I recently met with Rupert in London in order to revive this banned Ted Talk from 10 years ago. We were initially going to re-record this presentation, but in the end, we decided that the original censored Ted Talk was more powerful. Please comment & share this video. If you want to learn more, check out Rupert Sheldrake's book, "The Science Delusion" and if you want to help create more videos like this, please consider supporting After Skool on Patreon. Thank you. www.patreon.com/AfterSkool
Mark, I think your heart and intention are in the right place. But there is to much substantiated evidence that proves Dr. Sheldrake to be misguided and on a non-sensical path. The fabrication of a problem, and attempting to solve it does not the answer viable, or even the endeavor to conclusion worth while. This man is a charlatan.
@@benpo3811 you are the reason this talk is banned. WTF. His 10 Dogmas are complete and utter BS. They don't exist. They aren't wirtten down or propagaded. Science trys to explain reality nothing more. It trys. Your God explains nothing and is completely depending on your personal view of him. Its fanatasy.
@@profailantist3129 Because you can have faith in a supreme being and yet understand that the world works using rules and principles that doesn't include such a being in your equations.
The phrase "It's science." Has become its own iron clad explanation. This is ironically used to stop people from questioning things. The antithesis of science.
The "science" fanboy club uses the idea - THEIR idea of "science" - as a baseball bat to induce compliance and unquestioning worship of their obscurancy.
While valid, your point isn’t a less important than you may realize. Consider…those people you refer to that allow a simple phrase to shut down their questions and curiosity were more than likely not going to ever look into the matter deeply to begin with. I always give a one word reply to nonsense refutations of this caliber: elaborate. This typically gets to the nuances that subjects are best studied and discussed from and identifies the waste of time from the lovely fringes of the political spectrum and so on. 2+2 is 5. Really? Please elaborate. Blacks cannot be racist because they have no power. I’ll need some elaboration for your claim. Note the lack of snark this approach requires? Sincerity is a very undervalued aspect of these discussions. People get to hide behind ‘trolling’ or sarcasm instead of giving any support.
Remember: Science as a method and science as an institution are two very different things. At some point, I'm going to make a video on this very topic, explaining in detail why that is so.
Science quickly devolves into dogma. It's actually harder to overturn, because the belief in scientific dogma is often deeply ingrained. It makes it impossible to make the shift from a geo-centric universe, to sun centred universe....etc. etc. It makes it impossible to make the shift from Newton to Einstein.
@@tensevo Imo the best way to show this is with a simple line of logical questioning. Do you agree with the claim that everything can be empirically proven ? If one answers yes they are illogical and dont actually believe in empiricism as that claim has never been empirically proven and thus the claim is self defeating. If you answer no you can still use empirical data and not get caught in the illogical trap of making self defeating claims. Can you guess which one the followers of scientism (science as a worldview) usually answer with ? That is their dogma on full display.
@@laszlokiss483 just point to the contradictions with modern Science, and where predictions break down. If we had the Science settled, we would be able to predict everything down to the complex interactions between people.
Not really. It is not that kind of proof. Instead, you should learn both what sxience means, and read about the personal beliefs of this indicidual, not because it's an attack on him, but because he is indeed a believer of pseudoscience.
@@johnokazaki7967Deleting something rather than debating it can be indicative of regularly receiving false data and information. It's prudent not to accept anything at face value, especially when governments declare it as fact or absolute truth. Numerous scientific beliefs have been disproven over the centuries, which doesn't invalidate science but rather confirms its veracity. However, if there is a media blackout on a scientific topic, it's reasonable to anticipate that it may be nonsensical.
@@johnokazaki7967. He is a research scientist who has a theory being tested with experiments. It’s wild and weird but there ARE experimental results that wild and weird. I would argue that dark matter and dark energy are pseudo science. Decades and billions of $ spent with zero evidence or detection but no one will admit that maybe the equations governing gravity are wrong or incomplete at very large scales.
Dude this guys mind is so open it fell out lmao, he presented no evidence, no testable theories of his own, he said animals could fucking SENSE when people are watching them, no dawg they can smell your unwashed ass from a mile away. He doesnt understand science, the ACTUAL scientific process, observation theory hypothesis experimentaion observe again blah blah blah. He doesn't actually like science because he likes SHROOMS AND DMT!!!
@thatonekerbal if you wanna call motivations behind the Jonestown Massacre a "new perspective," you can also say that it was not a perspective that the victims who drank the kool-aid out of desperation of their children dying or those who had the poison forced down their throats were truly "considering." But hey, you sure made an interesting argument for closed-mindedness.
@@thatonekerbal I don't think I really need to rub it in much more, but your line of reasoning is pretty ironic. And also stupid. Have fun being close minded I guess.
Some people cannot handle that one of their core beliefs is wrong and will defend it because admitting it was wrong makes them look foolish. It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.
As a STEM graduate, one of the first things i was taught was to never take a fact at face value without first looking at the evidence and the methods by which it was gathered. Sadly many scientists prefer not to do that.
@@derek.seaborn lol, how can you complicate OP's comment like that? OP made a perfectly fine generalized comment - he is not saying a teacher taught him that on the first day LITERALLY - ffs. Either your reading comprehension is at elementary level and therefore can't differentiate generalizations, or good luck stressing out your life if you constantly complicate simple things.
@@khanyosontange4634 - not really. Scientific consensus or dissent doesn't alter the facts. When the scientific consensus was that space was filled with luminiferous ether it didn't make it a fact, it just meant the consensus was completely wrong. Similarly, being on the outside of the consensus doesn't automatically make you right either. Science is a process and scientists are just humans within that process. Science is only good when the scientists are free to question dogmas and thus shift the consensus to follow where the facts are taking them, and the facts come from the evidence not the conclusions of the scientists. A scientific conclusion is just an interpretation of the available evidence in pursuit of the facts. It may be correct or it may be scientific wishful thinking. That's why it's important to publish the raw data and the methodology by which it was gathered as well as the conclusions so that other scientists can attempt to replicate the same findings for themselves. If they can then the data is validated and they can work towards a consensus on the conclusions drawn from that data, after which they can draw new hypotheses from their conclusions and test those to validate the consensus. If at any point in this process it's impossible to replicate an experiment then all conclusions drawn from that experiment are called into question and the consensus *should* follow the data and change. Scientists are only human, though, and this doesn't always happen. Even the scientific consensus can be perverted by dogma, ideology and pigheadedness. But dogma doesn't alter facts. The facts remain the same even if everyone refuses to look at them.
@@khanyosontange4634 he isn't ready for that. what scientist call "evidences and methods" is hallucinated by the collective shizophrenia. that's why the truth is pure occultism. everything else is mind parasit.
I once wrote a paper in college. The subject was "What is time?", but I think I stumbled on a greater discovery with that paper. This discovery is that Science, Philosphy, and Theology are much more linked and related than most people think or want to think. Most of the early greats in science had close relations with theology and philosophy. Somewhere along the way something changed and now we only have scientists, philosophers, and theologians. What happened to the greats who considered all of them at once? Why do we demand to separate them? Regarding the paper, the best material measurements of time come from atomic clocks. But there's so much more than just measuring the oscillations of an atom, after all, that's just measuring the effects of time. So what is time? Is it a philosophical construct? What does theology say about it? How do you explain why some species perceive time differently? What about the fact that the speed of light (a closely related subject) can only be measured as the "two way" speed of light (since the source and data move at the same speed, how can you know that light might not be affected by some different conservative field)? All of these, Science, Philosophy, and Theology, are supposed to serve us, but some have made the majority the servant of them instead.
The use of science as a weapon to prevent inquiry has always struck me as the most back-asswards bastardization of a system for the sake of securing both funds and egos that I’ve ever seen.
Yes, you are quite right. I say that as somebody who long ago worked very hard indeed to gain a science PhD - the second-best step I ever took. [I studied a ruined ecosystem and how it might be helped - a noble cause, addressed with careful science whose results led me where they wanted to take me] My first-best step was to feel the overwhelming burden of sin, and beg for cleansing by the Creator, the Saviour and the Comforter. They responded with an abundance of mercy, love and truth, and I am changed...
Psuedoscience is also a weapon used to fight change and solutions by fearful and stubborn conspiracy theorists. When you googe "what I want to hear" don't be surprised if you get it.
Exactly. Show me a person who self righteously says, "I trust the science," and I'll show you a retarded asshole. I remember learning the scientific method in elementary school, and trust isn't a component. And yet, you hear these "scientific" folks treat people conducting experiments that test alternative theories as sacrilegious or somehow "unscientific" while they get all of their "info" from the largest producers of propaganda in human history (corporate media).
All belief systems run into this issue. They begin organically as a means to explore some new space, and eventually they become culturally dominant, and with that, they represent a way for individuals to have and express various forms of political power and influence. This is true of spiritual belief systems, and science is no different. Any culturally dominant system will become corrupted by people who want leverage over the culture it is dominant within. Just like the message of unconditional love from Christianity became a tool to oppress and murder non-christian people, the intention of neutral, objective investigation of nature becomes a set of rigid, unquestionable axioms which prevent and discourage inquiry outside of their limits. Why? Lab grants. Prestige. Funding. Reputation. The careers of hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists are hitched to many of these axioms, and the axioms will be vigorously defended for the sake of these people's careers and reputations.
Science is not our deity, it is our collective knowledge of tangible things that we can presently perceive. It is an excellent tool for our prosperity, when accurate, but it is only ever a tool.
But if they can turn it into a religion or belief system, they can bring it down to their level and poke holes in all the strawmen, and make their own belief system seem more credible and reasonable xD.
@@reignman30Well science never claims to be true, it just observes things. If you "believe" science to be true akin to a religion, what you *actually* believe is the changing nature of collective knowledge that is aimed toward truth. What is true today may not be true tommorow. You must therefore be comfortable with picking up and dropping new philosophies as progress is made which in many respects is a good thing. One fact remains that science can be proven wrong and religion cannot. This fact is what seperates the two, science can progress toward empirical truth while religion cant. If you believe in science it is a fundamentally different kind of belief than religious belief. Karl Popper's papers on the subject are worth looking into if you havnt already as they form the basis for how science seperated itself from other institutions in the mid 20th century.
@@gavinferguson2938 He didn't said that sience claims this he just said that it is easy for a human (ego) to make a belief out of it. An ISM, if like though, "scienceism". Don't say that isn't true because that's the topic here. Cause what? "everybody's talk about bagism, shagism this ism ism-ism..." And exactly this i am gonna listen now. Give Peace a Chance
In my experience in college and having to work in departments that call themselves a science, I have personally experienced that academics are some of the most closed minded and dogmatic individuals who are so disconnected from the world and other people within it, and are so certain that they know the answer to everything, despite the scientific method being a philosophical method of enquiry, discovery, but not certainty
that is ego getting in the way, pride and arrogance are ugly things but we all have to deal with it and refashion it to humiliyt and modesty. too much knowledge pretending to be science can make people become arrogant and proud. I would think the more you know the more you realize how much you dont know and that the more you seek answers the more questions pop up then answers would humble one.
