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)

  • Pingback: DimitriosAlexis.com — The War on Consciousness

  • commented on Aug 27 2013

    Sadly, censorship is alive and well in the scientific community. Just as claims that research into MMR/autism link has been “discredited”, when all that has happened is that a questioning researcher has been vilified, so with anything that goes beyond the narrow definition of acceptable is rubbished. Surely, true science is about asking questions and looking at the evidence, something it seems Rupert Sheldrake, and not the TED team, has done. Just because our limited instruments are not yet able to measure something does not mean observations of a phenomenon are invalid.

  • Pingback: Graham Hancock – The War on Consciousness @ TEDxWhitechapel | 2012 The Awakening

  • Pingback: tufanguven

  • commented on Aug 18 2013

    Reblogged this on NUERONOMICON.

  • Pingback: Rupert Sheldrake – The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK | NUERONOMICON

  • Gary Goldberg commented on Aug 18 2013

    It is important to note that Rupert Sheldrake is operating within the context of the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead who put forward an extremely powerful and deeply insightful speculative philosophy of organism that was deeply informed by the quantum physics revolution. Without going into a lot of detail, Whitehead developed a pan-experientialist philosophy that implies a new form of realism based on the idea that process and relationship are primary components of reality, not matter and material structure. I cannot possibly recommend strongly enough a careful reading of Alfred North Whitehead’s extremely original ideas in order to really “get” and deeply understand where Professor Sheldrake is coming from in his critique of materialist science and its philosophical basis, logical positivism. We have lived under the spell of Newtonian mechanics since the 17th century. Whitehead’s book “Science and the Modern World” should be required reading for anyone who contemplates going into a career in science, especially anything to do with the study of living systems. One of the key insights of quantum physics is that there is a deep paradox at the heart of human existence. Neils Bohr recognized it not as a physical issue, but as an issue that is deeply connected to the fundamental nature of human consciousness. That is the contradiction between the “third person” perspective and the “first person” perspective, the deep difference between being an “observer” and a “participant” in nature and the incompatibility between being both at the very same time. One of Bohr’s favorite proverbs was an ancient Chinese one that states “we are both spectators and actors on the stage of human existence”. This issue was at the heart of an ongoing debate between Bohr and Einstein regarding the deep implications of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Einstein could never manage to go beyond the Newtonian “Gd’s-eye view” of the universe to recognize and fully appreciate this paradox upon which the Principle of Complementarity, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the recognition of the deep complementarity between energy and matter are based. We need to re-establish a reasonable balance between observation and participation, between being observers of Nature and participant/elements of Nature, if we are to flourish and preserve our existence on this planet.

  • commented on Aug 14 2013

    I think both of these talks should be restored to their rightful place among the great TED collection. I also think that each of these talks should serve to further educate the public on matters that pertain to non-scientific theories of the human mind, whether they are right, or wrong, scientifically proven, or not. For example, the contents of the Bible are clearly not supported by science, but this does not change its acceptance in society. To nit-pick and find fault in what these men have to say goes against the innovation and inspiration that TED sets out to share. Instead of isolating these talks from the rest, why not integrate them with disclaimers that inform viewers of the weaknesses in these theories? Why does an organisation’s underlying opinion consistently precede those who try to represent it? I think it should be accepted that there is more to human life than what we understand now as its scientific basis and if that means shining controversial theories in the limelight, so be it. Posing questions from all possible angles is important and precisely the opinion that TED contradicted when it decided to, if not “censor,” at least displace these talks as dissociated from the TED organisation. The organisation always wins out of the individual and TED’s actions here show the reality of this behaviour. TED will only empower those who agree with TED’s ideology. This is disappointing.

  • Scott Ferguson commented on Aug 12 2013

    Funny how the real men of science are not afraid of new ideas and not afraid to express them! Here is an Idea a physicist had….

    “all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“
    Max Planck

  • Pingback: TED talks and the war on consciousness |

  • commented on Aug 1 2013

    It is a bit disheartening to learn that an organization with the tagline “ideas worth spreading” actually bans the spreading of ideas that perhaps go beyond the capabilities of their Science Board to tolerate.

    It is of my thinking that an “idea worth spreading” would greatly depend upon whether or not people wish to spread the idea. I might suggest that since these two talks were banned they likely saw more views than would have if they had not been banned. The banning of these talks has also lead to this page being created which has given the givers of the talks a platform by which they have, quite resolutely in my opinion, debunked the reason their talks were banned in the first place.

    Perhaps banning “ideas” enables the TED Science Board to maintain their own personal values of what an idea worth spreading is; however, if their intent is to actually spread an idea to a greater number of people, I’d say they’ve accomplished their goal.

  • Pingback: Science vs. Science Dogma | Just Think of It

  • Rita Fae commented on Jul 21 2013

    There is strong evidence to support we do not live in a fundamentally materialistic reality and that is an idea worth sharing. Shame on you TED, for being so discriminating.

  • Pingback: Censure ? | SENTIERS D'AILLEURS

  • Pingback: Rupert Sheldrake | The Weiler Psi

  • Raw Organics commented on Jul 11 2013

    EVERY SCIENTIST SHOULD WATCH THESE. THEY ARE BOTH LINKED BY THE SAME PROBLEM BOTH PRESENT…PEOPLE THINKING THEY ARE GOD! WHEN THEY GET A DESIRED RESULT…BUT GOD MAKE PERFECTION AND MAN MAKES TRASH. WHAT GOD CREATES CAN GO BACK TO ITS ENVIRONMENT AND BENEFIT WHAT MEN MAKE KILLS THE EARTH FOREVER.

