Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Re-uploaded (again, just in case), since TED's Chris Anderson censored Rupert Sheldrake, along with Graham Hancock, and removed this video and Hancock's from the TEDx RUclips channel. They dared question the Scientistic Orthodoxy, and for that they have been publicly castigated and defamed. Follow this link for TED's dubious statement on the matter (and the many comments appropriately critical of TED's rationale):
blog.ted.com/20...
Presumably TED disavows any copyright claim, as they've disavowed association with the videos.
BIO:
Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. (born 28 June 1942) is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.
While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.
From 1968 to 1969, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants. From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers. While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life.
From 2005-2010 he was the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project funded from Trinity College,Cambridge. He is a Fellow of Schumacher College , in Dartington, Devon, a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences near San Francisco, and a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute in Connecticut.
He lives in London with his wife Jill Purce and two sons.
He has appeared in many TV programs in Britain and overseas, and was one of the participants (along with Stephen Jay Gould, Daniel Dennett, Oliver Sacks, Freeman Dyson and Stephen Toulmin) in a TV series called A Glorious Accident, shown on PBS channels throughout the US. He has often taken part in BBC and other radio programmes. He has written for newspapers such as the Guardian, where he had a regular monthly column, The Times, Sunday Telegraph, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Sunday Times, Times Educational Supplement, Times Higher Education Supplement and Times Literary Supplement, and has contributed to a variety of magazines, including New Scientist, Resurgence, the Ecologist and the Spectator.
Books by Rupert Sheldrake:
A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (1981). New edition 2009 (in the US published as Morphic Resonance)
The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (1988)
The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God (1992)
Seven Experiments that Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science (1994) (Winner of the Book of the Year Award from the British Institute for Social Inventions)
Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (1999) (Winner of the Book of the Year Award from the British Scientific and Medical Network)
The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (2003)
The Science Delusion (2012, published in the US as Science Set Free)
www.sheldrake.org/
Finally someone talking REAL science as a method of inquiry, not science as a religion. this is refreshing, awesome material.
+Nicky Mijo When has anyone ever treated science like a religion?
+jib1000 Almost always, more so in recent times.
John Love
Examples? You can't just make blanket statements and assume everyone will take your word for it.
jib1000
"You can't just make blanket statements and assume everyone will take your word for it."
- Like everybody else here?
As they say, "as long as they are your side".
But on a serious note, you can see one example in the title;)
John Love
How is the title of the video
an example?
"Like verybody else here?"
Not me.
Many people commenting here seem to interpret that this gentleman is tearing down science, perhaps in favor of religion. I disagree. His speech is about dogmatism, which can exist both in science and religion. At the very end of his speech, he restates the importance of science as well as the perils of dogmatism and why scientists should keep an open mind.
I don’t believe in any man-made religion, but I’m not nearly arrogant enough to believe with any certainty that some sort of divine deity does not exist. Somethings simply beyond our comprehension even a collective consciousness to which we are all linked. I agree with your assessment, but I abhor people that instantly revert to ardent denialism if they even sense that someone is simply exhibiting a dalliance with the idea, that the colloquial interpretation of religion may have some sort of validity. It drives me absolutely insane, because nobody can say otherwise with any sort of concrete and conclusive evidence… But they do anyways. Often they refer to themselves as atheists, a religion in its own right often worshipping science, nothingness (which inevitably is something) or themselves on the basis of their superior intellect to the “religious zealot“. Such cases are common, and comically ironic.
I agree. Some people believe everything, some nothing. Most reasoning people are somewhat skeptical of everything. As with this video, the people or organizations that "make the rules" are skeptical of everything but themselves. To question governing bodies is appalling. "We can't be wrong, must protect ourselves, danger Will Robinson." I think everything is a theory or hypothesis not a dogma.
Yeah, sadly the audience is probably full of anti-reason flat earthers hooting their heart out for a fellow "believer" when the guy wants to be a thorough skeptic (and is not delusional at all).
scientism is a new religion !
@@TheHellogs4444 i am not flat-earther but when was the last time you saw the shape of the world with your own eyes?
This man is not tearing down science, he is pointing out where the scientific community is not questioning previous assumptions, or established meal tickets to research grants. Set science free!
sorry you are wrong, all scientific research begins with questions.
How about the Global Warming group? They, too, have no place for disagreement or correction on their foundational assumptions. There is great disagreement... but the common public isn't privileged to know that.
@Chris Russell Oh yeah, all those rich and famous Research Geologists 😆
Scientific methods DO question itself though
Exactly.
They censor this but their talk on pedophelia is totally ok to have up.
I'm not supporting it in anyway. But I do Love anyone in this lifestyles and would help them if they needed help, something I could do to share the Love of our Savior.
Because I was Loved and helped before I acknowledged my sin nature.
"While we were "yet" sinners, Christ died for us".
@@janoycresva276 based on your comment, you are not quite understanding my statement.
I am not condoning homosexuality. Society has been force-feed the idea if you don't support this lifestyle you are a bigot, hater of innocent people.
That is a lie, and there is another lie and agenda hidden inside.
Thank you Janoy, Christopher
Janoy Cresva *greetings from Jeffrey Epstein, hiding somewhere in the Middle East,* _who is the procurer of children for the monstrous elites!_
Only watching this because it's banned .. Teds had a vid poor Angelo or name like.. about a man that was attracted to children... they wanted you to feel sorry for him . never watched it again ..I think Teds is some agenda.
Janoy Cresva 🤭
I categorically oppose any and all censorship. If I don't 'like' an opinion, I ignore it. Censorship shuts down debate.......
you do know the reason for censorship, right? it is because there are people that hold power in their hands, like the heads of the mainstream science community, that having the truth spread out would certainly not be in favor of their egotistical interests
I think banning is a way of rating something. I would rate this worthy of banning because it smacks of a con. In a con, the technique of ridicule is used. Ridicule invites us to reject or hate something but without the option of rebuttal, which happens only here in the comment section, which most don't read. A science con has the appearance (but not the practice) of a scientific process. In law you would not hear only the opinion of the prosecutor, and not the defense, right? Science, properly executed, insists on testing for falsifiability. And so should he, but Rupert S is not doing that. He is doing comedy instead, at the expense of a respectable and very valuable world community. Boo.
If you dont like an opinion and ignore it you are censoring yourself mate.
@@theghostoftomjoad7161 Theories are not "aspects" and they do not claim to know "every detail". they are the best explanations based on the latest evidence and analysis. Those who talk about scientific disagreements show a profound ignorance of science and how it works. Scientists argue over number of pre-human species, the makeup of the nucleus, the odds of life in the galaxy, the extent to which fossil fuels are raising carbon BUT that does not mean either side rejects evolution, quantum theory, exobiology or climate change.
We cannot test without evidence which is why there will never be a test for magic or supernatural beings. The only "evidence" is personal belief. Our courts wisely reject dreams, visions, religious beliefs, opinions, etc as "evidence" and employ expert testimony from those with education and knowledge of the subject.
@@theghostoftomjoad7161, if I'm not mistaken, a theory evolved from a hypothesis, and will evolve into a 'constant' or 'law'.... hypothesis: an idea --> theory: idea that holds up to fact testing ---> constant: idea that is believed to be infallible... at least that's my understanding of the scientific process: this R. Sheldrake character is at the beginning stages of his idea, but claims the rest of the science community is blackballing him or his idea, because it gives narrative that their infallible rules might be falsified... Idk if there's merit to his claims or if he's spouting bollocks...
From Rupert's Wikipedia page: " Deepak Chopra commended Sheldrake for..."
Says it all. If you're being commended by Deepak Chopra, you have problems!
+LAnonHubbard.... Lots of "woo woo" between those two.
The reason why this TED talk was banned was not because they were trying to hide "the truth" but because it is full of crap.
+LAnonHubbard You are a fanatic and just like those religious zealots because you are using gossip to justify your totally unscientific judgement of this man rather than his content.
+Jocjabes Agree it was a bit "gossipy". Deepak Chopra is a snake oil salesman and charlatan who makes up stuff. I didn't bother watching more than a minute or two of Rupert Sheldrake, especially after skim reading the negative comments here of the man. I don't have time to give a proper scientific rebuttal of Mr Sheldrake. He doesn't respect science by the sounds of it, so what would be the point?
I only had time to quickly take the piss and get out of here.
+Michael Hill Fucking spot on!
Hilarious that people think this was "banned" because it's just too much truth for us to handle when it is clearly about how painfully unscientific the whole talk is. Just goes to show that just because you're incredibly intelligent in one field does not mean that intellect carries over to another.
Nice. What an incredibly insightful comment. Thank you for your very productive input.
+jenius124 He dose bring up a good point about Western Science. If you challenge anything considered a validated theory you are clearly wrong and the scientific community is right. "Sounds like a earth is flat type scenario to me."
I'm not stating that any of his assumptions have merit, but when society prevents you from even asking the questions can you call it science??
Could be wrong???? Science teaches as we find answers, multiple questions should arise afterward.