@@siyaindagulag. Think about this way: the distribution of right- and left-hemisphere prefering people may stood the same over time, its just not 50%-50%, rather being about 80%-20% or anything in that area, gradually linked to the prefered sidedness, wich is also spread out from nearly both sides being used pretty evenly to complete one-sidedness (->authism etc...) But since population is growing and/or the everage person is getting older, wich may also effect conservativity... it may just "seem" like its the way you see it^^ Or it may really changes, but that is maybe not really a problem. The only problem is, that most people don´t know it´s implications, especially in science... I usually see it this way: there are 2 types of thinking and therefore also 2 types of science! - One that goes into the broad from a set of axioms or dogmas, by combining what is actually known, and creation new thechnology, predictions, ect. this way - but without going into depht at all; cause it´s the standard Question-Answere principle wich is also most usefull in daily life - and most of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology etc falls into that category... (typical left-side-prefered, 2-dimmensional, rational linear thinking) whereby most of this would not even be possible without taking current assumptions, Axioms as a fixed Basis! You can´t literally question everything everytime, when your goal is to simply create things efficiently. Simply stated - you don´t need to know, how your Car, PC or Smartphone is actually funktioning in most detail to be able to work with them and create new things with them, as long as they work for what you need them. - Second One that goes upwards the stream, by finding the question to given answers by trying out different directions into the unknown... and re-evaluating the existing basis, constantly questioning everything, rather it be new theories or commonly agreed on ones in the process. (right-side-prefered, 3-dimmensional holografic thinking) Whereby you don´t need that many people doing the second, even if it has the biggest impact on the applications of knowledge after all. So as conclusion, the really BIG PROBLEM arises with the fact, that nobody in science (and other fields) seems to be aware of this concept, after all... It rather seems like there is a wave-like shift between both sides over time, wich affects everything from science, mass-psychology and (global) economy to literally all aspects of humanity. Maybe one day we will be able to smooth out this fluctiations and their various effects by commonly accepting that there are different peole with different ways of (prefered) thinking, while also understanding our own with it´s uses and flaws. Maybe this is the #1 thing we should focus to implement and set as the basis of our schoolsystems worldwide, to create a beautiful future of humanity as a whole.
@@Neooowin Yes. I've read your reply and am glad you made it to the school system. Training is as much responsible, perhaps even more so, than say personal proclivity in practical application of thought. I mostly agree, our society (or at least the economic system) has ushered in the 80%; trouble being ,the mode has eked it's way into the social, i.e. interpersonal aspect, giving rise to the screaming mass of polarization observable on a daily basis. Logical , analytic deduction, strangely enough is a right-hemispheres function , whereas the inductive , knowledge based tools we ,like it or not, use most often are the black & white "sledgehammer" of left-hemisphere dominance. Our very humanity ,I reckon , will be better served by getting that balance returned. How? I don't know but I'm off to read more McGilchrist.... Cheers.
I've personally been thinking about this subject for a while now. Many fields of science have interested me since I was a kid, and I am definitely not "anti-science" by any means. But over the years I've begun to notice that most of the scientific world subscribes uncompromisingly to the materialistic view, almost to the point of it being a religion in its own right. Many scientists have become rigid and dogmatic, anything that might go against their materialistic views is not bothered with, and anyone who does study these things are not given much credence. I would think that as a scientist, you would want to find the truth, and to do so, study all possible avenues.
Out of ALL existing subjects, the ONE subject that institution-science HATES the MOST is called Para-Psychology (yes, they HATE it even MORE than they hate the Christian-Religion, believe it or not), and, you can see just how irrational those Materialists become by reading the eight-minute article titled : «How The Skeptics Lost Their Minds Over a Precognition Experiment»
@@aeiuscercle5010 Yes that's what I've observed as well. Mainstream science seems to look at the paranormal with disdain and give it no recognition. In many cases materialistic approaches cannot solve the problem. Whether that's due to a lack in our knowledge, or a truly paranormal occurrence, I do not know, but I would think it was worth pursuing. Skeptics are sometimes so skeptical to the point where the paranormal explanation begins to sound more plausible lol.
You should check out a study called ‘The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential’. I found it interesting because the researcher took the modern scientific method and used it to measure non-materialistic things in yhe brain. It’s been a long while since I read it and can’t recall very well the results but I guarantee you’ll find it interesting
Tbf, science comes from the Age of Enlightenment and the Enlightenment is all about measurable and thus, materialism. Though the dogma about constants is definitely NOT true to science since the change in constants is measurable and it should be analyzed if it is measurable. Shows the direction science was going in the 70s…. Like a lot of things rational thought exited in the 70s. Just look at the finance sector. MMT is an absolute farce.
I've looked into various mysteries over the years, studying the data, eliminating impossible conclusions and leaning toward the likely ones. I've delved into the idea of Atlantis as a real historical place and what destroyed it/neolithic (and possibly pre-neolithic trans-oceanic trading civilization,) presidential assassinations, the anthropogenic global warming hoax, mainstream media brainwashing/social engineering that is pushing us toward totalitarianism (as Aldus Huxley and others warned us about) and the influence that central banking/big business have over politics/war/human thinking. I have data from scientists, US presidents and various figures of influence as well as people who were hungry for truth over dogmatically-accepted narrative. Let me know if any subject piques your interest and I'll send you links.
His whole point is that we're not questioning. Even your sentence shows this, it starts with no, it ain't so, and the rest is a warm fuzzy feeling footnote.
Dogmatic thinking is the problem, whether science or religion. Humans want definite answers to speculative questions, without having to think, or do any of the hard work necessary to make thinking productive.
There is no dogmatic thinking in the scientific method, and you have that method to thank for the uplifting of your civilization from the dark days of human superstition and savagery.
@@mrosskne Really? We're supp0sed to take your word for that? Dogmatism is a human trait, affecting every activity humans engage in. We are taught dogmatic beliefs from birth, so how in the world can we ever escape their clutches? It takes a special human to be able to see beyond the trees, to recognize the forest. You might remember that from your childhood. Until 1804, the "scientific community", in Europe, refused to acknowledge the existence of meteors, and meteorites, until one fell, literally at their feet, near a conference. When Van Allen proposed his radiation belts, the scientific community revolted against the idea, as they would against Plate Tectonics, Ice Ages (they were right about that one), and Jupiter being a radio source. The Catholic Church excommunicated Galileo, for insisting the Sun did not travel around the Earth, but the Earth, instead, traveled around the Sun, while spinning to create the "day", an idea known to Greeks, two millennia before. Mankind is more noted for its inability to process new information, than its willingness to accept new realities. What "uplift(ed) -of y-our civilization" was trial and error, and brave men, and women, speaking truth to power. It's still the most effective way to get new ideas out, because "dogma" is a human reaction to change.
@@mrosskne Sir, whether I reply is entirely up to me. You don't seem to understand the examples I cited, so let's start with Lyell's Steady State hypothesis, a "theory" (in name only) that dominated "science", far too long (and still crops up in thinking). Which specific examples would suit you?
Only through humility, by admitting that we don't know everything, can we learn something. The universe is likely full of so many variables that we've only just begun to understand that to say anything is constant is ignorant by default. Dr. Sheldrake may not have all of the answers, but he's asking the right questions.
I agree with some of what he said vis a vis consciousness, but his knowledge of "variable constants" is badly wrong. This is an old and well-known topic in physics, and it has been explored and pretty much shot to pieces, in my opinion. I just saw a paper recently bringing it up again, so it won't die. That said, this biologist doesn't get that the speed of light isn't about light. It's about causality itself and fundamental laws that keep the universe from flying apart. Change c and you change the strength of electromagnetic interactions (fine structure constant). That has NEVER been observed. If it changed, basic chemical reactions would change and his frogs wouldn't work.
The talk does go way into non-scientific stuff, but even if it didn't, it probably would have been banned anyway. The biggest scientific dogma I can think of is that science is mankind's duty. Real science never makes that claim, but many in the scientific community believe and promote that. I agree with them. But it's still dogma. Science tells you HOW things function, but it can't tell you what path you SHOULD follow. Religion and philosophy do that. So if you believe science is mankind's duty, you're pushing something that's either a religion or a philosophy.
@@theboombody how does it go into “non-scientific stuff”? Because he poses unproven theories? That’s part of the scientific method, scientists do that all the time, in every field. Asking questions and formulating hypothesis is the basis of scientific inquiry. Claiming something is “non-scientific” without specifically disproving the statements is in itself non-scientific. It often shows the existence of dogma, in this case probably the belief the current model is both mathematically accurate and a true description of reality. So when another scientist poses claims that radically alter the model or views reality in a different way than the model, it’s automatically inferred as being false or non-scientific.
@@CoenBijpost matter not inherently being consiouse is reasonable, not a dogma. science is observation, we have not observed what would give stars or matter intelligence, thus for now, those things can not think. what has been observed is that things have different properties when combined, we have consiousness because we have observed that to be the case, and we defined consiousness that way. there is a lot of ways his talk was not very scientific, and falling closer to belief in a greater meaning, belief in not just physical, but also spiritual properties of things. basically he condoned assuming an explanation for something, even if that explaination lacked ground in the physical world. which that would hold back science because it would prevent finding material and observable explanations for somethings people believe they already know an otherly explanation for.
@@CoenBijpost Well, there is nothing wrong with proposing another model or phrasing a new hypothesis: just that you must provide sufficient evidence. For example, if someone were to propose an alternative to Darwinian evolution with no palpable evidence, he would obviously be scorned. That is a sound and logical inference.
There is a direct link between spirituality and quantum physics. “Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the Universe.” -Theoretical quantum physicist Amit Goswami
“Genes in my view are grossly overrated because they only account for the proteins an organism can make, not the shape or the form or the behaviour”. At that point right there you can completely tune out the rest of his point because he has no idea what he’s talking about.
As a biology nerd, this is where I finally lost it. Proteins DO MAKE THE SHAPE AND FORM AND PROBABLY BEHAVIOR OF THE GODDAMN ORGANISM(Sad thing is Rupert Sheldrake used to be a plant biologist.....)
People like @@jackmadden1078 find critical thinking a threat. They cannot be helped because they reject new data and perspectives. In other words, they are deeply anti-science, and you're not going to change someone like that by providing new scientific perspectives.
*"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”* quote by Max Planck
This rather crude idea was more finely defined by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Great breakthroughs ("paradigm changes") are often made by relative outsiders or newcomers to a field, and those wedded to the old paradigms often fall by the wayside, though how that happens is a function of the social and political conditions of the time.
