News TEDx

Open for discussion: Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake from TEDxWhitechapel

Posted by: Tedstaff

UPDATE: Please see our new blog post Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take, which replaces the x-ed out text below.

To discuss the talks, view them here:

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk
The debate about Graham Hancock’s talk

After due diligence, including a survey of published scientific research and recommendations from our Science Board and our community, we have decided that Graham Hancock’s and Rupert Sheldrake’s talks from TEDxWhitechapel should be removed from distribution on the TEDx YouTube channel.

We’re not censoring the talks. Instead we’re placing them here, where they can be framed to highlight both their provocative ideas and the factual problems with their arguments. See both talks after the jump.

All talks on the TEDxTalks channel represent the opinion of the speaker, not of TED or TEDx, but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.

UPDATE: Please find Rupert Sheldrake’s response below the video window.

According to our science board, Rupert Sheldrake bases his argument on several major factual errors, which undermine the arguments of talk. For example, he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it’s generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there’s much research and literature exploring the idea.

He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example. But, in truth, there has been a great deal of inquiry into the nature of scientific constants, including published, peer-reviewed research investigating whether certain constants – including the speed of light – might actually vary over time or distance. Scientists are constantly questioning these assumptions. For example, just this year Scientific American published a feature on the state of research into exactly this question. (“Are physical constants really constant?: Do the inner workings of nature change over time?”) Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a careful rebuttal of this point.

In addition, Sheldrake claims to have “evidence” of morphic resonance in crystal formation and rat behavior. The research has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, despite attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work.

Response to the TED Scientific Board’s Statement

Rupert Sheldrake
March 18, 2013

I would like to respond to TED’s claims that my TEDx talk “crossed the line into pseudoscience”, contains ”serious factual errors” and makes “many misleading statements.”

This discussion is taking place because the militant atheist bloggers Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers denounced me, and attacked TED for giving my talk a platform. I was invited to give my talk as part of a TEDx event in Whitechapel, London, called “Challenging Existing Paradigms.” That’s where the problem lies: my talk explicitly challenges the materialist belief system. It summarized some of the main themes of my recent book Science Set Free (in the UK called The Science Delusion). Unfortunately, the TED administrators have publically aligned themselves with the old paradigm of materialism, which has dominated science since the late nineteenth century.

TED say they removed my talk from their website on the advice of their Scientific Board, who also condemned Graham Hancock’s talk. Hancock and I are now facing anonymous accusations made by a body on whose authority TED relies, on whose advice they act, and behind whom they shelter, but whose names they have not revealed.

TED’s anonymous Scientific Board made three specific accusations:

Accusation 1:
“he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it’s generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there’s much research and literature exploring the idea.”

I characterized the materialist dogma as follows: “Matter is unconscious: the whole universe is made up of unconscious matter. There’s no consciousness in stars in galaxies, in planets, in animals, in plants and there ought not to be any in us either, if this theory’s true. So a lot of the philosophy of mind over the last 100 years has been trying to prove that we are not really conscious at all.” Certainly some biologists, including myself, accept that animals are conscious. In August, 2012, a group of scientists came out with an endorsement of animal consciousness in “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness”. As Discovery News reported, “While it might not sound like much for scientists to declare that many nonhuman animals possess conscious states, it’s the open acknowledgement that’s the big news here.” (http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.htm)

But materialist philosophers and scientists are still in the majority, and they argue that consciousness does nothing – it is either an illusion or an ”epiphenomenon” of brain activity. It might as well not exist in animals – or even in humans. That is why in the philosophy of mind, the very existence of consciousness is often called “the hard problem”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Accusation 2:
“He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example.… Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a careful rebuttal of this point.”

TED’s Scientific Board refers to a Scientific American article that makes my point very clearly: “Physicists routinely assume that quantities such as the speed of light are constant.”

In my talk I said that the published values of the speed of light dropped by about 20 km/sec between 1928 and 1945. Carroll’s “careful rebuttal” consisted of a table copied from Wikipedia showing the speed of light at different dates, with a gap between 1926 and 1950, omitting the very period I referred to. His other reference (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html) does indeed give two values for the speed of light in this period, in 1928 and 1932-35, and sure enough, they were 20 and 24km/sec lower than the previous value, and 14 and 18 km/sec lower than the value from 1947 onwards.