I find western science a joke epically when they teach that our ignorance is almost infinite and then they hippocraticly shut out anyone who wants to challenge the status quo.
adam armstrong
Not to insult your intelligence but It sounds like you do not understand how science works or how we come to know anything. I'm not sure where you've developed this notion that "western" science (not sure why you singled out and labeled western science, reminds me of a joke... What do you call alternative medicine that's proven to work? Medicine.) is some how dogmatic and rigid. I think you're more likely to see someone walking around nude at a scientific convention than to have someone stubborn, it seems like every talk I've ever watched, every book I've ever read from prominent scientists is always prefaced with, "To the best of our knowledge.", or, " I'm sure there's someone in the room that knows more than me about this or that.". Scientists are constantly trying to disprove eachother and themselves... That's how science works. It's fluid and constantly moving. Metaphysical frameworks are disregarded because you could apply that to anything to fit any sort of agenda you want. Saying you find real science a joke despite every major advancement in your life it's brought you, think of every comfort you have, that joke is what brought you that... Prevailing medical technologies? Joke. Send us to space? Joke. Save hundreds of thousands of people from starving to death? joke. Bring power to the entire world? Joke. Send satellites into orbit? Oh, definitely a joke. Think that somehow there is some universal consciousness among species on Earth without a shred of objective proof? Real.
+jenius124 I'm not doubting anything science has achieved and my comment was more about western culture when it comes to accepting new scientific information that either pokes holes in or questions the holy grail theories like evolution or any number of the big bang theories.
I have no problem with practical science its relatively stable but I find it hard to believe anything the the USA produces theoretically when several scientist are fired for simply publishing papers the reveal hole in major theories. I have observed this happen on a collegiate level. I understand how science is supposed to work and for the most part it rise outside the USA but too many fear for there jobs and lose there tenured positions if they publish there findings. Too many people view certain theories as absolutes in science when the very basics of the discipline state there aren't any.
Sry for my poor grammar I'm on my phone
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Nikola Tesla
TheVineRhyme 👁
And this does not mean quantum B.S.
Evan Eats ↕️
@@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt I agree
@@gritlup2089 String theory B.S.
Total irony. A TED talk that questions scientific orthodoxy gets banned by the scientific community for being unorthodox.
It wasn't banned by the scientific community. It wasn't banned at all. It was removed from the TED youtube channel and posted on their blog instead, alongside their reasons for doing so. It's pseudoscience propaganda. Almost nothing he said is correct. It's horseshit and it would be irresponsible for them to promote it
Exactly!
@@jonathanjones770 - I think Karl-P is implying the science community at large is leaning on Ted to get rid of what doesn't fit their narrative in fear the public might actually question the B.S. taught in school. The entire point of this Ted Talk is the indoctrination that science has become, which it has. You don't have to look to far to watch academics crucifying one another if they ever dare go outside the confines of their own limited knowledge.
Besides, prior to 1995, everyone thought Graham Hancock was crazy, and now science HAS to accept his hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence that now exists that science got the age of humans all wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble, but claiming this man above is full of sh** is simply you buying into the dogmatic indoctrination that science has become, which it has. The whole point of science, or at least in theory, was to argue the evidence, not the person. However egos ride high in their field.
@J Mireles A manager at one of my clients asked: "now that we are environmentally certified, do we have to as policy believe in human-driven global warming?"
questioning orthodoxy is only productive when sensible counter theories with some evidence are presentable - supernatural claims do NOT ever qualify as science ever!
I find it so amazing that just the questioning is so threatening. Is this because the dogma of science is as much a religion as dogmatic religion which fears and cannot tolerate, contemplate or even let peep deep questioning!
+Norm Babbitt No. It's because there are no dogmas of science.
+Keith ...yeah very funny .... am sure ur right. wow..... hang-on, feel a "Big Bang".... coming-on.
+Keith As a scientist I know that's not actually true. Hence the infamous '100 authors against Einstein'. There is often huge resistance (rather than healthy open minded skepticism) to new scientific ideas that challenge core fundamentally held scientific beliefs.
+Norm Babbitt dogma of science? tell me exactly what part of science tells you to just have faith.
+Norm Babbitt ...............Totally 100% with you Science is the new Religion , we now what Science has given us BUT it can not answer everything . Sad some People can not be OPEN MINDED.
It disturbs me that this was banned...forget your beliefs or worldview this hurts everyone. We are all adults here and I imagine we all want to learn. Censorship is the enemy. How can we even study the discoveries or claims made when schmuck companies or organizations want to de-platform people suggesting their ideas. What do you all think?
JoosH orsumbuddy haha we know how far and wide the censorship is if it’s at ‘Ted’
Ted talks should stick with the facts otherwise we get into believing whatever we want... that’s not a pathway to truth... Science has no authoritatives and is constantly changing with our understanding... If science can prove the supernatural, then it’s time to talk about it but until then we must put it behind us as a false primitive explaination.... Also as an atheist I can see that the Mediterranean death cults will end up ending our way of life, through inaction... If we continue to disconnect ourself from our true nature we are all doomed...
@@johnchristiansen9095, uh...dude....science is the study of NATURAL things and phenomena. If any occurence is SUPERnatural, it is by definition beyond the scope of natural examination or explanation. I hope you realize that you just made a contradictory and ignorant statement. If science can explain something, then it is no longer supernatural, but a natural occurrence mistaken initially to be supernatural.
It is an extremely narrow and frankly foolish assumption that the only things that exist at all are scientifically measurable. It is a giant assumption that simply cannot be proven at all. One cannot measure a thing that has no physicality with instruments made of physical matter. This whole argument solves nothing and ends only in a conundrum.
Science is perfectly good to describe the normative states and behaviors of matter, but that is ALL it can do.
Andrew Churney ... I agree with you 100% , as long as we are not using them to promote religion...
Science has debunked religious claims for almost 500 yrs now... if the evidence is provided then it should be discussed, not before... the immoral foundations that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are built on are ridiculous and any claims of afterlife are obvious man made delusions... that’s why I’m saying just keep out religion and it’s claims till it’s verifiable.. that’s it... such ideas can be a horrible thing to spread!
@@johnchristiansen9095, many factual claims of religions are testable, and many do indeed fail reasonable testing, but hardly all of every religion.
Also, the philosophies and moral claims of religions can be examined in terms of internal consistancy and can be weighed to a large degree on merit and efficacy.
However, if certain aspects of religion are intrincicly supernatural, such as God as a being who transcends time and space, who is purported to actually have made and holds together time and space, then the previous discussion is entirely appropriate, my friend. You simply cannot propose it is not and remain reasonable.
It is strictly impossible to prove that a transcended being categorically does not exist. That is simple logic. This is not being religious, but simply reasonable.
Now, to talk about specific attributes or physical identity of said being, this is the realm of religion, and another subject entirely.
Agnosticism is at least reasonable, but if Atheism is defined by an insistence that surely no transcendent being exists at all, this is complete nonsense.
"Oh dear, you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."
"We don't like to use the word 'fudge'... we prefer to call it 'intellectual phase locking'."
These are the money quotes.
Uh, what do mean and or intend by "We" or "Our"? My purpose is Do Not include All including myself.
I liked the part where he says the constants are changing maybe regularly. How can it be a constant if it isn't constantly the same?
@@HighSpeedNoDrag Is that I question for me?
@fynes leigh Are you asking me or the presenter?
@@dixietarian No but I used the term "We" once and was corrected by a drunken Teddy Roosevelt Looking circuit court judge Long Ago...……..R.I.P. Sam.
why would this be banned? I think we should question everything ....
How exactly is this banned?
No, unfortunately. Questioning is generally frowned upon if it doesn't fit into the narrative.
ask how that went for Behe.
for the same reason they have kept banning as much important things that threaten their power and the sick world they have build as possible
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Science is supposed to question everything except science????
Yea,
Scientists constantly question science! Religious believers and children do not question religion.
@@kristenhansen1843
How do you explain reformations in religions if you think that religion does not question religion?
@@jaras1429 - The Protestant reformation was a result of widespread corruption in the Catholic church. The Catholic church did not allow questions regarding its' dogma. This was why Martin Luther protested and why we have Protestant religions. Today we have religions like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Pentecostals etc who will gladly and piously SHUN you if you question their dogma. By the way, Jehovahs Witness dogma changes practically with every edition of the Watchtower comic book. Hard to pin those guys down.
@@kristenhansen1843 That's not true for all members of those groups. You may have had a bad experience with a few, but it's still both anecdotal and a hasty generalization.
"Advances are made by answering questions.
Discoveries are made by questioning answers."
Bernard Haisch
When someone is banned, they hit a nerve.
@Dirk Knight yet here you are...and obviously not for the first time....ans since Ted banned him you had to actually type this in and seek him out. Some of you are incredible....literally can't be honest about anything. Not even to yourselves.
Dirk Knight Banned by ted talks. Just saying, you didn't read the description or are a paid shrill/potentially a bot
Dirk Knight Lmao, they(ted) gave up copyright of this and disassociated with the video, it is banned from appearing on Ted talk channels, not RUclips itself. Just self explanatory really.
@Dirk Knight Can you direct me to a statement or act that shows TED relinquished all copyright claims?