What, not even if someone gave a Ted talk that celebrated the imagined benefits that victims of paedophilia might experience? No, I'm not equating the above hypothetic talk with questioning aspects of science, I'm questioning whether there should be zero limits on Ted talks as you suggest.
Congratulations Rupert. You can tell by the many comments your work inspired that there are many people ready to enquire and explore outside their conditioning
I recognize some dogmas here at my own university. The ironic thing is that our professors teach students not to take assumptions. However, when challenged on certain matters, their reasoning typically hinges entirely on assumptions.
That anything liberal is morally correct. And thay they being scientists, most of which come from rich or upper middle class families know better than poor uneducated people.
@@QVUTDN High school teacher: You are going to learn this in College. Professor: I *assume* that this is already taught in your high school years so I'm not going to teach you this. Me:🙂
@@QVUTDN objective morality is based in wellness and anything that goes against that can very well be considered bad. Science can most definitely determine something to be bad or even relatively bad. If you went around stabbing people, that would be objectively morally bad because it goes against their wellness.
"So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." - Albert Einstein
Another dogma is that we need animal products to be healthy and happy. The truth is that animal products are incredibly cruel (Dominion (2018)) and bad for health: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets (2016)
Humanity has never once, in its entire history, ever, in any culture or subset of culture, survived more than one generation without eating meat. Calling meat product unhealthy is like saying your heart beating is unhealthy because eventually it will run itself to death. Calling meat product cruel is to ignore its necessity in nature, despite vegetarians and vegans professing to love it. How can you insist you love something, while vehemently rejecting an entire half of it just because it’s unpleasant to you?
@@amihere383 And that's not even taking into consideration that the average vegan/vegetarian needs supplements which are, themselves, primarily extracted from animals - and often with a lesser exchange rate than just eating the animal. Meaning, there's a good chance more cows died to make a vegan's protein pill than to generate the same amount of protein from eating steak.
The speed of light being a constant has to do with relativity. No matter what speed and direction one is going you will measure C to be the same thing. The idea that people using people-made equipment and techniques to try to measure something precisely, and that measurement changing over time, is very common in science. The measured mass of the proton has also been updated recently. Its common knowledge that C varies depending on the medium- C as we try to measure it is in a vacuum, and in reality a vacuum still has a lot going on so even this measurement has some wiggle room (its quantum mechanics, in the end there is always wiggle room. And yes, physicists know this but it is easier to use the best average which has worked well enough to give us things like smart phones and GPS). On the subject of the meter: a meter is an arbitrary unit of measurement, a human made concept. C is used because it is easily and consistently measured, as opposed to trying to machine a material to a length or some other method. If we find that we measure C more accurately our standard of the meter length will change- if the new measurement of C blows up the meter we can revert to a different standard. Weights and measures are arbitrary human constructs. As mentioned elsewhere, we are in the gravity well of other bodies of the solar system as well as the simple fact that our understanding of gravity is that it is caused by mass. The reality is the more accurately we can measure it the more other factors will affect our measurements. The planets have enough gravitational influence to move the Sun around! Lastly, the Big Bang doesn't state something came from nothing, it states that at a certain point we can't see any further back in history. Who knows, we may discover that with newer more powerful telescopes that our current observations don't tell the whole story and Big Bang will get scrapped.
The heart of what he is saying isn't just wrong, it's really, badly wrong. He should have spoken to a physicist, not a metrologist who specializes in measuring. First, the speed of light is badly named for historical reasons. It is the speed which massless particles interact in a vacuum. I much prefer the term "the speed of causality" because causality itself (one thing causes another) runs at that speed. Light is just one thing that runs at that speed. This idea of variable constants is an old one, and it has never been disproved, but it's had more than a few nails driven into the coffin. The speed of light is part of the fine structure constant (the strength of electromagnetic force), and no one has EVER measured changes in it. The speed of light appears in many, many equations (relativity, photon energy, Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, ...). Change it, and the universe falls apart. Yes, something called Lorentz invariance allows c to be changed if everything it depends on changes, but that also says such a change wouldn't be noticeable.
The Socratic method, further refined by Hegel, is about looking at an issue from all sides, not one, and trying to tear down each hypothetical answer until all that is left is what has survived this scrutiny. Or, as Sherlock Holmes says, remove the impossible and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the answer.
Hegel didn’t refine or extend the Socratic method, with dialectical reasoning he pushed it as the new dogma as the only “true” method. This influenced Marx which later like you all know created the biggest social experiment in human history with countless suffering
@@KarloSiljeg-ci6wgSo did Hegel say questioning should be endless with nothing off limits, or did he set a boundary past which questions could not be asked? And what of Socrates?
@@marqod1437no, Hegel declared that reality was made of dialectical materialism. What that means is that matter makes up the world and matter (material) is made from dialogue (dialectic). What this means is that thoughts compete on this Earth for truth and when 2 thoughts are irreconcilable, they are synthesised together to make a separate third thought. This process is results in progress and progress is the point of civilisation and humanity. Not a very scientific idea
Hegel understood knowledge as a resolution of conflicting ideas, which generated it own contradictions, which when resolved, followed this natural progression towards more and more refined knowledge. It is not a deductive method per se, as the thesis and the antithesis are both partially right in their own way. Dialectics is additive, deduction is... well... deductive, it removes what is not true until only the truth remains. The dialectical process isn't about removing falsehoods, but rather about integrating contradictions into a more "comprehensive truth".
“crossed into the realm of pseudoscience” The fact that they take his wholly valid, intellectual criticism of their worldview and label it “pseudoscience” despite science not actually being the basis for what he’s talking about essentially proves him right. You don’t agree with us, you’re guilty of pseudoscience, because everything we believe is science
My opinion, it is just the other way around. They have nothing at all without Thought. Dont know what Thoughts are, where they originate, what they are made of, and even less master this indispensible Tool. As in silencing the inner dialogue an exploring that silence. Eyes open, hours on end. There is sooo much to discover. They got away with their sloppyness till now, but since qm and geeneral relativity theories are incompatible, And the "observer" question arises, it is high time they learn to "observe" because of that they also have no clue.
the word that stuck out the most is "appears" like they aren't even sure why they had to take it down but the guy that pays my bosses check told them to kind of vibe... idk lol
It's probably also lost on them that by censoring this talk they basically prove his point about "Science as belief system" > "Science as method of inquiry".
I love rewatching these videos after a few months or even years. Every time it’s like watching it from a new perspective and I take something new from it each and every time. Thank you 🙌🏼
The video makes it sound odd, and is deceptive in the way its is presented. One only need to look superficially into the examples presented (eg the speed of light, the natural laws) to discover that he is bending the concepts to make them seem that way.
@@key-va Let says one thousand year ago, according to then standard you make a one metre rod as the reference and latter Science defined one metre using wavelength. Overtime, that rod can be measured as 0.99 and some time 1.01 and other time 1.02. Do you question the rod or the standard? Both agreed with the law yet contradict each other. It may be insignificant to most but in todays nano scale scientific advancement such trivial becomes important.
@@Growthunlimited The rod can only be as long as the rod is, it cannot be 0.99 of its own length.. You say the rod is 1 meter, then you use some other definition of what a meter is to actually measure the rod. I think this the same oddity that is pointed out in the video with regards to constants, but in fact it is not fair. A meter (or the length of which) is not a constant in the same sense that pi, or the speed of light is. -edited because typos :)
@@key-va Apparantly you're not Engineering trained or you don't understand what I meant. If the reference point is the wavelength of light, it is possible that the same rod can get different wavelength reading, that is what the video tried to explain.
Sure, to most of us, "morphic resonance" sounds like pseudoscience. But maybe we have to think about these things in a different way. Suppose I told you that I was taught one set of supposedly concrete facts in school, and then after I graduated, everyone started saying the exact opposite and acted like they had no knowledge of anything that was taught in school. Well this happened to me! It is almost as if I was thrown into an alternate universe after I graduated from high school! Maybe morphic resonance is pseudoscience, but the truth is that most of the so called science used by other people to justify the things they do to us, is also pseudoscience, but perhaps even more sinister! Another possibility is that morphic resonance actually is real. It seems the more we think we can tell real science from pseudoscience, the more they will manipulate everything against us!
This comment is a lovely oasis of appreciation, like flowers brought in a classroom after a heated debate. Debates are good, but joyous wise progress to a better world ( after the disagreements) are even better.
In high school my physics teacher started our quantum mechanics chapter with 3 full classes of him philosophizing in front of the class and he made very sure we knew there was a lot that no one knows
No, we *know* a lot about quantum mechanics. We just don't understand it well enough. Quantum physics, at the end of the day, is such a science that despite having all the data and results, you can't quote come to grips about the why all of it happens.
@@tejas4567 Yeah, my experience with teachers was that they pretended that we knew a lot more than we do. What we don't know absolutely dwarfs what we know.
I must disagree with him, we know much. The real tragedy is that many scientist have little knowledge in the field of philosophy (which is funny because science is a philosophy, it was created by philosophers whom devised a method to find natural law not much different than the concept of a logic system) as such when we see what would support certain views on reality they simply pretend that quantum mechanics don't have meaning to our reality. To put it bluntly, many scientist are cowards and afraid of the truth their eyes can perceive.
@@enolopanr9820 Yes it is. Such things are happening all the time, all over the world experienced by countless people in every culture, age, walk of life. Their lived experience does not become invalid, regardless of whether it meets your standards of evidence or is something you are willing to accept. There is a world outside your ivory tower.
Another dogma is that we need animal products to be healthy and happy. The truth is that animal products are incredibly cruel (Dominion (2018)) and bad for health: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets (2016)
I was once a science scholar and I came across a quote from Dr Sydney Brenner. It goes like this: Once you have an established science, it has got its high priests-the guys who know everything that will work or won't work, and they don't want to be bothered. The great thing is that young people are ignorant and we should catch them before they turn into the priests
@@amedeoromagnolo6108 I used to be bonded under a statuary board and after being subjected to a grilling session involving my choice of modules (I took engineering modules). I realised that they are looking for a high GPA and not aptitude for research and scientific inquiry. I just left the programme while paying damages.
@@carpaccio45 I will start by saying that I don't have a clear understanding of what a statuary board is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I perceived: you were taking some engineering classes, the commission didn't like the scores you got and went against you (which I don't support, for the record), and you decided that the whole scientific community of hundreds of thousands of researcher from thousands of institutes around the world behaves the same. With all the due respect, being a science scholar means you have been a researcher and been involved in academia, which doesn't seem the case. I'm not trying to insult here. I'm just showing my skepticism on whether your accusations could should be limited to the commission you are talking about or not, and from what I am seeing I'm not sure you have met plenty of scientists to make a general statement.
I was totally on board when the talk started by challenging the "dogmas of science" and how science is perceived by the layman. The whole resonance thing needed a lot setup though. We went from "is telepathy impossible" to "I think there's telepathy that influences entire species across the world."
