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 (2157)

  • commented on Jun 22 2013

    Reblogged this on in corde tuo.

  • biki moron commented on Jun 19 2013

    “I would ask how.”

    How? By providing valid views on topics that contrast with those that are being promoted through society/media/schools, etc etc.

    Three things:

    (1) You claim that Hancock has not offered any new thinking, and yet, I fail to see how you’ve produce any new thinking related to this discussion. Note: There may be an element of hypocrasy in your comments here.
    (2) Since when does something have to be entirely new in order to be relevant or noteworthy of attention?
    (3) Suggestion: Besides loitering around this discussion, how about you request to interview/debate Hancock himself, then upload it to youtube for all of us to see. I think you’ve done enough talking here. And I think you need to up your game by seeing if you can successfully argue your main gripes in a direct debate. Question is: Do you think anything you have to say on the subject is worthy of an interview/debate with Mr Hancock?
    yaz litigation

  • Pingback: La peur des scientifiques | Philosovni's Blog

  • Sujit Sivanand commented on Jun 14 2013

    I’ve enjoyed and followed TED talks, but to note that Rupert Sheldrak’s views were intended to be muffled by TED simply shows how unoriginal and boring the so called modern scientific community can be.

  • Zooreka Zooristroikus commented on Jun 14 2013

    Call it what you like but taking talks like this and hiding them under the Cobwebs in the broom cupboard IS censorship…no matter what way you dress it up! I follow TED talks on Plex and frankly am disgusted that you feature some of this so-called “Factual” and “Scientifically Proven” BS and when real truth slaps you in the face like a Wet Kipper you do this with it!
    What kind of world do you live in? Obviously the Corporate and Politically bought and Sold world… No room in this world for biased Journalism. Level the Playing Field and that’s an Order! As uit stands TED you are the real DISGRACE IN THIS MATTER! Hop on a plane to Peru, do an aya session or two and wise up!

  • Hans Lehner commented on Jun 13 2013

    Discovery: An “average” of 1 Supernova per second in the observable Universe (Baron, Eddie, NATURE 395, 1998) = “average” of 86’400 Supernovae Explosions per day = dark energy = Supernovae Energy = new cosmic “mechanical” PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE for GRAVITATION and the ACCELERATED EXPANSION of the UNIVERSE. Discovery of “dark matter” in magnetism / magnetic field. Dark matter in the Universe is only the transport medium for dark energy = Supernovae Energy. Dark matter alone is not capable to hold galaxies together. See: ISQP/ISQR Institute for Space Quantum Physics, Switzerland. supernovae-energy (dot) com / rqm (dot) ch / Regards, Hans Lehner, President & CEO

  • commented on Jun 13 2013

    Reblogged this on The Noah Project.

  • Pingback: Two-bit Guru | Banned TED Talks

  • commented on Jun 5 2013

    If you look at Hancock’s history of spouting ideas, he is completely wrong on just about all of his theories. He is a charlatan in the guise of an author. Meaning, an expert at spinning fiction as non-fiction and has bankrolled a career out of his inventiveness. If he does this when lucid why would anyone take seriously what he has to say of his experiences on psychedelics? The fact that he has any credibility at all is the real crime, not so-called censorship. Hancock has no place in any forum except quasi-science.

  • Pingback: Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion – Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?

  • LPP Coogan commented on May 30 2013

    I am not a supporter of either Sheldrake or Hancock. I was an avid supporter of TED, but I now wonder if I have misplaced my trust in an entity which run by people with a closed agenda, who contort themselves so they appear ‘open’.
    TED’s behavior is obscene. Chris Anderson and his staff should be embarrassed and they ought to rethink any sense or notion they may have ever held about being aligned with intellectual honesty.

    TED may need to fund research in pet areas of Sheldrake and Hancock’s fields in order to appease and win back TED supporters like me who feel betrayed.

  • Pingback: Graham Hancock – The War on Consciousness | Truth Inside Of You

  • Pingback: Anglican Conference Speaker Censured After Atheists Decry Presentation Challenging Scientific Philosophies | Christian News Network

  • Pingback: Traveling Hypothesis » Ideas not worth spreading

  • Brad Borch commented on May 24 2013

    I’m not at all surprised these lectures were banned and/or suppressed. They represent a challenge to the prevailing materialistic scientific worldview. While most all other TED talks offer challenging insights to commonly held assumptions, they generally do not require one to abandon their basic materialist paradigm.

    These speakers, in exploring the apparent emerging nexus between the study of consciousness and what are essentially religious beliefs, HAVE crossed a line, one which is an affront to gross materialism (and I expect the mere use of the word “religious” will raise hackles!).

    What I find telling is how quickly this dialog devolves into diatribe (curiously coincidental, how “tribe” lies within the word “diatribe”). In fact, it appears that the materialists are the ones with the hair triggers (people are often grumpy when roused from sleep).

  • Mysterious Stranger commented on May 23 2013

    Rupert Sheldrake was right after all:
    Speed of Light May Not Be Fixed, Scientists Suggest; Ephemeral Vacuum Particles Induce Speed-Of-Light Fluctuations

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130325111154.htm

    • Jim Ryan commented on May 23 2013

      Science itself proves speed of light is nonsense. Light theory in general is wrong and so is Mr. Sheldrake.

  • Pingback: [BANNED on TED] Scientific Dogma | Ross M. W. Bennetts

  • sanjay deshmukh commented on May 21 2013

    HI your removal of talk by Dr Rupert Sheldrake is arrogant to say the least. We can understand the orthodox religious organizations’ eliminating voices which question but science is about questioning and your attempt to stifle the voices questioning dogmas is unscientific and explanation given for your action is laughable. It has hurt the image that I had of TED as free and fair platform for exchange of ideas……

  • m mahmood commented on May 20 2013

    All good ideas are censored and suppressed by the status quo first. ‘earth is round’ used to be pseudoscience as well. no one in the scientific world accepted it at first. some did not accept it due to their dogmatic nature, others just scared to be laughed at….the more things change the more they remain the same….however, it is clear which side Ted is after this act…hope they can heal from this….peace….

  • m mahmood commented on May 20 2013

    very disappointed to see censorship in all parts of our society…censorship is like a cancer in open and civil society, which if not uprooted early, can eat away the entire organism…seems like Ted is also infiltrated by this disease….Mr Hancock and Dr Sheldrake should be happy, as whenever something is censored it usually has something important and truthful which disturbs the owners….salam and have a peaceful day….