@Dirk Knight wow....the gymnastics you are doing to try to purposely not understand (or pretend not to understand) must be exhausting. I always wonder about people like you, do you just get off on lies/misleading others or are you really just that confused...this is really not a difficult concept to grasp...but liars always have to change the very fabric of reality and logic in order to make their case...but the sad thing is, the only person falling for it is the liar himself. But liars rely on and expect others to have the same lack of logic that they have, and hope they can word salad their way through. trying to make sense out of nonesense. Like I said, it must be exhausting.
Being banned is the highest honor. Your adversaries admit the power of your words
When ted talks banned Sheldrake, they banned Max Planck at the same time.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck, The New Science
Max Planck is considered to be the father of quantum physics. Why tear him down? Without his work would those trillion dollar rockets work that are paid with by OUR tax dollars? Max Planck is commonly known as “The Father of Quantum Theory.” He dedicated his life to understanding the workings of Quantum Physics, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
@@pureenergy4578 Great reply
@@gfdthree1 Thanks. And my words are not even deleted yet.
Great! People who don't know anything about science talking about science. Woo Woo!
he knows absolutely everything about science
+David Roberts He knows a little bit though. But his examples and comparisons are a little stupid. Some very stupid.
I was taking the piss out of david. Davids a dork.
who? better if you refered to somthing specific.
+David Roberts Rupert is a scientist. I would venture to say he knows more than you in the area of biology. But you miss the point... do you take what is stated out of blind faith by the scientific community? Rather than trashing his ideas out of turn, I think it is a good thing to question everything especially when you don't find a good response. Most of us don't have the time to verify our questions but I appreciate those who do question and bring forth alternative views based on their investigations. Even if you disagree, it can give you a new perspective.
The more options we have on ideas, the better. Some fall by the wayside (and some may be downright stupid) but there is the potential to have a diamond of an idea which is better than dismissing everything and missing some new thinking.
"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's all right, it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science."
- Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
The best part of that statement that lines up with this talk, is how willing people are to accept the dogmas without taking time to scrutinize the science. It's essentially a religion. It seems like one of the essential needs of humanity is to form common bonds with minimal influence, as long as the same founding principles of a religion are met.
The reason this talk is "disliked" by the science religion, is either they're misinterpreting his points, or they can see how this can be spun as fuel for less popular science-based religions (eg: antivaxxers and flat earthers)
@@ron6625 Something like 50% of all the results that come out of science these days can not be reproduced. That is someone does an experiment. Publishes it, someone else tries it and can't get the same results. But it's still been published as fact. And people use papers in arguments like gospel when it's 50/50 whether it's right or wrong. Science these days isn't worth terribly much until they sort themselves out. Too busy working for government grants to get the 'right results' than looking for truth.
@@JohnSmith-wo2fz Yes, politics have always been damaging to science.
Well just a nice artifact of words from Sagan and opens up a doctrine for science sophistry. by saying there are many hypothesis in science that are wrong you are making two branch for science wrong and unwrong. Then if science is self correcting we have the right to logically say every statement in science is wrong and to become the aperture to find another wrong one
and we saw wht they did to sagan.
This is a brilliant talk! I have no idea why they censor it. This man calls for an open-minded attitude to never stop questioning even the most commonly-known beliefs in the scientific community, so that we may discover new facts and develop new theories that can course-correct our understanding of the universe and ourselves, as opposed to everybody falling for the dogmatic assupmtions and not moving foward. I loved it when he said "Dogmatic assumptions inhibit inquiry".
"I have no idea why they censor it. This man calls for an open-minded attitude to never stop questioning even the most commonly-known beliefs in the scientific community..." That's why.
b/c most of the "progress" that modern science hangs its hat on is actually wrong. Lot of careers, reputations and wasted tax/grant money would come to be questioned. The egos running this sham religion won't stand for that.
Ted merely proved his point
“Dogma inhibits inquiry. “ Well said.
He claims he's listing 10 dogmas, when he's actually just listing 10 things he dogmatically believes scientists believe.
Oh, the irony of the arrogant.
@james83925 are you saying climate never changes?
@@allahspreadshate6486 Most scientists actually do believe the dogmas he listed.
@@christofl6523 - I keep seeing this "most scientists" line. How do YOU know that.
Answer: You don't, but the line supports your argument so you continue to repeat it even though you have ZERO evidence to support it. Do you even know how many scientists there are in the world? I bet you a year's wages you don't without googling it. Am I right again?
@@allahspreadshate6486 Well, they are the ones always saying "scientific consensus."
I remember my fascination in college learning about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. The professor began the lecture by saying that the key assumption was that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames: everything else in the theory is mathematically rigorous. I recall thinking at the time, "but what if it's not??" Everyone seemed to agree that it must be so, and I dropped the question.....until now. The implications of Dr. Rupert's hypothesis are staggering. When it comes to understanding the Universe, we are like the frog at the bottom of a well who thinks he knows the ocean.
We might be a house fly that’s born in a room, and live for a week thinking we figured out how the coffee maker in the kitchen works.
The problem is our ego and not letting the idea that what we know is in fact just a tiny portion of what’s really going on. And just because it works and we’ve found a way to measure things in our own unit doesn’t mean our perspective is constant.
The theory of relativity which simply says that time is relative, could be said the same about perspective when it comes to knowledge.
Just because it sounds absurd doesn’t mean that it cannot be true.
I mean the thinking of it alone to begin with is such an amazing occurrence in intelligence, which can indicate there are little truths in every thought that forms in our minds. Like a puzzle of information… packets of data in binary code, and each 1 &0’s are the collective thoughts individualized by a single human being; one human can be 1, and the other can be 0.
Einstein's proved right 100 years after... so...
@@saul_usbreja LMAO
Always remember you get the most flak when you’re over your target
fynes leigh ?
@@freecharles3902 Xer is implying you're ignorant and not speaking from a place of experience.
Wind Hammer how would anyone know my experience from one comment. It’s just a saying anyway
Benji sorry big guy but I used both the right versions of “you’re” and “your” and you wrongly trying to correct me is even more embarrassing than if I was wrong in the first place. 🤣🤣
Absolutely! You could sum up the major points of error within science with three dogmatic stances: 1. Determinism 2. Materialism 3. Reductionism - We all have to abandon these in order to advance beyond the plateau we have reached. (paraphrasing Swarru)
Thanks for sharing. I'ts a shame for TED to have this removed, and does not shed a good light on them nor on "modern science", if censorship is the only way they can deal with it.
I guess the last 3 years of covid clearly showed us what science is all about;
@@iga279mmoney
Science itself is not dogmatic, but some scientist are.
Zach Dyer
Exactly. Sense some scientists can change their minds when confronted with enough evidence. But there will always be those that will stick to their old beliefs. After all scientists are people too. It took the evidences of Kepler and Newton to convince the community Copernicus was right. But even now some odd ducks believe in the geocentric model. Needless to say, those are now a very small minority. But at first Copernicus had lots of resistance.
hellavadeal "Dogma" is a state-of-mind... LIMITS. "Pragma" is the complete opposite... NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.
One is deemed dogmatic not through their subscription but their state-of-mind.
Einstein was a pragmatic being in a dogmatic world hence he couldn't believe himself.
+IAm NoOne, your trollish assertion that a prior commenter is confused attenuates anything you've said that might otherwise have been worth considering.
That would be interprable if his comment were directed at a particular user; since it is not the commenter is either confused, or confus_ing_.
hellavadeal Scientist like James Randi.
This man just explained his worldview, not any groundbreaking ideas. Never trust a person who says, "I think" and then calls it science. That's just an effing opinion.
When did he do that...? Lol so many trigged people in the comments. It's fucking hilarious. "How dare he challenge my world views?!?"
julsHz but thats the problem it really is just what experts "think" that determines the popular belief.
People are not as smart as they would have you to believe.
are you trying to insult my intelligence? I can think things people pretend to think and I do it subconsciously while laying a log and reading Shakespeare.
222Lightning *tips fedora*
222Lightning 😂😂😂😂😂 Niiiice! 👍🏻
Brian Drake ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
We are indeed, as a whole, Homo bovis stercus; although I might be bullshitting.
The biggest problem I have with science as a religion is that a certain morality and ethics are sometimes lacking in scientists. There are somethings that shouldn't be created/altered just because you can.
why not? existence is nonsensical. Morality and ethics? Human concepts the universe does not give a fuck about??
I love a real scientist with a brain that can reason & big enough balls to speak out of the narrow-minded status-quo theory box! Love & respect this man so much! Had to watch it again! So refreshing!
New ager?
Look at all the silly rationalists , materialists hating on Rupert. If you people think the physical science of things is the key to understanding the universe you are sadly mistaken
this comments section is a great example of the three stages of truth
+Harry Parkinson if you’re claiming that something is true, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate this claim. if you can’t demonstrate it, you don’t get to label it as ’truth’.
+Rabsputin ok I'll play along,
A: Scientific Study Of Telepathy And Remote Viewing: goo.gl/xFdStH
B: Plant perception: goo.gl/yWRN0x
and we meet at the collision of faith masquerading as science and 'science', I guess more fundamentally reality as we make it comes from thought so it's really a failure of ego checking that gets us to the unbalanced greed of dogmatic materialism
Harry Parkinson psychicreviewonline? fuck off pal. go and get a peer reviewed white paper and not this confirmation bias crap.