Yeah, the last half of the talk started to lose me too. But it is an idea that is worth investigation - I just wish we could physically investigate it. The only dumb question, the only dumb idea, is the unspoken one. So even if our person here turns out to be wrong about his telepathic theories, his initial ideas about questioning the constants and investigating further than the current boundaries still has value.
Stopped watching at the halfway point when I noticed the build up of strawmen. The speaker would state a universally accepted (but far from unquestioned) concept, and then tag on an extra bit ready for the takedown based on that extra bit. Such as stating Einstein's matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only reformed and then pivoting to the big bang theory a theory (of Christian origin) that states the expansion of the universe, based on observational data. But then tags on the moments before the big bang (that isn't part of the theory) claiming that science believes all matter popped into existence. Then there is the fallacy of composition, if matter isn't conscious, then things made of matter shouldn't be conscious. Evolution has no purpose of direction. Technically true, but missing the second half of the concept. A living world that very much gives a direction and purpose (survival of the fittest). Everything you inherit is material. Again technically true, but misses the living world that we all live in and the effects that will have on us. My brother inherited my father's near superhuman strength, but was raised in a loving family so didn't develop my father's sociopathy. And so on and on.
@@pensandshakers Yeah, we should also take into account that things like "Medicine is Magic" was questioned as "is medicine not magical?" then became "I think there's a way to manipulate literal atoms and molecules to influence the health and behaviour of humans" and here we are
@@BlaxeFrost-X When you put it like that, there does seem to be some mysticism in every aspect of life. I mean, in ancient times, glass was considered magical because it was usually only created when lightning struck sand. The Egyptians all but revered it. I'm more of a fan of the hard sciences - biology, engineering, geology, etc - but the theoretical bounds of our understanding definitely sound fuzzier and fuzzier whenever I touch back with them. Just thinking of the current work with quantum and atomic computers makes me feel like we're trespassing a boundary of scientific knowledge. I guess it's true what they say: Magic is science not yet understood.
As part of the scientific community, Rupert is interested in free inquiry and the advancement of human knowledge. Unfortunately, many in the scientific community are interested in a paycheck. You are not challenging ideas, you are threatening livelihoods and that will always meet with the most violent resistance.
They're protecting a perceived monopoly, perhaps? Few people who've invested pelf, time, and effort into acquiring a current education are going to sit idly by as some Johnny-come-lately threatens their feed-bowl.
As a skeptic, I would love to see the Gravitational constant data he is referring to. I can't imagine physicists ignoring a 1.3% error for big G. Additionally, I'm imagining that the long-term variation of G would cause instability in orbits, enough so that astronomers would notice. For scientists that concern themselves with 0.001% errors in measurements, this is surprising.
Very interesting talk but we can't just believe everything he says. I also would like to see the evidence that rats in other countries would learn the tricks faster
I'm an aerospace engineer and you better know that geostationary satellites have to constantly readjust because of exactly what he is talking about. BUT gravity and light are intertwined and they do change as our Solar System speeds at thousands of miles per second through the galaxy. Earth's surface has gravitational differences from place to place and they have precisely measured different lightspeeds because of gravity. I do not like the worldview of assumed Materialism either. Know Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria he put on scientific endeavor and was accepted as valid? Know what group had a tizzy fit because when he said "If a field of science explains everything it really explains nothing."?
Underlying argument of video is daft. Science may have some holes in it but that is not so that the science can be made better but to support some far worse ideas which have very little basis at all. X is not perfect so Y is right!
@@alanrobertson9790 The point of the video is not that "Y is right", the point is "X has flaws can we talk about it??". Fact is academy became the new church, and "science" the new religion.
Thank you for reviving that talk, it was excellent and goes to show there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to man’s behavior. Arrogance and pride lead to closed minds and censorship.
@@TheACCmy yes who is funding these scientists and resesearchers, do their findings have to fit a narrative to get published and pushed onto the public
No one scientist says that the big bang theory is a given or that it occurred because a miracle happened. They just observe the universe and give the most accurate theory to explain what they observe
No doubt this was cancelled, is filled with misinformation and misrepresentation of scientific concept or ideas, such as the fact that matter is not conscious, therefore science want to disprove that we are conscious " that's just re- taking an idea and representing in a stupid and incorrect way, to make it sound less true
And the scientists that want to ban particular attitudes and ideas that don't fit in with what is considered to be " scientific " are the Inquisition tribunal of our age !!
got back to university at 33, studying biological sciences, having such and more thoughts about science itself and nature and the universe...I hope the times are ripe for such a renaissance, and I will try what I can, to move in that direction.
There’s all sorts of fantastic things you can get into when you finish your biology studies. I completed my Masters in the mid 80’s and choose a career in the environmental field. I’ve had a great career and have had all sorts of adventures and misadventures and still feel passion for my work. I also earn above average compensation. My point being is theirs all sorts of interesting and productive things you can apply your knowledge to and you’ll probably find your passion if you haven’t already done so. Im not convinced with this guy. Im all for thinking outside the box but he’s trying to redefine the the box. His opening premise is illogical. It’s a strawman. I don’t know many persons educated in the natural sciences who would agree with his opening thesis on what science believes. I have never believed that science “already understands the nature of reality’. His next comment is misrepresentation of science. He claims science is based on materialist Philosophy. That’s just not correct. Science is based on Natural Philosophy and there’s a big difference. The general belief of what science is, that it is what can be explained by natural causation. If what we are trying to understand can’t be explained by natural causes then it is something other than science. That doesn’t mean that science is always right. It just means it isn’t science so science can’t explain it. No big deal right? So what he has done here is changed the argument by changing the definition of science. I caught on to this old trick over the years debating creationists on evolutionary theory. In fact I’ve debated creationists who used identical arguments in attempts to refute evolutionary theory. To be honest this is a lot like the stuff that comes out of the Discovery institute.
@@Mottleydude1 If more people could grasp that science doesn't have all the answers, abd that the answers it provides are always changing, then we wouldn't have to have this debate between theists and atheists. Instead we see arguments that are driven purely by the desire to be right, in my opinion the least productive types of arguments. I'm other words, evo's and creationists tend to have a miopic perspective while defending their team. What if they aren't meant to replace each other after all?
@@taylorsessions4143 They certainly are not meant to replace each other. In fact scientists have nothing to say about religious and supernatural beliefs other than they are not science. That does not mean scientists can’t have religious beliefs. It just means those belief systems are different and separate. The late biologist J. Elliot Gould said it best when he described science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria. As to your point, in the times I have debated creationists on evolutionary theory I have never once told my debate opponent they were wrong. I’ve simply pointed out to them their beliefs are not science because they break the fundamental rules of science. The main one being science cannot infer supernatural causation. An example of what I mean. I personally believe in theistic evolution. That God set the rules and laws of nature and lets nature take its course without interference. However understanding science I know that this is a personal religious belief and not a scientific belief of mine. Thus the two beliefs are not incompatible. Science is just a very self-limited belief system. It can only explain natural phenomena and even that knowledge is qualified by the fact that in science all knowledge is tentative. No matter how well a natural phenomenon is known by science there always a probability, even if it is remote, that science could be wrong. Now when you’re working on the frontiers of science the probability of being wrong is greatest due to lack of knowledge and when new facts and knowledge are gained then the hypothesis and theories those scientific conclusions are based on must be changed to account for those facts and if they cannot then those hypothesis and theories have been falsified and you get to start over again. Which is why science on the frontiers of knowledge is constantly changing as our knowledge expands and as we discover new facts. This is important as this is what makes science self correcting.
The change in the speed of light throughout history is due to the accuracy of the equipment and measure methods and they are improved over the development of science and tecnology. And reject the fact that the speed of light or gravitational constant are CONSTANTS does not mean they are habitual or have the so-called collective memories. Dr Rupert has to provide some ways to prove his theories.
Yes, this talk was very shallow in providing evidence to _prove_ his theories. To cast doubt on existing ones - sure, but to prove his ones, far from it. That’s the frustrating necessity and strength of the scientific method.
@@Liliarthanit’s more to say that there are possible holes in the current understandings that require deeper explanations and not laziness in ignoring the potential holes. The changes in gravity wouldn’t necessarily say that our current math is wrong but that they should account for other variables. And/Or maybe the constants are more “nearly constants”
There is no absolute proof in science. A belief can be held for hundreds of years before being disproven. The idea that science is a magical absolute truth generating machine is I'm afraid, just dogmatic.
Contemporary science believes the weak and strong nuclear force just popped into existence out of nowhere and now you are sure the speed of light cannot change on this scale of time?
As a physician, I witnessed scientific dogma play out in high-def during the COVID pandemic. It was horrifying. I have had a rebirth in my desire to really understand biostatistics and trial design. My BS detector is getting stronger by the day. Pretty sure I'm not alone on this...
That's the first thing I thought of too. "Trust the science"? That's not how science works. It's constantly tested and challenged. The charges of heresy for not trusting the "facts" reminds me of what Galileo must have gone through.
For sure, covid was scary. I despise all the normies for letting it slide, they stripped me of my rights because I didnt want to take a shot that I dont need and that hurt alot of people. I cant believe we didnt lynch some politicians over this
Absolutely! The covid farce is still playing out, excess mortality sky-rocketing the world over, blood clots on levels not seen by mortitions or pathologists, heart attacks on the increase etc All while governments refuse to investigate Median age of covid death is 84.7 years of age, chance of death for those under 60 is 0.03% and when you rank causes of death, covid is way down at number 34, that's well before influenza at number 22, falling at number 10, and still governments refuse to even look at the excess mortality rates! The scientific method isn't being applied, it's being auperceeded by dogma
I regretted having to drop TED from my subscriptions, but did so after learning about how they'd done this to several other wonderful guests who'd given of their time and intellect. They are becoming the PBS of RUclips rather quickly...
@@manic217 No, he is not. Watch it again, especially the part having to do with Gravitational constants and the speed of Light, and get back to us about what he got so wrong.
Me too. They have an agenda and everything about Ted has clearly been exposed. People need to open their eyes to this --> ruclips.net/video/oHg5SJYRHA0/видео.html
@@manic217 Genuinely insane to see so many people eating this up. Anti-intellectualism is all this video supports and I absolutely see why this video was suppressed. Just spreading blatant misinformation from the malformed perspective of this author. Some points he brings up are intersecting, like constants evolving. But to believe it's within our lifetimes is absurd and honestly just funny.
I'm smelling what he's laying down. In a universe that is in constant motion and flux, how could anything be constant? Magnetic fields will fluctuate as the world spins and rumbles from within. Everything moves. Nothing is constant. Makes perfect sense. Morphic resonance is maybe a little too far for me but I'm not counting it completely out. As with most things argued about, the truth is usually a combination of said things plus. Brilliant. Thank you for this. I love this channel so much.