1926: 299,798
1928: 299,778
1932-5: 299,774
1947: 299,792

In my talk I suggest how a re-examination of existing data could resolve whether large continuing variations in the Universal Gravitational Constant, G, are merely errors, as usually assumed, or whether they show correlations between different labs that might have important scientific implications hitherto ignored. Jerry Coyne and TED’s Scientific Board regard this as an exercise in pseudoscience. I think their attitude reveals a remarkable lack of curiosity.

Accusation 3:
“Sheldrake claims to have “evidence” of morphic resonance in crystal formation and rat behavior. The research has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, despite attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work.”

I said, “There is in fact good evidence that new compounds get easier to crystallize all around the world.” For example, turanose, a kind of sugar, was considered to be a liquid for decades, until it first crystallized in the 1920s. Thereafter it formed crystals everyehere. (Woodard and McCrone Journal of Applied Crystallography (1975). 8, 342). The American chemist C. P. Saylor, remarked it was as though “the seeds of crystallization, as dust, were carried upon the winds from end to end of the earth” (quoted by Woodard and McCrone).

The research on rat behavior I referred to was carried out at Harvard and the Universities of Melbourne and Edinburgh and was published in peer-reviewed journals, including the British Journal of Psychology and the Journal of Experimental Biology. For a fuller account and detailed references see Chapter 11 of my book Morphic Resonance (in the US) / A New Science of Life (in the UK). The relevant passage is online here: http://sciencesetfree.tumblr.com/

The TED Scientific Board refers to ”attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work” on morphic resonance. I would be happy to work with these eager scientists if the Scientific Board can reveal who they are.

This is a good opportunity to correct an oversimplification in my talk. In relation to the dogma that mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works, I said, “that’s why governments only fund mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies.” This is true of most governments, but the US is a notable exception. The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine receives about $130 million a year, about 0.4% of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) total annual budget of $31 billion.

Obviously I could not spell out all the details of my arguments in an 18-minute talk, but TED’s claims that it contains “serious factual errors,” “many misleading statements” and that it crosses the line into “pseudoscience” are defamatory and false.

UPDATE: Please find Graham Hancock’s response below the video window.

HANCOCK
Graham Hancock’s talk, again, shares a compelling and unorthodox worldview, but one that strays well beyond the realm of reasonable science. While attempting to critique the scientific worldview, he misrepresents what scientists actually think. He suggests, for example, that no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness.

In addition, Hancock makes statements about psychotropic drugs that seem both nonscientific and reckless. He states as fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an “emergence into consciousness,” and that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture. He seems to offer a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs), it’s no surprise his work has often been characterized as pseudo-archeology.

TED respects and supports the exploration of unorthodox ideas, but the many misleading statements in both Sheldrake’s and Hancock’s talks, whether made deliberately or in error, have led our scientific advisors to conclude that our name and platform should not be associated with these talks.

Response to the TED Scientific Board’s Statement

Graham Hancock
March 18, 2013

(1) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “…he misrepresents what scientists actually think. He suggests, for example, that no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness.”

The only passage I can find in my presentation that has any relevance at all to this allegation is between 9 mins 50 seconds and 11 mins 12 seconds. But nowhere in that passage or anywhere else in my presentation do I make the suggestion you attribute to me in your allegation, namely that “no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness.” Rather I address the mystery of life after death and state that “if we want to know about this mystery the last people we should ask are materialist, reductionist scientists. They have nothing to say on the matter at all.” That statement cannot possibly be construed as my suggesting that “no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness,” or of “misrepresenting” what materialist, reductionist scientists actually think. I am simply stating the fact, surely not controversial, that materialist, reductionist scientists have nothing to say on the matter of life after death because their paradigm does not allow them to believe in the possibility of life after death; they believe rather that nothing follows death. Here is the full transcript of what I say in my presentation between 9 mins 50 seconds and 11 mins 12 seconds: “What is death? Our materialist science reduces everything to matter. Materialist science in the West says that we are just meat, we’re just our bodies, so when the brain is dead that’s the end of consciousness. There is no life after death. There is no soul. We just rot and are gone. But actually any honest scientist should admit that consciousness is the greatest mystery of science and that we don’t know exactly how it works. The brain’s involved in it in some way, but we’re not sure how. Could be that the brain generates consciousness the way a generator makes electricity. If you hold to that paradigm then of course you can’t believe in life after death. When the generator’s broken consciousness is gone. But it’s equally possible that the relationship – and nothing in neuroscience rules it out – that the relationship is more like the relationship of the TV signal to the TV set and in that case when the TV set is broken of course the TV signal continues and this is the paradigm of all spiritual traditions – that we are immortal souls, temporarily incarnated in these physical forms to learn and to grow and to develop. And really if we want to know about this mystery the last people we should ask are materialist, reductionist scientists. They have nothing to say on the matter at all. Let’s go rather to the ancient Egyptians who put their best minds to work for three thousand years on the problem of death and on the problem of how we should live our lives to prepare for what we will confront after death…”