Duck Life so your suggestion is 'accept this woowoo crap, just because'.
great idea. /sarcasm
+Rabsputin got 1 4 that to; goo.gl/3bMtYf
wheres your white paper now el capitan,
also, heres another one for free; goo.gl/okG3pm
lol call the fire bregade, cos +Rabsputin got that burn, nice Bandit though
Everything is connected. EVERYTHING.
All is one. The universe is a single entity, everything is intrinsically connected. You haven't inherented existence, you are inherent to existence.
Everything is tethered to un-manifest inertia i.e. Ether.
Just like a dog on a leash running around a stake.
The dog on the leash = Magnetism
The stake = un-manifest inertia or the Di-Electric Field.
Boom!
I have connected to the universal mind and from this universal consciousness I could come down into the minds of other people/ animals/ rocks/ plants
@@CuttySobz if that were true, you’d realize that there are no “other” minds and that the mind is a construct of concepts.
Fancy actually removing this! I mean, people are free, if they disagree with him, to dismiss his ideas as ill-researched fantasy, or, if they agree, to celebrate the input of a man who can think for himself, yet question entirely scientifically. Personally, I feel cleansed and refreshed by what he says.
He is right of course that dogmatic assumptions should always be looked at and not just accepted. But he completely ignores the fact that the established laws make very accurate predictions. When his new law of "fluctuating gravity" makes accurate predictions about the motions of the planets, or the orbits of satellites, then they will be taken seriously.
Several contradicting causes for predictability exist but go unexamined by 'science'. It should be patent that there is no such thing as constants, but rather SETS within which predictability occurs. That is fundamental to all math, which is wholly immaterial by the way, so how did math come to exist?
He brings up the right questions. Doesn't mean he has all the right answers, nor need he do so. Only a religious 'science' person would demand there be all the right answers.
It is admitted by those who set the "constants" that the constants fluctuate. By definition, the so-called constants are not constants. The questions you should ask yourself after that are:
1) How precise did the "constants" have to be in order to predict the future position of a planet?
2) Are predictions of other things dismissed as incorrect simply because they do not rely on the artificially set "constants?"
3) Are documented experiments showing a fluctuating constant purposely being stifled by the gatekeepers of science?
4) (most importantly) Are these gatekeepers true scientists if they purposely withhold data that indicates their own assumptions or calculations or terminology are incorrect or not universal?
The fact that a formula has predicted the position of planets correctly does not make it universally correct. Afterall, a broken clock is correct twice in a day.
"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest."
You were born.
Miracles are purposely hidden by the source, and for very good reasons.
@@seldonwright4345 And continue to breathe in a self contain electrical flesh body on a planet hurling through a violent environment that supplies your every need.?
It was not a miracle, he misrepresented the theory.
Neither the theory nor science says that the materials that made up the singularity came from "nothing" nothing, when science says "nothing" it doesn't mean "no thing at all", we have no reason to believe there ever was "nothing".
@@seldonwright4345 not a miracle.
Eloquent and mind changing. The only irony I witnessed was the dogma reiterated by Rupert of evolution that is “already answered and no longer discussed. “
What Dr. Sheldrake is criticizing is the ideology of scientism, not the presuppositions, or the hard conclusions, of science itself. There are many, many scientists who do not subscribe to scientism, and would not accept some, at least, of the 'dogmas' which he identifies.
It seems like you know many scientists and can tell for sure they are dogmatic. How do you know that? Where did you get that conclusion?
Just the opposite. Most scientists (the ones I know & have known) are __not__ dogmatic.
Robert Sarracino Then you see Mr Sheldrake is being deceitful
No. He's confusing (to my way of thinking, with regard to some of his 'dogmas') science with scientism. He's not being deceitful, in my view; he's being unfair to scientists as a whole. I'll amplify on this a little later.
He's being talking about that for years, if it was just a matter of "confusion" he would've amended for it. Also, by the crazy stuff he says you can't excuse his "misuse" of a word, when the very misuse is the central focus of his critic. Science has found no evidence of his insane claims so he resorts to dismissing science as a whole to keep making them, but does so by not getting science in the least bit.
you know someone is on to something when they are banned.
Why do you think that? Do you think there is a conspiracy to prevent this man from speaking "the truth" or perhaps more likely that this man has presented a bunch of out and out bullshit to befuddle poorly educated people? Light changing speed as we move through "patches of dark matter"??? Does he know something about "patches of dark matter" that real scientists don't? He's a "parapsychologist" and believes in things like esp, seances, ghosts etc.
@@kristenhansen1843 you sound frighted
@@gaylandbarney2231 Yup. And frightened people ban shit. It's their only only recourse.
@@gaylandbarney2231 - ...well I'm not.
@@writingonthewall3326 - Nope!
I am in grad school in biophysics and I can relate to what Mr. Sheldrake is discussing. I face many profs and researchers who are stuck in their own mind. Science was about finding truth about everything in the universe, but their own egos get in the way...which in this case is the dogmas of being a scientist. The enemies of scientific progress are the scientists themselves.
My daughter got her first F in University in literature. When she adapted to her Professors line of thinking she passed the course with flying colours... Thinking outside the box how dare you!
111%
Why was that banned? It all made perfect sense !! The established scientific community needs to progress.
You can't question science
@@AnarchyEnsues sounds the exact same as “you can’t question religion”. Wake up, little sheep.
@@Brainsore. the more you learn about acceptable science, the more I'm skeptical of it. From diet, to psychology... Weather to theoretical physics.
All make wild claims with inseficient knowledge
Who noticed he's barefoot on stage?!
This is the second time I have watched this. The first thing I noticed when i saw him was "No shoes" ....... I tried to convince myself that he might be wearing beige shoes. But he moves his toes in a way that shoes don't move. Also when he walks away you can see dirt on the soles of his feet. It completely put me off the first time, but I managed to get past it this time.
@@Ballstreetuk :P
He’s probably grounding himself
@@JoshPhoenix11 Lool
Barefoot is healthier, shoes are not very comfy...
'In my view' 'in my view' 'in my view'..... 'There is in fact good evidence' what evidence?!?? Cite ffs
+mediamonkey93 read his books
+readmycomments100 fuck that. i’m not giving a quack money because he refuses to provide citations in argument.
Rabsputin Who's he arguing with? When did he refuse? This is a TED talk, not a debate. It would be a pretty fucking boring talk if he was constantly referring you to various research. He provides citations in his books.
readmycomments100 he was 'making an argument'. you don't have to have an opponent to make an argument.
like i said, fuck giving him money until he can support his claims in argument. demanding money for answers is the act of a con man.
+Rabsputin The whole Idea of the big bang theory cant be supported with hard fact only "educated" hypothesis. Even Dawkins himself said this. Lennox vs Dawkins.
all your comments try to sound so heady but nobody noticed he wasn't wearing any shoes?
I did
+cnrgfilm thanks. for validating my sanity.
showing connectivity to the earth.
That was my favourite part.
seen another video of him where he was 'shoeless'
it only gets good at 16:00 IMHO - this kind of talks are necessary anyway, no matter if they're "wrong" or "incorrect", they are thought provoking, even if you want to question what he says, you need to think about things outside the mainstream consensus. That's valuable
Sheldrake isn't questioning and criticizing science, he is questioning a "science delusion", the way people misinterpret and identify with science as their belief system, and judging from all the butt-hurt comments below; yes, these deluded people are defending science as if it is their substitute religion and somebody just insulted it. Lot of emotional and illogical identification for an abstract word that represents a rational and logical practice.
Fuck God..Fuck Jesus.
+Rahul Kumar What does your comment have ANYTHING to do with what you replied to?
nope, abusing for no specific reason!!
+Chaka Caca You nailed it!
They resort to insult and bashing so they dont have to defend their arguments. They learned that from the likes of Richard Dawkins.
+Chaka Caca Which is why I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the people's comments, laugh at how stupid they're being or cry because humanity isn't as smart as I thought it was.
Some guy on TEDx talking shit on science, while walking barefoot. Seems legit.
4cellar2door0
Lol why are you on a fucking crusade against science and science supporters? What is it about Scheldrake's claims that you find so convincing? All forms of religion and idealism are bullshit. Anyone that's willing to claim that non-physical forces are influencing the physical world is completely wrong.
normtheclone You have tested this scientifically?
Andrew Burgess The claim that non-physical forces have causal efficacy is unfalsifiable, and therefore the burden of evidence rests on someone making this claim, not on those opposing it. Its impossible to prove that non-physical forces aren't at work even if it is indeed true that they aren't (see the problem of induction).
Besides if we accept that the world exists, but we also accept the presence of supernatural forces, that means we subscribe to dualism. The problem is that dualism poses an unsolved (and presumably unsolvable) philosophical problem because there is no way to explain how something that isn't physically a part of the world could itself interact with that world.
the dude could wear a yellow dress and it wouldn't make it any less important or true. dont be ignorant its not helpful.