You ask "What if" with the motivation to prove your what if statement false. If you cannot find a way to prove it false, you throw it out. If you have found a way to prove it false, but it succeeds at proving itself true, then you have a successful hypothetical.
Certainly is thought provoking. As someone who is pursuing science, I feel that the most genuine approach is to always keep an open mind. Obviously we have useful conventions to solve real world engineering problems reliably. When it comes to understanding the fundamental qualities of our reality scientifically, we really shouldn't make any unnecessary assumptions. I may have found a thing or two questionable, but it was a very cerebral experience none-the-less. Also, I have always really appreciated your animation style!
Agreed. Using the small errors in the speed of light measurement is not a strong argument if the measurements were performed incorrectly (but I have no proof that the measurements were performed incorrectly). Even so, it is not up to TED to silence this work. Science is not a church, it requires an open mind to flourish.
The engineering community is successful and rests mostly on technology and marketability but somewhat science. The scientific institution is academic and rests on an imaginary credibility (to draw absract conclusions) based on the success of engineering. The two overlap but are not the same. One is concrete and observable; the other is abstract.
If technology were not successful in bringing products to market, the credibility of all science would be zilch despite its correctness or errancy. Even though the overlap between science and technology is limited.
I object to how the scientific institution misuses their own empirical tools such as statistics, math, and sampling to draw questionable conclusions. I'm thinking of the empirical data on Darwinianism, in particular, which has such issues, and also the math of a genetic evolutionary landscape which (though not a disproof) contradicts Darwin's theory and ALL the fossil and geological evidence for it. But, biologists don't recognize their gross statistical methodological errors or their serious lack of math logic skills.
@@whimpypatrol5503 "...contradicts Darwin's theory and ALL the fossil and geological evidence for it". I have to say that I have heard of no such contradictions and I am reasonably conversant with evolutionary theory.
As I drive into work at MIT I can't help but think that he really has something. But it's like shouting at the wind. I expected more from Ted talks than to ban a talk like this
MIT has been so disappointing the past few years. I was ignorant of what a staunch Pharma Partner the place is. I hope it still has people who can think outside The Narrative.
Noam Chomsky said question everything. I immediately started questioning things about science that never made sense and in reading volumes of material on a quest for knowledge I found multitudes of contradictions in “facts” relating to scientific information which gave me pause. It led me to creative thinking and very healthy skepticism.😎
@@fairyprincess911 Sadly, poor ol' Noam apparently abandoned skepticism in 2020, to the point where in 2021 he called for the unclean to be isolated from the rest of society.
I seriously doubt if majority of people have heard this man talk. I am all for free expression. There shouldn't be a banned ted talk... but this man has very clearly never looked into how scientists actually work. Take his idea of laws of nature. They aren't laws because they cannot be broken or something bad will happen, they are principles which seem to best describe observable reality. Even one instance of them being insufficient to explain observations calls for re-examination. We do it all the time. I am vocal critic of science as a belief system. It is a very real thing that makes doing science as a method much harder than it needs to be. But this man is raving madman who takes dogmatic definitions and tries to explain why he thinks they are insufficient while never taking the time to actually understand them and talk it over with people who use these assumptions about our universe.
"This man..." you mean the man whose education includes: Clare College, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University, University of Cambridge (PhD)...? He doesn't understand how science works? Try harder if you're going to make wild assumptions to demean others you disagree with...
@@Akaeus You can be educated as much as you wish. That doesn't mean you understand anything. And this by the way is exactly what he's criticizing. A culture where "trust the institution bro" is somehow said as if it has any validity. He goes about doing this in the stupidest manner imaginable, but it is rather amusing to see defence of someone by a thing they are fighting against.
Even though I don’t agree with everything in this Ted talk it’s still great to see a yt channel posting something that’s otherwise banned because the lack of censorship is important even if some of the info might turn out to be incorrect
I it's a crazy world. We are in right now. RUclips censored all kinds of completely accurate stuff during the pandemic yet I still have to give them credit because they allow more stuff than any other major platform, I guess save from the new Twitter.
@@jasondashney RUclips censored all kinds of accurate stuff??! What are you referring to? You make it sound as if censorship is always bad. That thought is dogmatic.
Banning patently incorrect info that is made to mislead is important. So many Americans just blindly believe in the freedom of speech and this saddens me how benighted most Americans are.
@@morninglift1253 Who then is the arbiter of truth? who decides what to ban? power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So many people blindly follow authority figures and it saddens me how ignorant to the lessons of history they are.
@@neowolf09 Your comment is a common response. The arbiters of truth are the same ones who decide what is murder or stealing. The same ones who decide whether something is considered intellectual property or public property. Legislators will create laws that state if someone intentionally promulgates incorrect information, they will get fined or go to jail. And, judges will decide if someone violates that law. Actually, they do have laws right now for this. It's called defamation. However, right now, defamation requires an element of maliciousness. Not only do they have to intentionally lie but the victim has to prove they did it maliciously. It's such a high bar that it's extremely difficult to sue someone for defamation and win. Fox News currently knowingly spreads false information and it's ripping apart this country. For example, they state that elections were rigged when they know it wasn't. Laws need to be put in place to stop news outlets from spreading lies and misleading info. The standard for defamation needs to change to remove the maliciousness requirement. When there is no basis for an assertion, journalists can't keep pumping out propaganda. Look at what is happening in Russia. This doesn't mean you can't criticize people. It doesn't mean you can't accidentally say things that are wrong. It means you can't state stuff that is knowingly false. It also includes stating stuff that calls for violence on a specific group which falls under hate speech. You can criticize groups for group traits but you can't make stuff up. You would think that this should be the mininum that a civilized society should adhere to. I'm surprised we are having this discussion.
Dr. Sheldrake -- I viewed this video with interest, particularly because of the TED reaction to the ideas you are advocating. After carefully considering the content of your presentation, I am impressed by the thoughtfulness of the questions you raise regarding the fundamental assumptions held by the scientific community. Your queries are sound, appropriate and deserving of serious consideration. However, when you make the leap into offering your own alternative speculations as to how the universe actually works, you put forward far more subjective and far less demonstrable notions than those offered by scientific methodology. You suggest that the mystical and constantly variable aspects of the cosmos play a larger and more fundamental role in our reality than does the concrete and verifiable. This approach merely substitutes your set of assumptions (currently unsupported) for the existing assumptions of science that clearly have an empirical foundation. It goes without saying that simply because you think things are so, does not indeed make them so. You've offered a bridge too far, don't you think? Regards, Dr. A
Thanks for raising this. While Dr Sheldrake raises many excellent points, I agree with TED's assertion that this "crossed the line in to pseudoscience".
Very well put. I was actually rather excited in the beginning of this presentation, the idea of "Science as a method of inquiry vs. science as a belief system". I thought there was tremendous potential there. But as the talk went on, the sheer volume of things he was just throwing to the wind... well, it became too much. Great comment.
I've left a comment here that is far too verbose, lacking in structure and waffles, trying to communicate the same thing. I agree with you all. There is a seam of metaphorical gold in a talk of scientific inquiry VS Science TM - the belief system. Unfortunately Dr Sheldrake raised it and then failed to mention it again, instead offering very weak alternatives. It's like he forgot a fundamental part of science. If you're going to replace laws, especially, you have to have a very well evidenced case for it's supplanting. The speed of light or Gravity not being completely constant, whilst interesting, doesn't warrant the replacement of, at this point, centuries of supporting data. At the very least he HAS to use this data and explain how it actually shows something else. What would you all say are examples of dogmatic thought in science being damaging?
I took research studies in university. 2 of my top favourite classes. My peers hated them as they were mandatory classes and found them boring, but I was fascinated. In short what I learned, The zeitgeist view will dictate what ‘science’ spits out at any given time, and who pays for the experiments gets the outcomes they want; why would the payor expect anything else?
Pardon my ignorance - is "Research Studies" a topic in itself ("I've signed up for Research Studies 101 this semester, because I want to major in it!"); or is it a general description of various classes in (possibly) different disciplines (where, for example, one's research on the history of a certain play would be quite different from one's research on a particular culinary procedure), or is it a particular discipline under one particular course of study? If the former, where would one find such classes, and under what kind of titles? (From what I've been able to find out on my own, everything seems to point to its being particular to the study of medicine, but I wanted to double-check!)
@@MikeBarbarossa Yes, it made mentally capable people realize how advanced modern medicine is and how vaccines helped us overcome a massive pandemic. Agreed.
What you are doing is talking about corruption and jumping to the conclusion that in general science is so corrupt that we can't trust it in general. ie. you are focusing on corruption and assuming that is how science works.
Thanks for reviving this. Now decades later, these ideas don’t seem so radical especially in light of new scientific developments that are hard to ignore. I am reminded of Thomas Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” , required reading for anyone pursuing a scientific discipline in spite of some weak arguments against it by a few writers.
Most TED talks can be categorized as pseudo science. I remember a talk by Aubrey DeGray where he said if you were under the age of 50, you will become immortal through technology.
"i don't know" is a perfectly fine answer, both the people who say they "believe in science" and the person making this talk should really integrate that.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 make sure you know why you know, and avoid logical errors, but the first part is critical i posted the previous comment because the person in the video seem to condemn "falling short" on anwsers (been a while since i watched tho). My point is that it's critical to not keep extrapolating out of your ass if you excuse me.
"Believe in science" is something out of WHO and Fauci's playbook. Scientists don't usually :believe in science", but use scientific methods. And those are sometimes questionable or arbitrary in some fields. For example in psychological experiments p value is kinda arbitrary and just an experienced guess. However double blind tests is a scientific method that should in theory mitigate all possible interference. But nobody blindly belief someone who claims they've done a correct study when no other group couldn't replicate it. It might stick for some time while others try to replicate it. It might stick longer if there's no incentive to replicate or it's very costly or unethical, but eventually that usually backfire. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment for example or Hendrik Schön scandal
@@enolopanr9820 I twas refreshing to expose that T edious. E vasive. Dogma Has no humour or humanity it’s all a mixture of your critical neurotransmitters.
I can only quote Chesterton, "As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out". This is exactly how I felt after four years of studying science. Something was definitely missing. The whole thing rested on foundations that were adequate but insufficient. I read The Science Delusion and while I have problems with some of Sheldrake's own pet theories which veer towards the New Agey, his criticism of the established dogmas of mainstream science is valid. The TED talk should not have been banned. It is important for people to realise that many of the things that science regards as fact are largely unproven assumptions based on a preconceived materialist worldview.
Chesterton liked these sorts of logical arguments: *"Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it."*
Nothing in science is ever truly proven, and science is just humanity's collective attempt to learn about our reality. I'd like to know what big scientific facts are assumptions built around popular biases and not conclusions from research and experimentation.
