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 (2156)

1 33 34 35 36 37 40
  • Rui Soares commented on Apr 26 2013

    You better move those talks into TEDx. This is the END if you do not. You’re biased. You’re idiots. You can’t stand your ground. You don’t have courage.

  • Rui Soares commented on Apr 26 2013

    TED, I’m an enemy!

  • Rui Soares commented on Apr 26 2013

    I just read Rupert Sheldrake’s response. Animals aren’t conscious?! You represent something related to science? That’s science view point? Who’s the retarded jerk that thinks that? My GOD! Science has to be destroyed. You know why? It’s no longer science. Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers are TALIBAN jerks, that burn books they deslike.

  • Rui Soares commented on Apr 26 2013

    I just registered to let TED know that I will not see another video from TED. It’s a disgrace. I will campaign against TED from now on. And because you joined Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake in one blog post, let me be clear that I’m going to speak badly of TED in every media because you censored and treated without consideration Rupert Sheldrake. You’re a DISGRACE!

  • Steven De Wit commented on Apr 26 2013

    I would like to thank TED for banning these two talks. Most likely I would never have seen them if they weren’t banned and that would have been an important lacune in my life. I would also like to thank Mr Hancock and Mr Sheldrake. You are such inspiring persons. Those who don’t want to hear, they will feel. That is for sure.

  • Pingback: 3 Censored TED Talks THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO SEE OR HEAR [VIDEOS] | Document The Truth

  • Pingback: 3 Censored TED Talks THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO SEE OR HEAR [VIDEOS]

  • Pingback: Scientists Intervene in TED Controversy | Conscious Life News

  • Pingback: Revere Radio Network | 3 Censored TED Talks THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO SEE OR HEAR [VIDEOS]

  • Mike Sechler commented on Apr 25 2013

    Both of these talks reveal holes in the modern scientific worldview. Issues of consciousness, meaning, morality, and destiny are real issues that are minimized or ignored by the scientific establishment, but that continue to reappear because they are real parts of life that cannot be ignored.

    The scientific method has a place in helping us to inquire about our world, but when it becomes a dominate worldview that inhibits discussion of other possibilities it ironically becomes what purports to replace, namely a religion. Theories become dogmas, and scientific boards become priest and bishops who preside not just over what is true, but over what we can even be discussed as true.

    I am a Christian, so I don’t think Hancock is right (he seems to be a modern day pagan), but I do think he has a right to talk. Furthermore, I think it is good for us to hear him, because like me he sees some of the same moral problems that the modernist worldview has failed to address. Even if you are a complete modernist, is it not good to at least hear from those who disagree with you because they can help you see your blind spots?

    Sheldrake really helps in this endeavor by pointing out that as scientism has become dogma, it has not helped further inquiry, but rather it has limited it. By setting hard and fast materialist boundaries, we have made it really hard for people to investigate or even propose the idea that material of our visible universe may not be all that exists.

    Even suggesting such ideas becomes heresy that the priest of science quickly try to squash lest the purity of their dogma become diluted. What pray tell are they scared of? Are they afraid that by opening the door to inquiry we may all run back and start worshiping the mother goddess? I am a dogmatic Christian, but I am not scared to hear from Sheldrake, Graham, Jerry Coyne, or any of the TED speakers, most of whom do not share my dogma. Listening to divergent views sharpens my views, and if I my worldview is wrong, I want to be challenged. How about you?

  • C DeWitt commented on Apr 25 2013

    Just listened to Hancock’s presentation and the TED excuses for making the talk hard to find (censorship by any reasonable definition) do not address the real reason they began to feel uncomfortable about it. As GH pointed out, he did not actually make the statements they attribute to him and use as excuses–so these are not the real reason people were upset by the talk. REAL reason? He says adults should be able to take certain mind-altering plant substances. ‘Freedom of consciousness’. That’s why he takes the whole ramble about his marijuana addiction–he’s saying ayahuasca is a ‘good’ psychedelic. Whatever your position on the issue, let’s at least be honest about what’s going on. PS contrats to TED for at least posting their responses–a weak concession to objectivity is better than total dishonesty.

    • C DeWitt commented on Apr 25 2013

      Congrats not contrats.