Bleach Drinker and you know this because...... oh yeah.. you're smarter than these doctors of science..
fucking idiot.
Thank you for re-uploading. I'm now enjoying this talk for the 2nd time. I think Rupert Sheldrake is a brilliant thinker, also in his approach to discuss this subject. There's a dry and calm perceptive attitude in him that doesn't allow much room for judgment, but clearly, he points at the factual conditions of our present scientific world, frozen in mid-air between dictations of an illusion and a down-to-earthiness with hands in the soil, and their senses connected to the elements, nature's expression, around them.
Many scientists survive and remain in their job by obeying the commands of the Wizards of Oz, our captains of industry and corporations who need to hide their agenda and crimes against humanity and the planet's environment.
I appreciate Rupert's sense of humor much, standing on bare feet on a circular piece of artificial grass. Or maybe it's the real thing, like the Xmas trees? I hope he chose the props 😊
I studied physics at university and then got my degree in Computer Science. I love the sciences and feel its valid .. however .. I have had experiences that science cannot easily explain. When I began having them I talked with a psychologist as I was getting somewhat concerned that I was going mad. If I had to say what these are they suggest one of more of the claires. It has come as quite a surprise for myself. I have thought a lot about some of them that there is a scientific explanation and some of them I have found after contemplation and some I cannot fathom. Dogma in all its forms is restrictive. Stay open and ask important questions about everything especially when it is deemed controversial.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- What do you do?
- I'm a metrologist.
- What's that?
- I measure constants.
- Constants..? Can they ever change?
- No. They're constants.
- Then why the fuck do you keep measuring them?!
IT'S OFFICIAL - ATHEISM IS A RELIGION !
ATHEISM IS A RELIGION according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, as well as the Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. The court described “SECULAR HUMANISM AS A RELIGION.".
nonsense.
That's why I'm agnostic. No human alive today, or who has ever lived, can say, for fact, that there is, or isn't, a "god", due to our limited understanding of the universe, or even what constitutes "god". To say unequivocally one way or the other is the height of human ignorance.
Cool they should start a church and get tax exempt status.
Joe Ruden No human alive can say the same for either Zeus, the Sun God Ra, Hades, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Little fairies, or magical unicorns.
Are you an agnostic about magical unicorns too? Gremlins, goblins, and Santa Claus?
Joe Ruden You should Google the difference between atheism and agnosticism because they are not mutually exclusive positions. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist, a Gnostic atheist, a agnostic believer (deist), and Gnostic believer (theist).
For example, I am an agnostic atheist. I am agnostic because I do not have a definite belief about whether god(s) exists or not. I am atheist because I have no reason to believe that any god(s) exist(ed).
Atheism shouldn't even be a word. We don't have words for people who don't believe specifically in Bigfoot, or Lochness Monster, or Space Aliens. We just have skeptics, people who are skeptical of others' claims that can not be demonstrated by evidence.
Gnostic - Claim of knowledge
Agnostic - Claim of not knowing
Theist - Believes there is a personal God
Atheist - Does not believe there is a personal God
One more thing. I don't understand how a TED Talk focused on the dogmatic nature of science can be deemed unscientific and be banned. The very nature of the talk has to do with dogmatic positions of science. We are not in the realm of scientific experimentation as much in theoretical principles. He has been asking, or sharing the point of view, that experimentation can be carried on without these dogmatic positions stopping exploration. He's not saying throw them out he's saying let's test around them as well.
"Education is a system of imposed ignorance" Noam Chomsky
What do we have to indicate that consciousness is anything more than a result of brain activity? As far as I understand it, the only consciousness we've been able to observe has been that of brain activity. Also as I understand it, nothing is considered an unalterable fact in science. For example, if we DID discover measurable consciousness emitting from somewhere other than a brain, science wouldn't keep asserting that consciousness is only a result of brain activity.
***** How do you know anything to be factual?
+Geoff Stockton how do you know anything ?
We don't have anything that indicates that brain activity is the same as consciousness, if we did then neuroscientists and psychologists would not call it "The hard problem of consciousness" which there are Ted talks about by other more orthodox scientists. Conventional approaches hope to prove that consciousness is in the brain, that is their hypothesis, but we don't have a theory that explains it and there are lots of reputable people who think it will turn out to be an irreducible emergent complexity that we won't be able to narrow down to just the brain. There is a decent sized brain in your intestines for example, are they part of your consciousness ? It is part of a materialist assertion to insist consciousness is in the brain, this seems reasonable but we still cannot prove it so skepticism should continue in the mind of a good scientist.
supercoolio120 If you really want to go down that road it can be easily said that absolutely nothing can be certain to be true. We're left with no choice but to live according to certain pre-suppositions.
These pre-suppositions were once based on religion. Now they're based on scientific observation. Would the speaker of this video prefer that we go back to the old way?
I just don't know what in the hell he's really suggesting here.
Science may not be a perfect and easy path to having all the answers but it sure beats the hell out of anything else we have.
+Giles Tully What's the alternative if consciousness doesn't stem from the brain? I'd like to hear a coherent, scientific answer? Does consciousness live outside our heads? If so, what proof do you have? I think you're making a very large leap in thinking that consciousness is something outside of ourselves. Where does it come from then?
Isn't it funny that science is about questioning everything and attempting to better understand this reality in a way that we can conceptualize, yet people will quickly criticize the questioners when the topics they are questioning are typically hardly understood by the critics.
Mh, the criticism is insubstantial. If someone says that a scientific model is wrong he has to present a "better" model. Better in a way that the new model presents better predictions.
We already know that quantum theory and the theory of relativity can't coexist they contradict each other. Yet they are both the best models we have in their domain. Present a better model with better predictions and they (the old theories) become history.
Greetings
@@TheKhanQ That is rather shockingly wrong. Falsification is not reliant on the existence of anything but errors in current knowledge ("models")> A model that doesn't work, or work well, that produces consistent errors, is a model BY SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION that needs to be improved or replaced. The peculiar notion that we can't dispute the adequacy of a "model" because we haven't a better on offer would stop scientific inquiry. Worse, since the goal or addtional research would be to replace a model already falsified by its failures, but that existing model is treated as doctrine or dogma rather than a legitimate target for inquiry, you could not get funding or research time. There is an immense and growing literature on problems created by scientific dogmatism in every field from medicine to cosmology. In some cases, such as medicine, this adherence to dogma is genuinely dangerous.
It is funny, because all that is necessary is the acknowledgement that there COULD be intelligence behind it all. Failing to acknowledge that possibility, while at the same time saying it all had to occur naturally, is not science, it's philosophy.
@Frauenarzt Dr. Stefan Frank No, not at all. Ridiculous statement.
@@TheKhanQWell I wouldn't say anybody is saying that the model is wrong. The model is good for lot's of things and helps to produce technology of all sorts. I think the problem is that science claims to be able to explain everything using purely mathematical contructs that inevitably leads to mechanistic model no matter how complex the mechanism is. In the process it runs into many paradoxes(e.g. it claims no event propagates faster than light by gravitational force denies this fact and all cosmological computations work because gravitational force vector effect is instant). It uses many absolute minimal and maximum values (actually speed of light is a variable constant:)) for many things saying that what we cannot observe doesn't exist, but there's no evidence for that is there?. It also ,in many cases, uses terms "intellect" and "intelligence" interchangeably grosly degrading intelligence to be again mechanistic, this would open the whole discussion about AI guess:)
A truly creative video. I retired from an engineering career, and had noticed during it how the Speed of Light seemed to be varying somewhat unexplainedly, but Sheldrake has explained it beautifully. No one else ever had, and I had enough experience to be able to guess what the reaction would be. Incidentally, I had also developed an "inspiration" that the researchers were NOT going to "find" electricity by investigating motors , generators, etc. , and in an analogous way, investigators are very soon going to find out that the ancient hindu-buddhists were right in their poetic inspiration that "Consciousness" is analogous to an electromagnetic Field, with the usual field characteristics, which means that you are NOT going to "find" it in the brain, but rather the brain is "inhabited" by consciousness just like a motor is "inhabited" by electricity. And, don't worry, it has been found lately that "Paradoxes" are "REAL".
lol.......
There IS no difference between Galileo being banned by Church and Sheldrake's talked being banned by them.
Galileo had EVIDENCE , Sheldrake only has his misundertsanding of how science works and affirmations without evidence
ruclips.net/video/FMrQme-DEas/видео.html
@@sevgar5128 The only thing Sheldrake is trying to prove is that these things are dogmas and might not be true. Different from Galileo.
It’s healthy to question all dogma. That is the principal of progress and understanding. Be it science, belief or any human activity. Dogma is the power of the elite, customs and tradition reinforce their socio-economic pre-eminence.
In a world of institutions, whose purpose is to calcify and entrench the convention of the day. It often takes the inspired and motivated maverick to expose the emperor has in fact no clothes and often is persecuted for it. Then after a while, or a lifetime, is revered as the new source of universal truth. Institutions then embrace and solidify their position by locking understanding under the new paradigm.
And the scientific cycle begins anew...