Coming from the guy wrote that the idea that memories are stored in our brains was "only a theory" and "despite decades of research, the phenomenon of memory remains mysterious." Well it doesn’t. Believe whoever you want, it is a free country, but you should know Sheldrake only studied botany. Stephen Rose, a neuroscientist, heavily criticized Sheldrake for being "a researcher trained in another discipline,” and, for not respecting data collected by neuroscientists. I’m all for offering alternative explanations, but I don’t think ignoring, denying, and arguing over massive amounts of collected evidence, vs pure scientific theory, will help our state in the universe. Neuroscience alone over the past two decades has proved that memories are stored in specific changes in brain cells, and our technology for this data has advanced rapidly from when he hypothesized this theory in 1981. I think it’s time we start to apply a bit of common sense and say, “maybe let’s not trust data that was calculated by someone who probably couldn’t operate a cellphone.”
In my experience, the number one problem with the way we as a society think, is that we want everything to be totally binary. Either something is completely true, or completely false, you either completely agree with something or you're completely against it. Life is extremely nuanced, but people want it to be simple and unchanging, which - when you think about it - is extremely odd considering we live in a universe that is constantly changing and unbelievably complex. I think another big issue is that a lot of people are lazy thinkers. Some call it "stupidity" and while I'm not going to say that that is necessarily the wrong term, (though it is a bit rude), I think it fails to identify the real problem. Though this might be wishful thinking on my part, I think most people are capable of thinking critically and rationally, we just tend to not want to because it's too much work. A lot of us would rather just be told what to believe because we aren't too terribly interested in the topic being discussed.
You guys are kicking ass love it. I’m teaching my kids and we’re all above 40 thank God science can actually have growth if people will just stop with the dogmas
Science needs paradigms to move forward. Those paradigms simply are guidelines to help us explore the universe in a systematic, repeatable, and verifiable fashion. However, all paradigms will at some point be replaced by others as our understanding of the universe deepens. It certianly does not mean that science isn't reliable. On the contrary, science's ability to question paradigms and force "paradigm shifts" is the very reason why it is the most reliable exploratory method we have.
ironically the issue is "scientists" tend to question everyone's paradigm except their own where they grossly over-assume the thoroughness of their understanding.
@@tylerhall95 Oh well comparing is major part of the scientific process. You see, it's not a problem but strenght to have different perspectives and theories. By comparing we can see which one is more useful. The perspectives that do not match testing and experience are left to die. Now if you happen to believe an outdated idea like stone can be turned into gold well a scientist will still laugh at you until you show him that it is possible. And he will not deny it. But often you will not be able to turn stone into gold aka show that they are wrong because unlike you it's there job to find out things that are in there domain of expertise. That high level fighting is dropped when most of them agree. Like most scientist agree with General Relaticity. But even though Newtones theory was wrong it is still useful. And Earth is flat is a good assumption when building a house but not when sending a rocket to the moon. Also a scientist that doesn't question his own paradigm is NOT a scientist but rest assured they do, because else science would not evolve and they'll get mocked as Einstein himself got dunked for refuting Quantum mechanics and he did change his mind later on.
Never forget that when everyone leans forward to see what is happening, keep your eye on the individual that takes a step back to get a different perspective.
Rupert basically pulled back the curtain on the scientific community for the greater world to see and they do not like it. Many others are doing the same in various communities of knowledge worldwide and none of the assembled communities like it either. This has needed to happen for decades and it is absolutely magnificent it is occurring now thanks largely to the Internet and the mass awakening it is bringing.
This. It proves they just ignore any paranormal case despite being semi-materialistic like a ghost turning solid having a few beers. To this being the reason why so much of our understanding should be much higher in 2023. Hell people can see shadow being while sober the same things that are common on a 250mg Benadryl trip.
As a biochemistry student, I don't understand why Sheldrake believes it makes more sense for the universe to work more based on habits than laws. His examples such as giraffe embryology, ease of unrelated rat learning, and crystal forming seem to be unlikely to be true. I'm guessing those studies were flawed in some way and I would not be able to replicate them. Though the light speed and G, I'll have to hear the other side of the story...
@@hansomekim1219 its plausible that the tests evolved and researchers just became better at teaching mice and breeding crystals. Singular causes are unlikely.
It is concerning that you are a mathematician and cant’t see that the way the speed of light graph was analysed was misleading. The percent change in measurements is extremely small and only looks significant because the y axis starts from 297.7 and not 0. So the differences are due to different measuring methods, which have become more precise over time evidenced by the smaller error bars. Now that we’ve gotten better at measuring it, we get about the same value each time (within the very small experimental error). Because it’s constant. GPS wouldnt work if speed of light wasnt constant.
As a mathematician, I'm not entirely certain if I agree with his theory, I'd need to see more research, but I don't dismiss it out of hand either and I think he does a good service in questioning scientific orthodoxy. When you dig into it you quickly see that the sciences are built on rather shaky foundations, in no way comparable to the rigor of theoretical mathematics (which even itself has problems, as Godel proved); some results are accepted based on only a few dozen isolated observations and others are accepted without any justification at all, just because nobody has been imaginative enough to think up another explanation. The observation of minor physical phenomena are often blown out of all proportion to make grand and overarching metaphysical claims and completely unverifiable hypotheses (such as statements about the distant past which we have no way to ever test) are accepted as fact. And, despite all these problems, they seem to have even less humility with regard to their field than Mathematicians who are universally aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the inherent limitations of mathematics.
As I am getting back on the Academia Benches, at 42, I can't help but witness all of this, embedded in the teachings. And even the revised editions of the textbook seem to double-down on the Scientific Dogma. At times I can still find the enthusiasm and wonder in learning, but some other times, especially when there is an obvious blindfold, I can't help but wonder how I will manage to keep the same motivation. Science is full of "If there is no proof, then it doesn't exist." As if we have all figured out. Cocky, Stubborn empirical ways.
This attitude of scientific materialism helps the Q Anon evangelical right wing white supremacist power mongers. Why? Because it allows entry to the rational world only those who bow down to the constant orthodoxy. If you're not on board with science, well, you must be a nut. So, ordinary people, who could learn to respect science, lose respect. The solution is LSD and mushrooms for all scientists. Let them provide a measurement of that experience. The only one who could really provide such a measurement was Jimi Hendrix.
From my own place in existence, I am also struggling to have the same innocent beautiful curiosity and joy about learning when at age 38, I'm only more and more aware of how patriarchally brainwashed I have been the whole time, surrounded by multiinfinite manufactured lies and deceptions that I absorbed as my own. My college was shamefully teaching just whitewashed art history. And the brainwashing just came from everywhere all the time. I thought scientists were supposed to research and cure illnesses, to help humanity. Wish it mattered to whoever it's supposed to matter to, to find an actual cure for ME/CFS and fibromyalgia, and cancer. I had to save myself with acupressure mats, those should be more researched, they've done more for me than any health professional ever has.
No. There is no proof that fairies dwell at the bottom of my garden. That does not mean they do not exist, but it does mean I have no reason to accept that they do. We do not have it all figured out by a long shot. If we did all the scientists would be out of a job. But science requires evidence.
@@UnicornUniverse333 "I thought scientists were supposed to research and cure illnesses, to help humanity." That is exactly what I was doing before I retired. And I did it following the rigorous rules of the scientific method. I have even worked for and with women who did not have a problem with the alleged "patriarchal" brainwashing.
How does this work? I can view this now here...What do they do remove and replace or what happens that I can see it now? Thank you for your insights in advance. I hope I hear back...
Thank you so much for this Mark and Rupert. My, how timely it is that you have uncovered this for us at now, 10 years later, when likely more of us can really see what you are trying to convey. Brilliant.
They took it from their platform because it's full of lies and misinformation and they didn't want to have their name associated with a hack disguised as a scientist. Half of his claims about scientific dogma aren't even true. He claims he is a martyr for exposing blindspots that in reality are known and actively studied by scientists and then he interjects his own crackpot theories after he has your attention. You guys are all falling for his manipulation by saying "Well if TED banned him then it must be true! It's a conspiracy!" that is exactly what he wants, because nobody would listen to him otherwise. Any time someone has to trick you into thinking you are getting secret information that scientists don't want you to have they are preying on your insecurities. It makes you feel important and smarter than scientists who have dedicated their lives to research, and it makes you feel better about the person who is "enlightening" you with this information. This is classic brainwashing that you can find in any cult or religion, it's manipulation 101.
It's not outlandish to say that the process of science is being captured by dogma. There many instances people can point to. However, this video isn't really about that... Instead, it is riddled with logical fallacies and blatant omissions meant to advance preconceived conclusions. One crucial omission is the incentive structure that makes the process of science inherently self-correcting over the long term. Whether intentional or not, this video is a great case-study for how "science" can easily be co-opted into subjective belief systems using surface-level "evidence" to advance viewpoints to the lay public (who may also share the same cognitive biases).
these are not dogmas they are just our best current understanding. it is not dogmatic to fall back to conclusions drawn from empirical evidence when faced with an absurd or contradictory claim. id argue some are also strawmans but thats besides the point
When I was studying physics at the university library, this constants was driving me crazy. I clearly remember, the topic was electromagnetism from one of the Serway and Jewett books. After all of the reasonable assumptions I've digested about the topic, I could not wrap my mind around the constant in an equation. It seemed off that time. Maybe I've spent a couple of hours thinking about it, because I couldn't continue. Then, I decided that it refers to an unknown area in the equation and I could slice it later. Maybe after the exam :) Now, changing constants seems like a so valuable information. Like the missing piece I was looking for is this. Thanks for preparing this talk and flourishing my mind again.
If constants like G kept changing the universe would change day to day. Planetary orbits and the structure of galaxies would vary across what we see of the universe. We see no such thing.
@@Andre_XX have we observed the whole universe? amazing, i must have missed that (i am being a bit sarcastic. but how much of your body do you think a bacterium sees, and how relevant would its extrapolations be to the rest of you, and then the world outside you? "oh smooth pink muscle as far as i can observe. therefore, that's probably constant")
@@tama_yaga We can see back to shortly after the big bang. If G were different then, the structure of galaxies would have noticeable differences. Also, the speed of light is related to the energy content of the universe. If it changed, all sorts of other issues would arise. Like the total energy in the universe would go up or down in concert. Where would the energy come from or go to? Actually, come to think of it, changing G would also affect the energy content of the universe.
I have been thinking about this for a very long time. I consider myself a very rational person. But, i firmly believe in something more… I found myself trying to rationalize why I believe in a higher power. Why i think love, joy, and laughter are more powerful than book smarts. I’m tired of people rolling their eyes at me because i meditate and believe in psychic connections. Thanks for this video. It was a immensely refreshing. Cheers!