  • Pingback: Deepak Chopra, Science Revolution, can the mind exist beyond the brain? – Conscious Frontiers

  • Victor-Vartan Pambuccian commented on Apr 23 2013

    It seems to me that some people believe that the opposite of anarchy is “enlightened” absolutism… Let’s not forget about democracy. I think it’s ok to have some rules in place, but the rules must be constantly challenged, so that they maintain sanity but also allow freedom.

    As long as the speakers do not curse or cause moral damage, I see no reason to censor their ideas.

    Also, “true” science today differs from what “true” science was 100 years ago. And I think that extremists such as religious fanatics or atheists could help the rest of the world by redirecting towards science all the energy used on propaganda…

  • Henry Dixson commented on Apr 23 2013

    I would also add that TED is only a venue for cool ideas, smart people and awesome tech. That’s certainly why it’s loved. That being said, the subject (controversial certainly, but that is not the same as moot), of psychedelic plants, many who’s uses are religiously protected and do have a cultural signature of thousands of years, are a platform for (1) very interesting insights and discussions into human consciousness, (2) medical uses, and (3) ironically have long been part of art, design, and tech culture.

    Before TED makes erroneous accusations of Handcock’s supposed irresponsible encouragement to take Ayahuasca, along with re-watching the lecture (and seeing what is an obvious cautionary tale, and caveats against recreational use), they may wish to consult the studies and scientists working with such substances in a clinical, scientific manner: whether Ibogaine, Ayahuasca, and even increasingly, MDMA. Please consult the journals (I have, so can you), read the studies. Science already pwned you on this one.

  • Henry Dixson commented on Apr 23 2013

    As I said on the other thread: it is an affront to scientific discourse to blend the idea of an anonymous peer review with open peer commentary.

    The “board of anonymous advisors” getting to make public peer commentary? Please see the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. They end each article with a section called Open Peer Commentary. Then that is followed with a closing section called Author’s Response.

    This is true scientific discourse, not releasing a Closed Peer Commentary where the scientists hide behind anonymity. Sure, have them as a board of hidden advisors if you must, but do not conflate that with an open peer commentary. The fastest way to avoid criticisms of a creepy institutionalized, priest-like hidden board is to have an Open Peer Commentary section with an opportunity for author response. I do not wish to see TED fall behind an opaque sanctioning system: publicized commentary should be open and not anonymous. If someone gives you peer review analogy, respond with the open peer commentary analogy, and that their analogy is a worse fit in this instance.
    Thank you.

    • Jim Ryan commented on Apr 23 2013

      Well said and thank you. I would add, that The Ted board keeps taking down the following, why, can anyone tell me?

      Gravity has 2 sides
      One attracts and the other repels
      By Jim Ryan

      Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be tin a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits, There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

      Ted claims to want new thinking, but they push this away. Can you refute this Ted? If not, then maybe others can.

  • Paul Donahue commented on Apr 22 2013

    I have been to the other side of consciousness in a near death car crash… Study some of us, talk to our friends and family. And you will see the miracle of something far greater than you could ever imagine… This whole exercise in life is all really about LOVE of the highest form, Unconditional Love that comes from the unconscious mind, where all things flow from, big and small, great and even greater. It is all about LOVE in the end… Where everyone’s energy is the same, there are no differences, there are no issues of this or that. Ego is self awareness, not selfish. Are you learning the lesson?

    • Glen Kirkby commented on Apr 24 2013

      Paul, I would really like to hear more about your story if your interested in talking about it.. if you are I’ll give you my email address.

  • Ilija Prentovski commented on Apr 22 2013

    TED = Tediously Engineered Dogma

  • Paul Donahue commented on Apr 21 2013

    I have been to the other side of consciousness in a near death car crash… Study some of us, talk to our friends and family. And you will see the miracle of something far greater than you could ever imagine… This whole exercise in life is all really about LOVE of the highest form, Unconditional Love that comes from the unconscious mind, where all things flow from, big and small, great and even greater. It is all about LOVE in the end… Where everyone’s energy is the same, there are no differences, there are no issues of this or that. Ego is self awareness, not selfish. Learn the lesson!

    • Jim Ryan commented on Apr 22 2013

      Good words to live by.

  • Pingback: The TED Controversy | For Now

  • Tom Robinson commented on Apr 21 2013

    I found both presentations thought provoking and quite fascinating. Regrettably, I can neither rate them nor favourite them.

1 33 34 35 36 37 40