(2) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “… Hancock makes statements about psychotropic drugs that seem both non-scientific and reckless.”

I profoundly disagree. In my presentation I speak honestly and openly about my own damaging and destructive 24-year cannabis habit and about how experiences under the influence of Ayahuasca were the key to breaking this habit. I also say ( 3 min 46 seconds to 3 min 50 seconds) that “I don’t think any of the psychedelics should be used for recreation.”

(3) TED says of my presentation: “He states as fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an “emergence into consciousness,” and that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture.”

Nowhere in my talk do I state as a fact that psychotropic drug use is “essential” for an “emergence into consciousness.” Nowhere in my talk do I state that “one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture.”

(4) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “He offers a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs), which just doesn’t hold up.”

I refute this. What I say (between 1 min 06 seconds and 1 min 54 seconds) is that some scientists in the last thirty years have raised an intriguing possibility — emphasis on POSSIBILITY — which is that the exploration of altered states of consciousness, in which psychedelic plants have been implicated, was fundamental to the emergence into fully symbolic consciousness witnessed by the great cave art.

(5) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “… it’s no surprise his work has often been characterized as pseudo-archeology.”

Of what possible relevance is this remark? Many different people have characterised my work in many different ways but at issue here is not what people have said about my work over the years but the actual content of this specific TEDx presentation.

Comments (2158)

  • JJ Johnson commented on Mar 14 2013

    Dear TED, Let me one of the few to thank you. I watched these videos when they first came up and I blindly accepted them as good science and true. Now you have corrected my bad thinking and now I am putting these thoughts into the pseudoscience part of my brain and throwing them away. Thank you from protecting my mind from the bad stuff.

    • Mike Lindner commented on Mar 14 2013

      “Another universal experience of Ayahuasca is the encounter with seemingly intelligent entities which communicate with us telepathically. And I’m making no claim one way or another as to the reality status of these entities we encounter. Simply, that phenomenalogically in the Ayahuasca experience they are encountered by people all over the world”
      -Graham Hancock from his “The War On Consciousness” lecture

      No pseudo-science there, just detailing an experience which is arguably impossible to understand without direct personal encounter to it. Mr. Hancock presented an excellent lecture here. It is not his fault that you automatically absorbed the information and took it as fact. That is not his fault. This is a deeper issue involving oral comprehension, personal individuality and practicing analytic critique. Do yourself a favor and protect your own mind instead of expecting someone else to take care of that job for you. The mind is so extraordinarily complex and special, yet you are going to allow someone decide how it thinks.

      To each their own.

      • Barry Conchie commented on Mar 15 2013

        Thanks Mike for confirming that this isn’t science. It’s simply speculation. Good job Ted realized this (a bit too late in my opinion) and removed the video from the science section where it was in flagrant abuse of their own rules.

        • Nash Singh commented on Mar 16 2013

          Nice to be one in a million Barry?

          If the talks are deemed “unfit” to the TED’S “board”, why haven’t they answered G Hancock’s simple questions yet?

          Or have they not the honor to apologize??

        • Terry Allen commented on Mar 18 2013

          After reading the accusations of these videos I took Ted on its word and defended your actions in a debate. Now I feel I was in error to do so. Although I understand a flagged video needs to be addressed and I can see why these videos would irk some people, I do not see [...]