I'm soooo conflicted about this, i have a physics degree and in my close family it's all about astrology and spiritism.. so I do believe as You that love, joy and laugh are powerfull.. but i also believe that intuition is fragile, we are exposed to fool ourselfs... Some questions are way too hard to answer
@@agusnegra yes i agree it wouldnt be wise to completely remove science and rationality, it absolutely serves a purpose. Spirituality also serves a purpose. For me, its the fact that society often forces people to choose one or the other. I know lots of people who identify as scientists and therefore automatically dont believe in God or anything supernatural. I think both disciplines serve us well if we can learn how to integrate both worlds.
Nothing has strengthened my belief in a higher power more than studying human biology, especially our incredible immune system. I do not have a science background but when lockdowns started, I began studying up on virology and the new mRNA platform, and how childhood vaccines were developed, tested,and approved. The more I learned about the immune system, the more convinced I became that humans were intelligently designed. We are not here by accident, we aren't some sort of afterthought brought about by a big bang. We are incredibly well-designed by a masterful engineer. Each and every one of us are biological marvels. Our bodies are self-healing if we just supply the basics (diet, clean water, sunshine, sleep) and get out of our own damn way. It's such a shame that we haven't realize this yet, and we keep running back to pharma for temporary bandaids that always make the situation worse in the long run. The efficiency of the human body is just mind blowing. I don't know who designed us, but they are much smarter than you or me.
There is a direct link between spirituality and quantum physics. “Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the Universe.” - Theoretical quantum physicist Amit Goswami
Banned from TED ≠ banned. TED isn't and has never been a leading authority on any scientific opinions, they are a private platform that chooses who they deem worthy of a voice. He was deemed to be spewing nonsense, which he partially is, and removed. No one is stopping him from posting this anywhere else on a PUBLIC platform
I agree. Nothing in science should necessarily be described as a constant. We should always be open to the possibility of change. However to postulate that "everything in nature has a collective memory because... reasons" doesn't really help either.
It isn't of these last few years, it is a recurring phenomenon that has some correlation IMO with philosophical worldview (aka religion) prevalent at the time. I call the 19th Century the age of myths because so many false historical claims were made in the defense of atheistic materialism at the time. The effects are still felt today as many of the myths are still taught in popular culture as "science" and now we have a group telling us to "trust the science" when they openly reject and deny scientific research on multiple subjects to the point where they fail basic biology by being unable to distinguish male and female.
It's of the human nature to believe in something. God, Alah, Zeus, outer gods, stars, healing crystals, "science", you name it. Everyone adopts at least one belief system to explain how they interact with the world around them
@@gangiskon I just like science because its an open book, anyone is allowed to discredit a theory and the peer review process is what keeps science relevant, unlike other institutions that have head figures. You can say its "Dogma" but that's just a lazy mans way of saying, I won't disprove this theory.
He has legitimate questions and problems with the way things are handled. He offers some theories, but only as personal theories and not truth. There’s legitimate questions here that people should look into, if only just to sheer up what they think is true. He wants to get to the bottom of something and peoples assumptions are preventing that. I’m not 100% sold on his theories, but there’s definitely truth in what he’s saying and the purpose of the speech is 100% reasonable and worth hearing. This is a well read and well traveled man who’s spoken to many of the top players in the scientific field just to gain an understanding of the way things are in the scientific space and they want to silence him because the alternatives he offers aren’t proven. They can’t be proven or disproven without more evidence. That’s the whole point of his speech. There needs to be more research, but the Dogma in the scientific community is preventing that. He wants an answer and nothing he said is against actual true science. He’s offered his own personal theories based off of the science we have available. If they sound ridiculous, disprove it, don’t silence it.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN G AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CHANGING AND NOBODY EVER TOLD ME, NEITHER TOLD EVERYONE I KNOW. Dude that gave me an existential crisis
God bless you for re-posting this presentation. The idea has been in our collective consciousness for time immemorial, and suppressed at every opportunity!
@@laurah1020 who is god? If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil. If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
The ideas about morphic resonance would be huge if true. It would fundamentally change our understanding of everything. So it caught my attention. He mentioned that there is evidence of crystals being easier to form after the first time. So I searched... and the evidence for the crystals comes from himself, in his book "The Presence of the Past", where he says "It is in fact well known to chemists [that crystals are easier to form the more often they are made]", citing no source. TL;DR: Sheldrake lies about evidence for morphic resonance. "Evidence" = "trust me bro".
@@BradKandyCroftFamily i am a chemist that grows crystals and have never tested any lab evidence suggesting it's easier to recrystallize the same molecules multiple times. Now you have both chatted with an organic chemist.
Friend, he does cite his source as “Woodward and McCrone Journal of Applied Crystalligraphy (1975) 8, 342” and it is about turanose that crystallized “unusual crystallization behavior” first in 1920s. Easy to find references to it 🙂
@@DodgesMountain Which was actually an arguably overdramatic letter about certain crystal forms not being reproducible. In their 1995 discussion paper "Disappearing Polymorphs", Dunitz and Bernstein addresses the 1920 letter and some of the compounds discussed. To make a long story short, it seems that it was simply due to crystallisation conditions not being consistent, or contamination (which was more pervasive than expected) by the other crystalline form resulting in what is known by scientists as "seeding" which "biases" the type crystals formed. That is to say science is perfectly capable of explaining what happened in the letter; no need for what Sheldrake is peddling. Another note; I found Dunitz and Bernstein's paper by looking at which papers cited McCrone's letter, which meant Sheldrake should've been able to find it too.
"The speed of light is variable". That thought has been on my mind for a very very long time. "Consciousness is the highest physics" as well. Great video. The people who ban and censor certain topics or opinions seem to forget that the free flow of information is fundamental to science. Trying to control your environment leads to nothing but a dreary way of life.
The problem is that most of the people concerned with this censorship have little idea for why it truly happens. It is not because of the beliefs of what a scientist thinks is worth pursuing, it is because of the people that provide their funding don't want their power threatened by a healthy and educated society. Science today will never be able to sever the political umbilical cord that controls its destiny. Proof of this can be found by researching the problem of cancer curing research done by people that are not beholden to those funding agencies. They will allow sanctioned treatments but not cures, not when billions are at stake and a population reduction agenda is being implemented.
I always thought that it meant to the conditions in which you're measuring the speed of light. For example, the speed of light *in a vacuum,* or going through an specific material
The RUclips Channel "Unzicker's Real Physics" makes videos about Variable Speed of Light Cosmology if that's something you're interested in learning more about
""The speed of light is variable". That thought has been on my mind for a very very long time." It may well be, but nearly everything we could possibly use to measure it is also bound up in that very thing. The speed of light is bound up with time, and time with the speed of light. How long does it take to go to the moon and back? That's the speed of light. How far away is the moon? bounce some light off it and see how long it takes! It would be hopeless but at least should not change. But we can also use orbital mechanics to calibrate the distance. But how were orbital mechanics themselves calibrated?
the ironic thing about this is this guy says that we shouldn't take what science says at face value because it could be flawed or based on other biases yet people are taking everything he says at face value because it confirms their own biases.
I have no idea why it took me this long to find atleast one person state the obvious. I'm dissapointed in authorities in general, be it govermental or scientific, but that doesn't in any way shred my appreciation of the whole of scientific progress. This guy just waltzes in, throws shit on conservation of matter & energy (y'know, that one thermodynamic concept that's tested every time you do reactions in chemistry for example) and labels it as dogma. And not only that, but shits on the constants too. How the hell does he plan on testing anything without the assumption of constant physical laws is beyond me. Well, perhaps i'm just too closed minded. Jfc.
@@noone-ez6on its because hes arguing in bad faith. his talk is designed to not make people consider the limits of science and the danger of authority but rather to bring science down to the level of his own world view and push people into accepting its authority.
@@Andrew_Sword Oh i get that, don't get me wrong. I'm just perplexed at the hordes of yesmen in the comments. How can one be skeptical if they're willing to latch onto anyone only because they dissagree with the status quo?
Yes. If you were invited on to perform a talk on economics and instead you went into a diatribe on how there's a dragon in your bathroom and that nobody could prove you wrong, your content would be removed. That's pretty much what happened here.
@@antagonizerr oh so talks in general should be banned... from *checks notes* tedx. Yep very important. One of the prestigious local institutions of the local drunk.
@@antagonizerr I see you either failed to watch the video in its entirety or failed to grasp the concepts being presented. This is not about his unproven theories or yours for that matter (though your dragon in the bathroom sounds fun). This is about the fact that science has essentially become a religion and no longer follows its own process. Definitions have been purposefully changed to ensure stability in the current model. At no point in history have new ideas been readily accepted without the innovator being ostracized or killed. ps. I get a kick out of you liking your own comment
@@antagonizerrWhy would that content be removed? What does that accomplish? How long have you had these severe comprehension issues? Did your drunk mom drop you down stairs as a baby or something?🤡🤦♂️
All we know is censorship. We live in a world filled with lies. Even history is a fabricated one. Archeology and geology shows what they hide from the people. The ancient scriptures tell our world's cycles. The signs to look for. Earth, sun,stars and planets have a 12000 year where our sun nova and all the stars aswell. All planets have a pole reversal. All oceans on earth will be trown on land first east when the earth rotation around the center of universe stops and to west when rotation starts again in opposite direction. It's not a extinction event aslong your not facing the nova side. Last time it was China and Russia. This time Europe and Africa. USA has bin digging tunnels and bunkers since the 50th's...they know this since 1957!
Well, I don't want 5 year olds watching explicit pornography. It fucks them up mentally. Censorship definitelly has it's uses if we can all agree on moral grounds it is necessary. The problem is that some people are unilaterally pushing it for an all but explicit reason of corrupting morals for their own gain.
Great stuff as usual, this is one of my favorite channels! It never fails to be thought provoking & insightful; Big Thanks from Texas to all involved with making this happen!
More people need to hear about this, i put this as a reminder for anyone, tell your friends about this, share on facebook, or tik tok for younger audiences.
In terms of predator-prey relationship, animals can sense a predator partly bc the animals and insects in the area where the predator is residing become silent. And for an animal of nature, silence is deafening
Yeah, exactly. Lots of "sixth senses" in animals are just normal senses (even though there are more than five of them, obviously) that we don't have or are not used to using them bc we no longer live in the habitat they were evolved for.
In my 3/4 century of "secretly" eyeing a girl, I couldn't count the number of times I've been caught. By sheer good fortune, my cousins in late teenhood gave me Carl Jung's "Symbols of Man" (they considered me a dreamer); it explains everything said here in spades. Once you (as a majority of ancient and tribal cultures have) connect with/ into the spiritual realm, acceptance and worship of materialism turns into a cruel joke on the "ignorant".
The "I'm being watched" feeling was vital for the survival of the hominid line. People like to think of humans as the mighty hunter and apex predator, and perhaps for H Sapiens that's true. However for most of our evolution we were lunch for something else. It's even been suggested that the reason we stand upright is so that we could see over the grass and see predators approaching. We are the descendants of the ones who could stand erect and tell when they were being watched. The others died out.