  • Elizabeth Harris commented on Jul 10 2013

    I have always been an ardent fan of TED talks, and I’m really surprised and disappointed that TED has banned Rupert Sheldrake’s talk. I’m a physician; I believe in science, but I also know that when ideas come along that don’t fit into the current scientific theories, they are shunned and ridiculed.
    I ask TED to reconsider, to be more open minded, and to please expand their group of scientists.

  • Barnabe Geis commented on Jul 6 2013

    I would have expected more open-mindedness from TED Talks than to semi-censor these videos. There’s something paternalistic about needing to recontextualize someone’s opinions because they’re unconventional. Hancock’s talk on entheogens is fascinating. Apparently they’re only “ideas worth spreading” if TED’s scientific board deems them to be.

  • William Thornton commented on Jul 5 2013

    I’ve lost 50% of my respect for TED. What condescending CRAP! TED made the mistake, it wasn’t Sheldrake or Graham being unscientific or unethical, it was TED and they still can’t admit that letting some anonymous backroom guardians of thought purity dictate intellectual policy is JUST WRONG! Anonymous science is not science. You have to be responsible for your opinion and be ready to defend it in fair and open debate or SHUT UP.

    I’ve got no respect for TED until they make a full public apology and promise to stop this kind of arbitrary labeling because some anonymous cowards don’t like certain ideas but don’t have the courage or intelligence to discuss it in a scientific way. I’ve heard total bullshit from mainstream TED speakers, but I figured everybody has a right to their opinion and I’m an adult and can recognize crap when I hear it. Now it appears that politically correct crap is OK and TED is going to protect me the kind they don’t like.

  • Attila Molnár commented on Jul 1 2013

    This man is a fraud. In science there is no such a thing like dogma, so there is a great lie at the very beginning of the “lecture”. Science has hypothesis instead. The main difference that there is no way to falsify a dogma, because it does not give the chance. The existence of god or an invisible pink unicorn is not something what you can falsify so it is a dogma. Conversely a hypothesis is falsifiable, you can always try to confute the theory of biological evolution, and it is maybe surprising but many biologist do it, because the best way to strengthen up a hypothesis to try to falsify it as hard as you can and still fail. A scientific hypothesis never can be 100% proven only strengthened up with tests. It sad that Rupert Sheldrake does not aware of the modern philosophy of science.

    PS: In mathematics you can prove things, but math is not a natural science.

    • William Thornton commented on Jul 5 2013

      You seem to completely misunderstand Sheldrake, did you even listen to his talk? He stated that these 10 ideas have taken on the status of dogmas and he wants to return them to the status of hypotheses. You write like a racist who refuses to admit that racism exists. These ideas are taken as facts and public policy everywhere is based on these ideas as though they are facts. What do you call dogma if not that? Why such a fuss because Sheldrake dares to question these ideas? That is all he did in his TED talk. If you want to debate the quality of his other work, that is fair enough, but he did not present it at TED. He gave a couple of specific examples about the change in constants that are either factual or not. He did not ask anybody to accept the hypothesis that your German Shepherd may be reading your mind. He certainly would never question *your* scientific credentials because you didn’t accept that idea without replicable evidence. All he is asking is to stop ignoring and denying the existence of evidence that cannot be reconciled with prevailing scientific *dogma*.

    • William Thornton commented on Jul 5 2013

      Calling him a fraud based on his TED talk is totally unjustified. By your own admission, saying that science proves that God (or a pink unicorn) doesn’t exist is just as fraudulent as saying that science can prove it does. Although logically, science *might* prove that pink unicorns do exist, but it can never prove they do *not*. Hence the need for scientific humility, which is completely lacking in so-called scientific atheists. Neither Sheldrake nor Graham said anything about the objective existence of God. Their statements were accurate reports of their experience and neither of them generalized beyond the evidence. But every single atheist is obviously guilty of doing that and their emotional appeals get published without a health advisory. I personally think their ideas *have* made them sick and they want to infect everybody else with their negativity.

      • Gregory Wonderwheel commented on Jul 5 2013

        “By your own admission, saying that science proves that God (or a pink unicorn) doesn’t exist is just as fraudulent as saying that science can prove it does.” Yes by logic that is correct. The thing about “God” is that logic is a category error in dealing with it. “God is not subject to the scientific method and is not reducible to the categories of “exist” or “does not exist.”

        Attila Molnár does not seem to recognize that most of the people claiming to be scientists do not adhere to the strict definition of science as only hypothesis. Instead they give lip service to the position of hypothesis only and then make all kinds of claims of certainty about what science has established. A true scientist who understands and upholds the position of hypothesis-only will abstain from making any scientific declaration about God from the materialist perspective and restrict all declarations about God to the psychological perspective where the scientist must take as a fact that all peoples as societies have the shared idea of divinity and divine beings and then make the best hypothesis about the psychological fact given the current understanding of psychology. And when I say “psychology” I do not mean the physiology of psychology or “evolutionary psychology” which are the counterfeit psychology versions put forward by materialist science.