          We can only follow the lead set by Socrates and by Antony Flew. We have no choice but to go where the evidence leads us. The materialistic paradigm is falling apart:

          “To ignore the evidence, and hope that it cannot be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.”
          William Blase

  • John Foster commented on Mar 14 2013

  • William Smith commented on Mar 14 2013

    Shame on you, TED. Not censorship? Of course it is. You took down the videos, then put them up where no one would find them in a YouTube search. “Factual errors,” eh? And who decides upon your facts?

  • Pingback: A victory for real science over woo: TEDx removes Sheldrake and Hancock talks from YouTube channel « Why Evolution Is True

  • Miska Käppi commented on Mar 14 2013

    So disappointed to have noticed that TEDtalks have decided to take the path of censorship. And on what basis!

    All the reasoning behind deleting the videos is extremely phoney. Especially considering what kind of talks have been published on TEDtalk on regular basis.

    Clearly the reasons are political. Fear of change is a hideous force.

    TEDtalks was too good to be true. Shame on you.

  • Lia Stelea commented on Mar 14 2013

    Here’s something about what happened today… on a brand new website that really promotes original thought and action. There you go. http://upriser.com/posts/ted-censoring-wayseers

  • Francie Jones commented on Mar 14 2013

    Over the millenia, scientists who think outside the currently accepted paradigm are considered fringe or radically open. How many great thinkers have been dismissed by their peers because the majority were not ready to consider their ideas? Countless…that is the answer. I am disappointed to see that Ted or Tedx is no exception.

  • Ari Soothsayer commented on Mar 14 2013

    Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrak are at heart controversial in their views of the world. They are here to explore the veil of reality and all that is behind it. Their burning passion for this type of science is well documented over many decades, they have devoted their lives to this “pseduo-science” because lets face it, the science of conciousness is a very windy road. The age old question “Who am I?” is what is being explored here. To understand the history of humanity and the rise of conciousness is something most of us desire.

    If TED didn’t want controversy they shouldn’t have allowed these guys to get up on that stage in the first place! Anyone can do a bit of googling and see what these guys are up to. Asking someone to stand up and speak about what they beleive in but then shunning them in this manner is disrespectful at the very least.

    Graham and Rupert are att the cutting edge of this type of “science”. They should be praised for their work!

  • commented on Mar 14 2013

    As impassioned fan of TED for many years I can’t even express my disbelief and disappointment at this shockingly regressive, repressive and frighteningly action.

    As an impassioned TED fan for many years I can not express how deeply disappointed I am by this profoundly regressive, shockingly repressive, frighteningly naive and JAW-DROPPINGLY imbecilic action.

    If TED also deletes Jill Bolte Taylor’s ‘I had a stroke and now I’m a mystic’ talk as well as every other talk about consciousness and social activism and art, entertainment, etc, then, maybe, they won’t be viewed as so blatantly evil, painfully prejudiced and staggering weak-brained.

    Okay, I’m going to go finish vomiting blood at this display of penultimate stupidity and nauseatingly pathetic fear on the part the TED.

    • commented on Mar 14 2013

      Even if they bring back the talks, TED’s reputation is PERMANENTLY altered by this. (unless maybe if the person(s) responsible get fired.)
      So sad. So very sad.

  • bohemian groover commented on Mar 14 2013

    I thought the whole point of TED was to give a platform for ideas and stories, with which to stimulate discourse.

    Considering some of the speakers you’ve kept in your main archive, it’s baffling why you would choose to single out these two talks. And then to take parts of the talks out of context, and then use it as proof that your decision is correct.

    So please don’t tell me how to formulate ideas for myself, or assume I am stupid to the point that you feel the need to preface the talks with your idea of a disclaimer.

    Shame on you TED. I genuinely thought you were better than this.

  • JJ Johnson commented on Mar 14 2013

    The inquisition never ended.

  • Gabriel Roberts commented on Mar 14 2013

    Perhaps TED should consider the fact that much peer reviewed material on the benefit of psychedelics can be found. Much written in the book, “inner paths to outer space” is written by Doctors who are experts in neuroscience and references their study material. It sounds like the people running TED need a little away time with some psychedelics. Perhaps fellow TED speaker Paul Stamets (who wrote an entire book on cultivation of psilocybin) could help them with that.

