces ‘organic wholes’. An ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be assembled. That process can only produce inorganic, mechanical or chemical processes, not living organisms.” A similar conclusion was made by Rudolph Virchow in 1858, “omnis cellula e cellula” (“every cell comes from a cell”)
*Knowledge in the mode of ignorance increases ignorance, not knowledge*
Suppose a person goes deep into an unending dark tunnel. The deeper they go into the tunnel, the further they go from the light. Similar is the result of cultivating knowledge in the mode of ignorance. It is the state where we get caught in one fragment of reality while forgetting the rest of reality (Bhagavad-gita 18.22).
To understand, consider a surgeon who operates a patient’s heart carefully but neglects the rest of the body and ends up cutting the lungs. Result? Operation successful, patient dead.
Similarly, today’s predominant ideology of materialism reduces science to scientism. Whereas science seeks material explanations for material phenomena, scientism presumes, unscientifically, that matter is all that exists. But matter doesn’t seek to study science or understand reality; we seek to. Evidently, that seeker is something more than matter. That trans-material self is the source of the consciousness that enables us to seek any knowledge, including scientific knowledge.
By the materialist ideology, whatever else we may know, we know not the knower that knows. The deeper we go into the dark tunnel of materialism, the further we go from the great bright sky outside. Tragically, we celebrate our descent into darkness as the progressive march of knowledge, while labelling the open sky as the fantasy of regressive ignoramuses.
Nonetheless, Gita wisdom stimulates our longing for light with an intellectually stimulating depiction of that vast sky: Reality comprises matter, spirit and the unlimited source of both. In our pursuit of knowledge, matter is meant to be instrumental, not terminal. The orderliness of matter that is revealed through science is a pointer to a transcendental organizer.
This holistic vision of matter shows us the way from the tunnel to the light. Walking the Gita’s way, we gradually realize our spirituality and relish enduring harmony with our source.
Bg. 18.22
यत्तु कृत्स्नवदेकस्मिन्कार्ये सक्तमहैतुकम् ।
अतत्त्वार्थवदल्पं च तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥२२॥
Translation
And that knowledge by which one is attached to one kind of work as the all in all, without knowledge of the truth, and which is very meager, is said to be in the mode of darkness.
Thank you for this explanation. Very interesting and thought provoking🙏
There are two issues in this video and I think a lot of people end up conflating the two. The first is whether or not science and scientists in general assume too much about their knowledge of the universe and need to double check their basic beliefs from time to time. The second is his own theories on the nature of the universe.
It is important to look at these two as different points because even if he's wrong in his own theories of the universe it doesn't mean that it isn't worth looking at how science is done and whether it is a bit to ridged. I tend to agree that he is probably wrong about a lot of these things, but that's the great thing about science. You can actually check your beliefs and see if they are right and it's generally more exciting to find out you were wrong than to confirm that you were right because being wrong means you've actually discovered something.
Excellent point. I was thinking the same thing myself. Holding the traditions of science accountable for whatever biases we see in them is commendable. Accepting this does not mean that we accept Sheldrake's morphic resonance idea or his other ideas.
Science can never be to rigid, that is why it is science. Without Rigid we end up thinking like this speaker in that he forms incorrect assumptions about things and never double checks them. That is the problem I have about this talk. He talks about a lot of things as though he understands them when he does not. He claims to know what scientist think and what science says about various topics and then swings and misses the entire video because he has no clue. He formed his own Dogmas and just ran with it never double checking which is ironic because he is acting exactly like what he is complaining about. Science is not acting like that... he is. Science double checks its work constantly and forever. This guy reads it on a webpage than forms a million theories about that half piece of information he just read before understanding what he read. Than he forms more theories based on his theories which spawn more theories until he is miles from the truth. I have seen people like him before and if you have any clue about science it is obvious what TED had issues with in this video. The guy was just serious wrong on many levels.
@@seditt5146 He does have Ph.D. in natural sciences from Cambridge; I would image that many of his frustrations with how scientific practices contradict the basic principles of scientific research actually stem from his experiences as a researcher.
For sure, the "dogmas" he's pointing out are strawman arguments - what else could they be, if we're talking on such level of generality as this. So each one of them can easily be refuted - kind of - by pointing out a case where a scientist doesn't align with one of the dogmas in some case. It's not hard to find such examples. What's shocking, though, is that it's also fairly easy to find proponents of each of the dogmas within the scientific community, where there should really be none (if science really is as scientific as it purports to be). That's why I think Sheldrake's project is laudable.