Science, like existence and the universe around it isn’t smooth and balanced. There are centres of activity and vast areas of quiet calm. Then an explosion of understanding by some genius insight moves us along the road of discovery until a quiet time is again reached, by the limits of technology and intellectual freedom, until the next revolution leap frogs us again into the future.
I salute you sir.. such eloquent words of wisdom breathed everywhere...refreshing indeed.
Siri Erieott So your saying everything runs in cycles??
Surely not, that's preposterous
@@lukeskywalker2481 Read Thomas Kuhn's On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. There are no genuine "cycles" in nature. A genuine cycle would violate the Second Law and imply a possibilty of a perpetual motion device.
The next "revolution" is looking like it's going to set us back into another dark age.
@Siri Erieott - Almost every episode of inspired genius ends with a dogma revealed to be a dogpa under false hair. Manic harassment of the protagonist ensues to a predictability fine-tuned by the lay scientist, Yakety Sax, who had to blow his own trumpet many times for it to be well known.
He makes valid points, but he really sounds like he is discrediting science (although he is not).
Science has its limitation. Science can only deal with things that are composed of matter, energy, space and time. IF anything is beyond matter/energy/space/time, then science cannot detect it. How could we know they exist if we can't detect it?
Just because science has a limitation, it does not mean we can just discredit it.
Unfortunately, things that exist beyond the realms of matter, energy, time and space is at this point, at best, fiction. We just do not have enough verifiable evidence to prove such things exist beyond such realms.
Dilip Muralidaran
As far as I understand, the word "exist" by definition means something that is in some sense present in the world. If something is not on any level part of the world we inhabit, it doesn't exist.
4cellar2door0
I just came up with the broadest definition I could of what we actually mean when we say "exist". Certainly we could expand the definition, but that would only affect the semantics of what we're discussing, not the facts.
The definition I gave is essentially what most people mean when they use the word "exists". If something isn't present in the universe in which we live, I don't see how we could use any other criteria to conclude that it "exists". For example, unicorns clearly don't exist because they aren't present in our universe and they have no bearing or influence on anything that actually happens. Granted, there may be unicorns in books, or on TV, or even in parallel universes, but they sure as hell aren't of any concern to our lives beyond their significance as fictional characters.
Bleach Drinker The word exist normally refers to physical things. In the oxford dictionary, it is added that "existing"" must not be imagined. But the definition contradicts itself. Things that are imagined are as real as an apple. Take an artist before he/she paints a piece. If it wasn't for the imaged idea, the painting would never of existed. That contradiction is there because the concept does not include things that are not physical, and the one who defined "existing" was a materialist who cannot see beyond the physical.
I noticed that a few comments suggests that if science cannot detect it, it is fiction. We have no scientific evidence that consciousness is "real", nor do we of truth, ethics, justice, pain, love, imagination or even numbers and letters. none of these things can be placed in our hands yet we logically know them to be as real as apples. What people have forgotten is that philosophy is the godfather of science, creator of the scientific method which is based on logical principles. Philosophy covers what science can never explain. We live in a time of science that has become a bully of all information, much like religion did many years ago.
If you split the universe in physical and mental, these "matters" make a lot more sense. If you are a westerner, you were born a materialist, and it becomes very hard to see beyond the physical.
Great talk. Shouldn’t be banned. How silly!
You can find it in teds blog. So deffinitely not baned.
What the hell is TED so scared of? You banned this, thus I no longer wish to follow you.
Dr Terry CREAGH good
Here is an informative audio about other things that are not commonly brought out in the open. I hope it is a benefit to you. ruclips.net/video/WP3TZh6A6Vg/видео.html
They had banned many videos that directly show when and about what "science" has been exposed
(it's very often about history, archaeology and topics like that - which aren't really scientific by themselves - most of it is based on opinions, notable examples are Sphinx and Great Pyramid, both of which were dated by "who else, we don't see any civilizations older than that age" and most likely faked 2 word inscription in Great Pyramid - because grammar was incorrect and that error was very common among Egyptology at the time of dating it; plus all the Egyptian texts they found clearly stated "Repaired by Pharaoh XXX" not built by XXX(I don't remember who was exactly at the time), plus when Egyptians restored or repaired buildings they used Granite at notable places indicating that this building was restored - all egyptologists agree on that, except Great Pyramid with the same technique official "scientific" response: "built by XXX")
By banning this talk they proved his point for him. In every banned ted talk there are some jewels of knowledge, as crazy as it may sound to normies.
I don't think they were scared (is there something to be scared of?), but embarrased. Anyways, I agree that baning it is a wrong decision and only creates confusion.
There are dark corners of reality which science does not yet illuminate. None of us can afford to be too arrogant or certain about what we will find there.
Like what?
Doapsique Gaming
Jesus Christ
Get out of here, Stalker!
"dark corners"???....that justifies the attitude of people who pretend to know things that they don't......and you call scientific standards arrogant??? lol
ok mr I know it all....
Key word is "yet". Not so long ago people thought rain was caused by frantic dancing to entertain Gods. Now we know better. Be patient. The smart money will always be on the side of science. Every. Single. Time.
It wasn't "banned", it was removed. Not because it's too "groundbreaking" or "shockingly disruptive", but simply because it focuses on an alternative worldview for which there is little compelling evidence; a worldview that's majorly speculative. It attracts people who've recently veered into more metaphysical beliefs (regardless of the evidence), unsatisfied with the materialist worldview, which leaves people with little hope as they learn that their life, in the grand scheme of things, can be seen as utterly meaningless. It's the natural yearning to be a part of something more spectacular and amazing than mere biological life, because apparently, the strictly scientific view is too cold and harsh, so people need to strive for more, hoping that there must be some grand reason for humanity's existence. It's completely ego-driven as they never project this same belief onto simple "life" like bacteria, and lower animals. Humans beings have souls, but what about the trillions of other accepted life forms, and even those questionable ones? Even TEDx has standards..
Science does *not* need to be materialistic. The fact that our present main paradigm is materialistic is an *option* and this understanding, as clearly exposed in Rupert's talk, is not speculation, it's a fact.
Rupert's questions and analysis, in my view, are science in its best. He should be lecturing for people at NASA and the great universities and research institutions, so that the scientists would not start to make their *hypotheses* articles of faith.
All great scientists, IMO, made more or less great mistakes.
For example, telepathy is *not* metaphysical because *we*, the ones who generate the thoughts and perceive them, are not. It can quite easily be seen as a natural extension of the idea of fields in Physics, for example.
The fact that there is no funding or support for serious research in this area is, again, an option.
Another example, the so called constants of physics are being questioned right now, by people from Stanford and Purdue universities, because the decay rates of some elements (and therefore, the fine structure "constant" of EM- and weak- interactions) are being observed to vary, in relation with the distance between Earth and the Sun. Rupert didn't mentioned this "constant", but he mentioned others that could be varying similarly, but because our present paradigm says that they cannot vary, nobody is looking for a solution of the problem, more ostensibly, when it has the potential to be one of the most revolutionary observations possibly in the last 100 years, when Q. Physics was *created*.
The only thing that is truly a "law" in science is that you *may question* (and *should* question) everything.
angelpbj damn, I agree with everything you said; wonderful introspection angel.
angelpbj Nicely done!
He's explicitly talking about various animals and even crystals and how the theory of morphic resonance may apply.
At its best, science is not a “system” based on primitive beliefs, but a way of observing the actual world in a systematic manner which has as its core objective logic and rigorous experimentation.
Finally! I never thought thought modern science would be allowed to be questioned, bravo!!!
Apparently it is not. This video is reportedly banned.
I was just about to say whar I now see Quincy Litigator already responded here... except QL was too reserved: because Modern Science is NOT allowed to be questioned, alas... hence the shit we're in now. Modern Science is no longer Science; it has regressed to little more than a kind of voodoo. The CCP operates under this assumption in order to gain the upper hand; with our eager compliance they are succeeding, amazingly.
They banned this Tedtalk.
“Intellectual phase locking...” 😂
Which I prefer to shorten to "intellectual phocking"
Can I get a job saying stupid stuff like he does?
Schoops te lotta!
Ally Frenyay It depends on what kind of accent you have.
Ally Frenyay You'll have to go to school first
Ally Frenyay Yep! But first...you must earn a PhD from Cambridge. Good luck! LOL
Yes....become religious and you can spout this nonsense too lol!
Did anyone else notice that it looked like he was barefoot?
Once before I though that, too, and then in a close up where the camera showed a foot for a second I could see he had on tan, cloth or cloth-like slip-on loafers (an aspect of comfort, I suspect). He seems like a "comfortable" sort of chap, and I have a great deal of respect for the man.
This is no secret that Sheldrake is known as the "Barefoot Scientist". I do my best work when I have the comfort of being barefoot. Its no big deal.
He's grounding/earthing. It's to stay connected electrically to the earth.
@@KingOfTheLosers13 👍
He dressed like Paul on the cover of Abbey Road. lol
Discussed the ideas in your books with Ralph N. Maud, my deceased partner, who understood and appreciated your views. You joined us once for lunch. Happy to hear you again.
I once commented adversely on a talk and it was removed.
Imagine how I feel 🤣🤣
@Jeremy Mettler what the actual fuck are you trying to communicate?