  • Julian Fernandez commented on Mar 14 2013

    GET UP STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH! RESPECT TO GRAHAM AND RUPERT!
    TED = cowardice. Ted is trying to keep down evolution by maintaining primitive thinking and putting their dirty thumb over the true pioneers. Ted sweeps facts under the rug to defend their dogmas. Power to the truth, Power to the people! Set Grahams words, experiences, observations and analyzations free!!!!!

  • John Ratcliff commented on Mar 14 2013

    I cannot even begin to express how upset and offended I am by this decision. This is simply outrageous!!

    For the record, I do not personally support the views of Sheldrake or Hancock; nor do I consider their views particularly scientific. That’s not the point!! I would defend to their death their right to present their ideas, and you should too!!!!

    You invited them to speak, and then they spoke about the same stuff they always talk about. Now you censor them, after the fact, and do essentially the moral equivalent of an Internet book burning!?

    This kind of censorship is absolutely uncalled for!! People have every right to posses and express non-mainstream ideas!!

    If you didn’t want their non-scientific hearsay presented, then you never should have invited them to speak in the first place!!!

    Neither Sheldrake nor Hancock have been shy about expressing their non-mainstream non-scientific points of view!! They have each written numerous books and given many lectures!! They didn’t blindside you! It wasn’t a secret that they talk about this stuff!

    You invited them, they spoke, now post their videos! You can even write editorials saying you don’t agree with their views, but you shouldn’t delete their message!

    This is simply obscene censorship. I absolutely cannot believe this is happening in the year 2013! It’s a modern day witch hunt.

    I am both sickened and disgusted by this decision! I hope you reverse this deplorable and horrible decision and, if you don’t, I hope that there is a radical backlash against your organization now that it has demonstrated that it is *not* open to new ideas and stands for blatant censorship!

    John

  • Truth Collins commented on Mar 14 2013

    This is hypocritical censorship. Ted is forfeiting their leadership as an outlet for thought provoking ideas and instead siding with the establishment. Poor Ted, unwilling to let people make up their own minds. Like we really need your filters to shape our perspectives! How disappointingly unfortunate.

  • Julian Fernandez commented on Mar 14 2013

    Ted is run by a bunch of old dinosaurs, no wonder they replaced the link with how to have a great body at 93, lol, probably recommending that we drink wine or something stupid.

  • Julian Fernandez commented on Mar 14 2013

    The thing i love so much about you Graham. Is that you always speak the truth. You are a fearless pioneer going against a narrow minded force of dinosaurs. Respect! Ted lost alot of credibility in my mind, and I’m sure a large following has now decided to shun TED as well. TED reminds me of the Amish, no offense to the Amish, but just insistent on remaining primitive.

  • Michael Hughes commented on Mar 14 2013

    Unbelievable. I will never, ever support a TED or TEDx event again, unless the programs are back up on the YouTube channel. This is arrogance, pure and simple.

  • commented on Mar 14 2013

    This is absolutely despicable and revolting censorship on the part of TED. What a great powerful shame they brought upon themselves. Most TED talks aren’t even about science let alone TEDx talks. This 100% political agenda censorship, nothing more nothing less. You better fix this TED or your reputation online will be seriously poisoned by your flagrant cowardice and biased anti-intellectualism.

    • commented on Mar 14 2013

      As impassioned fan of TED for many years I can’t even express my disbelief and disappointment at this shockingly regressive, repressive and frighteningly action.

      As an impassioned TED fan for many years I can not express how deeply disappointed I am by this profoundly regressive, shockingly repressive, frighteningly naive and JAW-DROPPINGLY imbecilic action.

      If TED also deletes Jill Bolte Taylor’s ‘I had a stroke and now I’m a mystic’ talk as well as every other talk about consciousness and social activism and art, entertainment, etc, then, maybe, they won’t be viewed as so blatantly evil, painfully prejudiced and staggering weak-brained.

      Okay, I’m going to go finish vomiting blood at this display of penultimate stupidity and nauseatingly pathetic fear on the part the TED.

  • John Foster commented on Mar 14 2013

    TED is only validating the arguments of both Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock with this strange attempt to add their bias to their accounts. It’s a tad bit funny.