Interestingly enough, one can find many similar arguments in Richard Feynman's work, for instance in his autobiographical books. He could provide a more "credible" reference for some of these questions, even though (as you write) a real scientific mind should also be able to dismiss the Ad Hominem and actually consider Sheldrake's arguments about scientific practice, distinct from his original theories that may be somewhat dubious.
@@samijarvinen1585 I know he has a PhD however that really does not make him any less of a crackpot. He is no longer a scientist and has not practiced science in many decades. Instead I guess he found it more lucrative to peddle pseudo-science as he purposefully cranks out one bullshit hypothesis after another, stuff that would make tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist blush. Many of the "Dogmas" he discusses in this talk alone show he has a complete lack of general understanding about Science and how it works which is likely why he spends much of his life now attacking "Skeptics" aka anyone that disagrees with him that he has telekinetic powers. I wish that was a fucking joke but it's not.
This guy is fucking insane and he knows just enough big science words to sucker in most of the population with Quantum Woo but those of us that know about the stuff he is talking about know he is completely and utterly clueless about how anything he talks about works. It seems like he reads a Science book and goes to lectures yet only hears keywords and stuff he wants to hear... the rest he just fills in with imaginary stuff he wants to be real yet every single person that has done any kind of peer review on his work has proven without a doubt is fake. Despite constantly being proven wrong he insist it is the skeptics who are wrong and the bad guys, not the insane washed up scientist that couldn't hack it in the field. That is why he hates science... He wants his hypothesis to be true but they are not true. Instead of doing Science and altering your hypothesis he instead still believes his disproved hypothesis is true and it is instead the scientific method that is wrong. The scientific method can not be wrong and we have proven that using the scientific method ironically enough.
There is nothing to ban here, but probably his talk should be ridiculed and appropriately vetted. Rupert is thinking freely and critically thinking. This is what science is all about. He is not trying to sneak "god" in through the back door, like the intelligent design people do. Rather he is just trying to shake the foundations a bit. However, I find some of his statements suspect, like the universe "popping out of nothing", the "goodness" of alternative therapies, and ESP as a property of the mind. He has not overcome those dogmas yet it seems.
***** Modern cosmology does not accept the notion that the universe popped out of "nothing". Dark matter and dark energy are not observable but they are assumed to exist, and supported by evidence, so the idea that he puts it forward as a "science" dogma, is nonsense or easily refuted.
Andrew Lohbihler I'm not a scientist and I appreciate we are talking generally about big questions...is an assumption scientific in this context...? If it is unobservable how is there 'evidence'? This would all appear to be pseudo science to me? At some point even well researched opinion is simply just opinion. Maybe we are at a threshold where words can no longer function to describe the 'physical' universe perhaps in the same way that science whose beauty is to my mind the creation of questions not answers...when did art, philosophy. spirituality and science drift so far apart anyway...
Andrew Lohbihler
it did not pop out of nothing but there is dark matter dark energy brilliant thank you mr i almost doubted my atheist religion but you saved me
They banned this? I have watched much poorer presentations on TED, this talk is quite interesting. Why should anyone feel so threatened? LOL. Rupert Sheldrake is just challenging, that's all there is to it.
Can you imagine the bleating mess it would make of physics if constants turned out inconstant? I shudder at the meer thought of it.
By "poorer" you mean less entertaining or less understandable to you?
He claims himself as a scientist. He should have done simple research about the constants and publish it, yet he just presented some "dialog". And where is that "evidence" about global crystal growth and rat learning or esp?
He is a fraud, that is why they banned this. The speech is inspiring, but it is useless.
*****
Less interesting and more delusional or kinky, imho.
I haven't seen any of the evidence for crystal growth and the rest, but I hope it's all in his latest book "The Science Delusion", which I am thinking of getting a copy of.
Anything that does not go with one's convictions and thoughts of what truth is is a threat to one's integrity and naturally unpleasant to deal with. That's why, for instance, some religious people have a massive tantrum just hearing something like "Mohammad was a pervert". This illustrates what the power of belief can do to our rational side.
What is useless is discarding what challenges us to critically examine our conventions. Do you think RS is lying about the discrapancies in the measured values of constants?