Independent thought is the only hope against either side. I can't make anybody shut up, but I don't have to listen either.
Luis Martinez good comment sir
@ Luis Martinez : _listen_ or _believe?_
Not listening only leads to less understanding of things, at the least it leads less understanding of how someone gets the wrong ideas stuck in their head.
I would be inclined to think you meant _not believe them,_ but since you want them to _shut up,_ I am uncertain. I almost never fully agree with anyone, but I do read their comments and opinions before I decide if I agree, and if they are _shut up,_ I will never know if I agreed or not with all they said.
Freedom of speech is as much for the listener as it is for the speaker.
Did the speed of light change between 1928 and 1945? Or did the ability to measure it become more accurate in 1945 than in 1928?
Rupert Sheldrake HUGE change is 1 part in 15,000.
i believe they wanted to solidify the speed of light as a constant rather than a relativity...it made the math work for their construct and create a world of followers through the university ...don't think outside the box shit or you can't be one of us nonsense....remember, it's all theory ONLY!
Mmmm ??? 😭😂😭
Could be either. We need to test this hypothesis. The expanding universe may cause small variations.
Donnie Young - Theories are more important than 'facts' and lead the way to new discoveries. 'Facts', like constants are given to make it easier to understand complex relationships. No one is going to tell you the exact value of the square root of 2 or the exact value of Pi and it's not necessary. The symbol for the square root of 2, or the symbol for Pi or the symbol for infinity are totally understandable and used all the time in scientific discussions, even by high school students.
I remember in class talking about fluctuations. My Asian friend blurted out fluk you white folk too! Priceless!
Bahahahaha!
When he talks about the speed of light being fixed, he is right because the meter definition became a count of wave lengths of light rather than the standard meter. This has blinded science making such variations impossible to see. It is literally defining distance by the speed of light.
That's bullshit, because we still have other measurement lengths than only the meter. The meter is no longer defined in count of wavelengths of light (which was adopted in 1960 and retired 1981), but as "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum in
1/299 792 458th of a second"
The "second" is subsequently defined as follows: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
So combining the two means that the meter is really the distance that light travels in a vacuum during 30,66331898849837 transitions of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
The wavelengths of light (which is NOT the same as the *speed* of light, but denotes its energy) can be measured in non-units like Planck lengths for instance. Or any other measurement system you want.
Base units are man-made abstract constructs and have to necessarily be based on something else that is real. The older definitions were:
"The meter was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole - as a result the Earth's circumference is approximately 40,000 km today. In 1799, it was redefined in terms of a prototype meter bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889)."
Do you really think such definitions are sufficient to measure the speed of light accurately? Had they still used those definitions, yes the speed of light would be varying constantly with the shape of the earth or that bar (and the measurement equipment used to measure that bar), but that would be completely artificial.
We don't need such units at all, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
@@terrencedekat9359 I'll fully admit to punching above my weight by even entering into this discussion, but I have a question. How do we know that the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods doesn't fluctuate? It seems to me that measurement of any kind has to be compared to a standard that is constant in order for it itself to be considered a constant as well, as in our definition of what the duration of a second is. But if the constant we're comparing to is not really constant, how would we know?
@@markbader4942 bcoz it work ?? If it was wrong out GPS systems would be useless. They are so sensitive they have to take into account relativity of time between earth and low earth orbit.
I tend not to rely on GPS besides getting me to the general location, I always assumed the satellites involved weren't updated frequently enough. Men are funny creatures, once believed they were the center of the universe, only to come to know the mechanisms of it, even though they've only peered a fraction of a percent of it... I admittedly am not remotely as intellectual as others, but through my 30 or so years of wanderings, I've personally only found one thing to truly be constant: change.
@@GrimSleepy ofcoz the laws of nature might change over time.. who knows.. but if it does, then it's on such a timescale that it on a human level seems to stand still and is impossible for us to measure. And something we cannot measure or predict in a meaningful way, that's a religion.
if you train a rat to learn a new trick and others learn the new trick faster, is it because the rats have somehow transferred the experience wirelessly or you have gotten better at teacher the rats? Science is not dogmatic, if you have a theory then you have to prove it. Something can be true and still unscientific if it is unfalsiable, unpredictable and unrepeatable. If you do believe such things exists then you have to develop a way of proving it....somehow.
apparently it wasn't the same people 'teaching' the rats, and also, the trick was to swim in a labyrinth, not something taught by the handlers, but every new rat performed better than the former. why? no idea.
+Flaggkatten does this experiment have a name? If it is testable and repeatable I don't see what the problem because that's science. According to this thesis all rats are now better swimmers. A species being able to transfer skill in this manner can be extremely useful but the necessary questions do have to be asked.
Wow! This guy's just making stuff up and claiming other people said it! He's an attention seeking little boy..
i agree
Ideas have underlying, implicit assumptions. He's presenting those assumptions, many of which are illogical.
"There are more thing in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you dream of in your philosophy".
Nothing more needs to be said here. Brilliant response Julio Sanchez
Saucy boy!
To Thine own Self be true.
Science isn't a philosophy. Please, look up science in the dictionary or Google the definition. Thanks, have a great life.
Pᴀʀᴀsᴇʟᴇɴᴇ Tᴀᴏ The dictionary definition doesn’t match what it has turned into. Look up the word “feminism”, lol.
20 km/s compared to the speed of light _is_ decimal places of error. It's 0.0067% of the speed of light.
As for "What if [the gravitational constant] is really changing?" Well, then satellites, moons, and planets would go flying out of their orbits and crashing into the sun. Personally, I'm very happy the gravitational constant remains constant.
I fell down today. I wish the gravitational constant would've temporarily changed, so I didn't skin my knee.
your argument is a little short sighted! It assumed that G only changed on earth!
@@danielkraus2627 falling and being pulled are not the same thing, tho they do sometimes have the same effect
I didn't say anything about Earth, @@draco_bane.
What utter bollocks!!!
Despite my research in parapsychology and science, I actually do kinda agree with Rupert Sheldrake. Science is a beautiful tool, I agree, but it is far from perfect. In order to understand dogma in science, you must first distinguish its meaning for religion. Unlike science, religion relies on some supernatural deity(s) without any empirical evidence. Everything in religion is considered to be true at face-value, even if there is evidence against it. Science is actually quite the opposite.
Everything that science explains or tests originates from a presumption (e.g. a hypothesis/claim). If the hypothesis is widely supported via empirical evidence, it becomes a scientific theory. A scientific theory scientifically speaking cannot be proven to be true. It can only be supported in the basis of experimental evidence and falsified if shown otherwise. This "support" and "falsification" are the golden rules of science. If anyone violates these two golden rules, then it becomes a scientific dogma. A dogma where the opposition will be ridiculed and degraded, regardless of evidence in favor.
This is where dogma in science stands. It is no surprise, really. Charles Darwin, Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Wegener (the creator for the Plate Tectonics Theory) were all ridiculed and degraded by scientists simply because it didn't follow their paradigm or should I say, scientific dogma. It just shows how much the scientific community are full of prejudices, knee-jerk reactions, and confirmation biases. It seems that paranoia and cognitive dissonance play a huge role in what we call the scientific community. So yeah, scientists are pretty much on the same high horse as politicians. Thinking nothing but protecting their paradigm with an "If you don't agree with me, go fuck yourself" attitude.
Why not read Buddha Dharma if you are keen to know the truth, just read my comment and see if there is any truth, my comment is written about a month ago
What makes you think life has to have any "meaning" other than what we give it?
If a scientific theory can't be proven to be true and relies on experimental or observational evidence, then why would someone ever call a scientific theory a fact? This is what they say. Scientific theories are not facts. Actually what a fact is is an issue which science does not have the capacity to address in itself. It requires philosophy. This shows you that science is full of fraud, and that scientism and logical empiricism are fraudulent as well.
Had he been my science teacher during my school years, I imagine my interest for science would've been far greater than being merited an F!
and generally would've enjoyed learning the subject. Because as you get older, interest in the broad spectrum related to science spikes up!
@fynes leigh well in school, students are taught the basic elements of science which consists of; physics, chemistry and biology. It was just generalised literature but never was interested perhaps due to the teachers inability to deliver in an engaging context
Those principles were the general literally
I can't believe this guy is a scientist. Most of his "dogmas" are actually opened questions in physics (see some theoretical physics research in cosmology, involving dark energy for example)
Yes, scientists don't question every hypothesis each time because they are confident with the theory, as it gives the expected results inside its field of application.
But actually, scientists would be thrilled to find evidence of a consistently fluctuating "constant", because it means Nobel Prize.
His description of the big bang is flawed, and every physicist would tell you that our theories can't describe the big bang properly.
I'm ok to hear that science shouldn't rely too much on past discoveries, but the real issue isn't the lack of imagination. It's the lack of money for research. That and the fact that researchers are pushed to publish always more, settling them inside well known fields of application to insure positive results.
Finally, I've never ever heard scientific evidence of anything this man claims in his own theories. Again, no dogma here. Just waiting for some scientific evidence.