Or he is just completely yignorant of epistemology
Total crap! You don't know what you are talking about!
wow its actually scaring me how many people are actually being done in by this. Humans are very emotional beings which tends to get in the way of rational thought.. of course its right to question everything but that is exactly what the scientific method IS.. mark my words what he is suggesting is quite the opposite... which is to make bold claims that appeal to the emotional side of humans with absolutely no proof or data behind it - and then discounting the very method that would be used to question/scrutinise his theory as a way to avoid having to prove it in any way. This is dangerous thinking and I can quite see why TED removed it now.. sometimes bbad ideas/misinformarion can actively harm society e.g causing people to distrust science already causes a huge amount of harm e.g people not vaccinating their children - this not only puts your own child at risk but also all the other children around your child. This is dangerous.. please people try to not let your emotions interfere with your rationality - this is the way you are manipulated.
Some people have confused the limitations of science with the fundamentals of reality.
Can someone please tell me why did his Ted talk got banned ?
Scientific inquiry necessitates that one always questions authority and current dogma.
wow its actually scaring me how many people are actually being done in by this. Humans are very emotional beings which tends to get in the way of rational thought.. of course its right to question everything but that is exactly what the scientific method IS.. mark my words what he is suggesting is quite the opposite... which is to make bold claims that appeal to the emotional side of humans with absolutely no proof or data behind it - and then discounting the very method that would be used to question/scrutinise his theory as a way to avoid having to prove it in any way. This is dangerous thinking and I can quite see why TED removed it now.. sometimes bbad ideas/misinformarion can actively harm society e.g causing people to distrust science already causes a huge amount of harm e.g people not vaccinating their children - this not only puts your own child at risk but also all the other children around your child. This is dangerous.. please people try to not let your emotions interfere with your rationality - this is the way you are manipulated.
Unbelievable that this was censored. Everything this brilliant man says in this talk is actually obvious once you get outside the paradigm (or ideology). How unscientific it is to censor facts about science! Sheldrake is a scientific treasure: sadly, like so many brilliant people, he probably won't be appreciated by the establishment until after he's dead.
My opinion is that TED was right on this one. Its not presenting an idea that can help the future (which is the aim of TED) its saying all assertions are dogma. All beliefs are dogma and the way to open up evolution is to refute all attempts at building a 'structure of concepts' as unscientific. What happens when you tear down all structures? You are homeless, in chaos. The inability to hold structured concepts is like altzeimers. Or deep level anxiety. There is no ground to stand on. Its a path to mental illness. You cant just stand there and trash everything thats not what TEDS about. TED is ideas not about broadcasting a DOGMA that ideas are closeminded and shrinking reality and slowing down evolution
A true scientist! ALWAYS questioning!! Bravo!!
No a true Pseudoscientist and Charlatan more like!
@@Lamster66 you can’t progress any scientific field and discover new things without questioning past works and also proposing new hypothesis. This is the entire scientific process
@@ozone8839
No what you have described is what a Scientific process should be.
However there is nothing Scientific in this Idiots "Hypothesis".
If you could even call it that.
A hypothesis is usually based on some evidence that suggests a particular cause or outcome. Not a random idea pulled out of your ass!
Usually Physical constraints result in a lack of data meaning that a Hypothesis remains theoretical rather than having further evidence to support it and progessing to a Scientific theory..
Hypothesis that have been shown to be correct are called Theories
Hypothesis that have no evidence to back them up are called B.S!
@@Lamster66 Hence why I used the word hypothesis and not theory. You’re not going to get a hypothesis without asking questions whether they’re based on past works or are a completely new idea. You can’t propose a hypothesis without questioning. And if you can’t propose a hypothesis then you can’t develop a theory. It all starts with a question so for you to say that you’re a bad scientist if you’re questioning things is just plain wrong. And who are you to question this mans hypothesis. Like you say they’re hypothesis so there is nothing more to say. They’re not proven and we can only speculate. But you’re contradicting yourself when you yourself can say that this man is factually wrong. You have no idea whether he is wrong or not. The best scientists are open minded. How do you think Copernicus proposed Heliocentrism. By being intuitive and challenging prior scientific theories to prove them wrong and provide a better theory. He didn’t do that without asking questions I can assure you that.
@@ozone8839
Except that isn't what I said!
What I said is that a hypothesis is based on some kind of evidence that suggests
a cause or outcome.
It isn't an Idea that you pull out of your arse based on a feeling about something!
The guy talking in the video has done exactly that there is neither evidence to suggest or confirm what he is saying.
And without that it is merely the illogical ramblings of an Idiot!
Calling these as dogmas is misleading. There's no reason to assume anything, if there is no proof of that. For instance: why would anyone assume that matter HAS consciousness?
Also dogma nine is quite curious, since people have actually studied the paranormal. They've just never resulted to anything.
Us??
Thank you Rupert Sheldrake. Your ideas are a liberation to us all. They may or may not all be necessarily correct, but i suspect many of them are. More importantly you are a model of open mindedness, reminding us how crucial it is to question the assumptions that underlie the current paradigm and dominant world view. It is remarkable that so many in the so called 'scientific' community have felt so threatened by your willingness to scrutinise the beliefs, the dogmas, that form the foundation of established orthodoxy. Ironic that so many 'scientists' should be so reluctant to consider new ideas, isn't that after all meant to be the very heart of scientific enquiry. And a special thank you also to TEDx for banning this talk, highlighting this suspicion of new ideas in such a graphic manner, your act of trying to censor free thought has in fact made this talk ever so more appealing and i dare say far more popular.
One issue I've always taken within science is that we can build upon what others have done. When expanding science becomes limited then we'll have a problem.
A favorite story of mine, from studying physics... Back at the turn of the century, when the 3 'fundamental particles', the electron, the proton, and the neutron, were being discovered, Rutherford's opinion was that the neutron was simply a proton and electron 'bound together in some way'. Later physicists claimed this was incompatible with quantum physics. But, then later still, it was discovered that a neutron (particularly when not confined within the nucleus of an atom) decays....into a proton and an electron (and a neutrino).
Physicists believe in space time and dark matter - morons
It's like in history.
The first civilization was Sumeria... knock knock, who's there? Göbekli tepe
Rasmus Kirkebæk-Jensen wrong. The first civilisations was the English.
@@markanthonyk1504
You're a nutball.
rstevewarmorycom go back to your country
@@markanthonyk1504
Hmmm, which one is that, I was born in Illinois? Are you a complete moron? Yes or no.
@@rstevewarmorycom the first civilization was the chicagoans, under King Ditka. Pfft everyone knows that
Actually science needs 2 free miracles - 1) the big bang, 2) the beginning of life. Neither can be explained properly by science, though scientists do try to make educated guesses that kind of sound sort of semi-believable if you squint and don't focus too hard on the facts xD
Edit: And that's not to say I'm against science - I studied Biochemistry at Uni and I was very interested in the origin of life in particular, I am also not at all religious... though I do feel like the Universe is conscious, and that everything in the Universe (including us) are parts of that greater consciousness, the same way that I am conscious and all my cells are little parts of that consciousness....
There’s definitely a few free miracles but I wouldn’t say the beginning of life is one. At the beginning life was just a random chemical reaction that happened to not be extinguished.
@@BarginsGalore "just a random chemical reaction"
0 proof
Believing that our universe is mechanical, while scoffing at the idea of an electric universe, (while at the same time relying completely on electricity in *all* we do), is a perfect example of the dillusion referred to here.
i take my hat off. this is GREAT, first class awakened soul.
What is so scandalous about this? He is basically making the argument that Hume made like 250 years ago. Science isn't god. Duh! The fact that people react with such kneejerk disgust says much more about their intellectual depth than anything else.
Our cultural ego is bigger than ever
I really don’t understand why this was banned. He’s basically saying dogmatic scientists need to go back to what science is really all about, asking theses questions and actually research and study it instead of assuming everything is answered, we won’t progress that way. And it’s true! Everything is not answered and stopping now and just going on assumptions is pretty ignorant, especially if you’re a scientist.
If you go deeper into figuring out why it's banned, you'll see there's typically some financial interest behind it. Always is something like that. It's easier for a dishonest scientist to keep their job when they've studied the same thing for 3 decades and don't want to open their minds to the possibility that they're wrong, or else they'll lose funding, their livelihood, and basically undergo an existential crisis because they built their whole career around something that they don't want to see disproven. It's groupthink but at a corrupt level and very widespread. It's also like an authoritarian disease, now that phrases such as "trust the science" are being weaponized for political and monetary benefit
one of the first things my ninth grade biology teacher taught us was that dogma kills science - im happy that other people are seeing that there are dogmatic beliefs in science that are probably prohibiting us from advancing further :)
th-cam.com/video/NP_ENJanw7w/w-d-xo.html
Sheldrake is probably the most brilliant scientist and seminal thinker on the planet today.
What has he ever done?
Very interesting guy, who raises some very important points on how we deal with science. What is the motivation behind these TED people banning him I wonder?
Do you see a similarity? "And yet it moves" or "Albeit it does move" (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the immovable[1] Sun rather than the converse during the Galileo affair.