I almost gave up after the absurdity of the first sentence, then he listed the so called dogmas. It will be a struggle, but I will persevere and see it through. I agree with you in regard to scientific research. I was working at an Australian university at the time the government announced that all research must lead to an end, thus ending research for the sake of knowledge. The scientist there that I worked with could no nothing but bit throw up their arms in disbelief. I will point out that I am not a scientist, but working closely with scientists as a technician gave me a good appreciation of scientific method.
Well, I managed to get through, and it only got worse. His hypothesis of morphic resonance is quite absurd. I wonder if I could quickly learn German. After all, my ancestors were German, and there must be some "collective memory" that has been passed on to me.
Only human arrogance assumes their scientific constructs to be absolute, and therefor not to be questioned, let alone debated.
Any real scientist or believe of the sciences knows that human science is simply a way of explaining that which we do not fully understand. Also, it is well known that nothing in science is concrete.
Nothing in science is absolute. Science improves or changes based on whatever existing evidences there is, if soon uncovered. Scientific community questions everything. Even science.
@JP Duffy pat yourself on the back for exposing those evil scientists and their dogma, I'm sure your father is very proud of you. BTW, if science is bad and worthless, how should we investigate the world? If proof and maths is banned, how can we agree on ideas? As a fellow revolutionary genius, we should start planning this stuff out.
Presumably, Sheldrake is honest and sincere. All the same, the first half-minute or so of his talk is a classic example of the rhetorical fallacy called the "straw man" technique. By starting with such false assumptions, one can drive toward any desired predetermined conclusion-which in this case probability has something to do with "proving" the value and validity of religion or "spirituality." Certainly Sheldrake's tone of "we're not the dogmatic ones; scientists are" would seem to indicate this.
Skipping ahead, I see that Sheldrake got into conjecture about "mental projection" and things like that, bolstering his case by appeal to his own authority as a scientist. A serious scientist would trust validated information and not mere speculation. There's a place for the latter; as Einstein said, imagination is even more important than knowledge. But for Sheldrake to then say that he doesn't have dogma while others do is nothing short of egotistical.
Exactly, thank you. He also uses the scientific method to debunk the scientific method.....oh the irony !!
Pretty nice reasoning of yours. I perceived the same from Sheldrake at the introduction of this talk, and now I can say that this is a man that motivates me a lot, he shows you that is actually possible to live and provide science people without dogmas and full of humbleness and sincereness like Sheldrake does.
Sorry, but you're wrong, this is not a 'straw man' - he's taking valid positions.
ed blarney However much you might think that you can make unsubstantiated assertions, and that others are to accept them simply because you make them, this isn't the case. You must offer relevant facts, evidence, proof, and/or concrete reasoning. Otherwise you risk being seen as a blowhard egomaniac, and we have enough of those-especially in the political, religious, and anti-science arenas. You're not one, are you?
You might want to start with demonstrating that you understand what the term "straw man"means. It's not at all clear that you do.
Eloquent enough but is any of what he talked about can be proven? More so, I don't think most of the claims he is making are even true.
Both your observations bring up two of the errors in his talk.
the C values bit is true light speed ain't that constant
I think we should rethink the postulates of mainstream materialistic science
Are you saying that everything we accept as being "true" scientifically can be proven to be absolutely factual? I think not.
He wasn't trying to PROVE anything, only QUESTION dogma.
We were crystallizing cobalt? salts in honors chemistry lab at UC (Cincinnati) about 1980. The chemistry head said it’s hard to get it to crystallize but when I did it, it crystallized with high yield. He was amazed, but didn’t say anything. Then I moved on. Debt slavery pushed us on and away from interesting things and much more.
I will never understand the logic of those who “ban” things
really? you don't understand laws?
Another sheep
The fact that TED banned this says so much more about them than it does about him
6 years later and this is still legendary!
Well, if it's banned, it MUST be true.
Some educated people are just as stubborn and close minded as those religious creationists they so often criticize. Unable to accept views differ from what they believe or were taught by the mainstream growing up is no differet than fundamental creationist views of the world. A good reality check is to realize that we don't know much about anything, really. We have not answered entanglement, nor the quantum double slit, nor what consciousness is or isn't, which are all natures of reality we perceived thus far. And although we do know a great deal, those ideas are always being challenged and are changing over time. Keeping an open mind and always questioning is how we move forward. And there are always more than one perspective of the nature of any truths. Just like the scientific community could not at first accept relativity, Sheldrake actually brought up an interesting point. Could natural constants also be relative? We don't know either way definitively, but we could always question and research further. Stating something is "stupid" just because it does not conform to some sort of main stream or your own perspective is exactly why progress is being hindered in any point in history. Just like the dark ages, there was the church and its dogmas, and nothing else. We must avoid this type of thought pattern control by saying there isn't only a labeled or perceived mainstream scientific dogmas, and we must always question everything.
There are a LOT of Christians (creationists) who are not only very educated but scientists themselves. Francis Collins who mapped the human genome, Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist and Cosmologist just to name a couple.
Even Charles Darwin in whom every atheist anchors their beliefs when discussing the question of God, Darwin admitted in letters to friends that his feelings often fluctuated. He wasn't content to conclude that this "wonderful universe" was the result of "brute force." If he pressed for a label, he wrote that the term "agnostic" would fit him best.
In an 1873 letter to Dutch writer Nicolaas Dirk Doedes, Darwin wrote:
"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."
NOT AN ATHEIST. He didn't know and that is fair.
Therefore your argument that intellectuals or the educated cannot be theist, creationists, or Christians FAIL.
@@stevenreed840 The vast majority of elite scientists don't believe in god. And those that do have learned to compartmentalize their beliefs.
Scientists are not educated people.
If the video is available on the TED blog, then... it's not censored, is it???
They probably did it just for the views. Nice profile photo by the way ;)
For all those who believe faith in God is religiun should know, science not only takes much for faith, but if you dare to question it you might loose your job, reputation,your pention and anything thats left over, keep talking and its your life.
Oh I agree, there's so much dogma in many forms of science.
So, you use "unscience" to make things/develop products?
I don't know what that means, but IF IT WORKS, it ISN'T "FAITH" doing the curing, but some UNKNOWN PRINCIPLES are coming into play.
Thusly, DEFINITELY, *proper science* is in the mix.
+Arthur White .... science=science
There will ALWAYS be SWINDLERS out there.
Don't mix the two things to make SCIENCE/MATHEMATICS look bad.
your an asshole! You wrote this out with your laptop & still you cant spell,even with spellcheck,there should be a special name for people this thick,oh there is one?
I don't think this was banned, it just didn't meet the criteria. Donald Hoffman says much more intense and mind blowing things and his talk wasn't banned.
Question everything including this man
Why?
Because you are a fool if you don't
@@donaldbutcher1260 I was following your suggestion and questioning you, sir XD
@@KB-ur4nk
Well done.
No one has all the answers the best we can do is ask questions.
More like don't be afraid to question the ideas you took for granted.
"“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~ William Paley
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~Herbert Spencer I guess great minds think alike! ;)
The exact quote you've used was famously and usefully [mis]attributed to Spencer. It has been traced back to Paley -- the Watchmaker -- but not in that exact form.
@@deborahthompsoncox5709see above.
I know where you got it and I rely on it.
this guy even questions the purpose of shoes..so based
This is basically what Alan Watts thought about modern science and he died in the 70's. So it really hasn't evolved much since, and neither have we. Although more people are waking up to Tesla's ideas and that we are all one with the Universe.
Rupert states that a giraffe embrio grows and behaves based on resonance and collective memory and genes are grossly overrated. I think Rupert is looking for a seat on the board of directors in the creationism museum. He should send his resume to Ken Ham and take his place amongst his other pseudo scientists. That is where he belongs. I do agree with Tom that the talk should have remained on the list, but for the reason that it would have gotten a lot less attention this way.
+Jurgen B Jansen I'm no Ham fan, but I don't think Ham would have mush to do with this stuff.
If they fear the question...your on to something...
9:00 he left out his 'evidence' for that theory. Crystal formation occurs because of energy distribution (minimising potential energy according to what elements are there), NOT magic.
@Martin Svensson energy is count of photons, which can literally be seen with your eyes (energy is is light), unless it's outside of our visible spectrum
@fynes leigh it's a similar principle of how things fall down hills, rather than go up. They minimise potential energy by falling under gravity. But for a crystal solid, atoms arrange themselves so that there isn't too much repelling. I was told by a science teacher AND it makes sense, just like how things don't roll up hill of their own accord
@fynes leigh there's no need to be rude for when it comes to understanding things, otherwise rudeness/pride can hold us back from learning the truth.
This wasn`t banned because TED wanted to silence him. This was taken down because this is utter bullshit and they feared for their good reputation. And btw., if you are the station broadcasting the content it isn`t banning if you decide to discontinue the broadcast.
A aquaintance of mine gave me a photo copy of his book because he was convinced that it will convince me.
I used 2 red fineliners to highlight all the fallacies, mistakes and fake news in the document and gave it back to him.
The first chapter alone is basicly a giant strawman fallacy. No one believes in science the way he thinks (or claims) they do.
But he was financially successful by selling his snake oil to the masses wanting to hear bad things about the subjects they were always bad in at school.
You sound like a scared child