It’s better to think about evolution in more non directional or with no purpose ways, when you say we stand upright SO THAT WE COULD you’re implying evolution is some kind of intelligent being which destined species to evolve a certain way, I know it’s an expression but it’s a comment in a video that will blow up so just reminding people. Natural selection acts on pre existing phenotypes (sets of characteristics), it never “plans” the appearance of traits in future descendants of the generation it’s acting upon.
@@sergioibarra3461 - perhaps a more accurate way of saying it would be "some were more upright than others and were able to look over the grass and they survived longer and had more children." But then you challenge a different dogma - the dogma of equality - and will get a different gang of academics hounding you for wrongthink.
This guy is on point... TED lost a huge amount of respect for me for having removed this. There is a deep inherent danger in blind belief systems... whether they be based on science, philosophy or myth. Holding anyone of those above the rest is asking for a repeat of historical atrocities.
More importantly, this is not about his unproven theories. This is about the fact that science has essentially become a religion and no longer follows its own process. Definitions have been purposefully changed to ensure stability in the current model. At no point in history have new ideas been readily accepted without the innovator being ostracized or killed.
@@eladesorviews6561 That's the point. Countless millions of dollars go into making science nonsense. Some of the top scientific journals have *admitted* that up to *50%* of published research findings are *falsified.* A hell of a thing to base your worldview on.
I recently met with Rupert in London in order to revive this banned Ted Talk from 10 years ago. We were initially going to re-record this presentation, but in the end, we decided that the original censored Ted Talk was more powerful. Please comment & share this video. If you want to learn more, check out Rupert Sheldrake's book, "The Science Delusion" and if you want to help create more videos like this, please consider supporting After Skool on Patreon. Thank you. www.patreon.com/AfterSkool
His morphic resonance has now been proven by Micheal Levin.
If people keep being more interested in being right than the truth, then it’s just a religion
@@shedtalksnow Levin himself has doubts, but yeah...fascinating stuff. Curt Jaimungal and Lex Friedman have both long podcasts with him. Mindblowing.
Mark, I think your heart and intention are in the right place. But there is to much substantiated evidence that proves Dr. Sheldrake to be misguided and on a non-sensical path. The fabrication of a problem, and attempting to solve it does not the answer viable, or even the endeavor to conclusion worth while. This man is a charlatan.
Atleast 2 that i know of
If it cannot be questioned it’s not science.
Which is why science cannot explain the existence of God. Religion and science are not the same.
@@benpo3811 you are the reason this talk is banned. WTF. His 10 Dogmas are complete and utter BS. They don't exist. They aren't wirtten down or propagaded. Science trys to explain reality nothing more. It trys. Your God explains nothing and is completely depending on your personal view of him. Its fanatasy.
@@benpo3811 Then please explain why and how was BigBang theory was proposed if George Lemaitre himself is a priest?
@@profailantist3129 Because you can have faith in a supreme being and yet understand that the world works using rules and principles that doesn't include such a being in your equations.
@@benpo3811 No one can demonstrate that any gods exist. So, science does not have to explain something which has not been proven to exist.
The phrase "It's science." Has become its own iron clad explanation. This is ironically used to stop people from questioning things. The antithesis of science.
The power of a well placed word
How about folks misnaming and just lying about what is seen
Science is not to be trusted.
The "science" fanboy club uses the idea - THEIR idea of "science" - as a baseball bat to induce compliance and unquestioning worship of their obscurancy.
great comment I see a lot of censored comments here, where are they
While valid, your point isn’t a less important than you may realize.
Consider…those people you refer to that allow a simple phrase to shut down their questions and curiosity were more than likely not going to ever look into the matter deeply to begin with.
I always give a one word reply to nonsense refutations of this caliber: elaborate.
This typically gets to the nuances that subjects are best studied and discussed from and identifies the waste of time from the lovely fringes of the political spectrum and so on.
2+2 is 5.
Really? Please elaborate.
Blacks cannot be racist because they have no power.
I’ll need some elaboration for your claim.
Note the lack of snark this approach requires? Sincerity is a very undervalued aspect of these discussions.
People get to hide behind ‘trolling’ or sarcasm instead of giving any support.
Remember: Science as a method and science as an institution are two very different things. At some point, I'm going to make a video on this very topic, explaining in detail why that is so.
and for the dummies who dont get it he is critiquing the institution not the method.
one serious comment for god sake
Science quickly devolves into dogma. It's actually harder to overturn, because the belief in scientific dogma is often deeply ingrained.
It makes it impossible to make the shift from a geo-centric universe, to sun centred universe....etc. etc.
It makes it impossible to make the shift from Newton to Einstein.
@@tensevo Imo the best way to show this is with a simple line of logical questioning.
Do you agree with the claim that everything can be empirically proven ?
If one answers yes they are illogical and dont actually believe in empiricism as that claim has never been empirically proven and thus the claim is self defeating.
If you answer no you can still use empirical data and not get caught in the illogical trap of making self defeating claims.
Can you guess which one the followers of scientism (science as a worldview) usually answer with ?
That is their dogma on full display.
@@laszlokiss483 just point to the contradictions with modern Science, and where predictions break down. If we had the Science settled, we would be able to predict everything down to the complex interactions between people.
The fact they deleted this proved his point about dogma!
D0n't think so. It is merely evidence tha Ted has become a corrupt institutiom.
Nailed it!
Not really. It is not that kind of proof. Instead, you should learn both what sxience means, and read about the personal beliefs of this indicidual, not because it's an attack on him, but because he is indeed a believer of pseudoscience.
@@johnokazaki7967Deleting something rather than debating it can be indicative of regularly receiving false data and information. It's prudent not to accept anything at face value, especially when governments declare it as fact or absolute truth. Numerous scientific beliefs have been disproven over the centuries, which doesn't invalidate science but rather confirms its veracity. However, if there is a media blackout on a scientific topic, it's reasonable to anticipate that it may be nonsensical.
@@johnokazaki7967. He is a research scientist who has a theory being tested with experiments. It’s wild and weird but there ARE experimental results that wild and weird. I would argue that dark matter and dark energy are pseudo science. Decades and billions of $ spent with zero evidence or detection but no one will admit that maybe the equations governing gravity are wrong or incomplete at very large scales.
Whether or not I agree with his personal theories, I absolutely appreciate the ability to listen and consider new perspectives
Congrats you're not dogmatic!
Dude this guys mind is so open it fell out lmao, he presented no evidence, no testable theories of his own, he said animals could fucking SENSE when people are watching them, no dawg they can smell your unwashed ass from a mile away. He doesnt understand science, the ACTUAL scientific process, observation theory hypothesis experimentaion observe again blah blah blah. He doesn't actually like science because he likes SHROOMS AND DMT!!!
"Fuck your kool-aid! mine tastes better!"@@thatonekerbal
@thatonekerbal if you wanna call motivations behind the Jonestown Massacre a "new perspective," you can also say that it was not a perspective that the victims who drank the kool-aid out of desperation of their children dying or those who had the poison forced down their throats were truly "considering."
But hey, you sure made an interesting argument for closed-mindedness.
@@thatonekerbal I don't think I really need to rub it in much more, but your line of reasoning is pretty ironic. And also stupid. Have fun being close minded I guess.
EVERY time someone says you can’t question something, they’re probably trying to protect their own power and not let you threaten it.
Every time and probably cancel themselves out don't they
Who says you can’t question something? Religious pastors??
You can question anything, but Sheldrake makes a lot of ridiculous claims and can then not deliver on the evidence. He is a pseudoscience hack.
@@BrjanBuckmaster The federal government, mass media, society as a whole...
Some people cannot handle that one of their core beliefs is wrong and will defend it because admitting it was wrong makes them look foolish.
It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.
As a STEM graduate, one of the first things i was taught was to never take a fact at face value without first looking at the evidence and the methods by which it was gathered.
Sadly many scientists prefer not to do that.
@@derek.seaborn - i graduated in 2000 actually. Biological Sciences. In the days before wokeness was a thing.
@@derek.seaborn lol, how can you complicate OP's comment like that? OP made a perfectly fine generalized comment - he is not saying a teacher taught him that on the first day LITERALLY - ffs.
Either your reading comprehension is at elementary level and therefore can't differentiate generalizations, or good luck stressing out your life if you constantly complicate simple things.
My thing is “facts” are somewhat based on consensus
@@khanyosontange4634 - not really. Scientific consensus or dissent doesn't alter the facts. When the scientific consensus was that space was filled with luminiferous ether it didn't make it a fact, it just meant the consensus was completely wrong. Similarly, being on the outside of the consensus doesn't automatically make you right either.
Science is a process and scientists are just humans within that process. Science is only good when the scientists are free to question dogmas and thus shift the consensus to follow where the facts are taking them, and the facts come from the evidence not the conclusions of the scientists.
A scientific conclusion is just an interpretation of the available evidence in pursuit of the facts. It may be correct or it may be scientific wishful thinking. That's why it's important to publish the raw data and the methodology by which it was gathered as well as the conclusions so that other scientists can attempt to replicate the same findings for themselves. If they can then the data is validated and they can work towards a consensus on the conclusions drawn from that data, after which they can draw new hypotheses from their conclusions and test those to validate the consensus. If at any point in this process it's impossible to replicate an experiment then all conclusions drawn from that experiment are called into question and the consensus *should* follow the data and change.
Scientists are only human, though, and this doesn't always happen. Even the scientific consensus can be perverted by dogma, ideology and pigheadedness. But dogma doesn't alter facts. The facts remain the same even if everyone refuses to look at them.
@@khanyosontange4634 he isn't ready for that.
what scientist call "evidences and methods" is hallucinated by the collective shizophrenia.
that's why the truth is pure occultism.
everything else is mind parasit.
I once wrote a paper in college. The subject was "What is time?", but I think I stumbled on a greater discovery with that paper. This discovery is that Science, Philosphy, and Theology are much more linked and related than most people think or want to think. Most of the early greats in science had close relations with theology and philosophy. Somewhere along the way something changed and now we only have scientists, philosophers, and theologians. What happened to the greats who considered all of them at once? Why do we demand to separate them?
Regarding the paper, the best material measurements of time come from atomic clocks. But there's so much more than just measuring the oscillations of an atom, after all, that's just measuring the effects of time. So what is time? Is it a philosophical construct? What does theology say about it? How do you explain why some species perceive time differently? What about the fact that the speed of light (a closely related subject) can only be measured as the "two way" speed of light (since the source and data move at the same speed, how can you know that light might not be affected by some different conservative field)?
All of these, Science, Philosophy, and Theology, are supposed to serve us, but some have made the majority the servant of them instead.
The use of science as a weapon to prevent inquiry has always struck me as the most back-asswards bastardization of a system for the sake of securing both funds and egos that I’ve ever seen.
And they tell you it's elementary without understanding the higher theory when posted with a question.
Yes, you are quite right.
I say that as somebody who long ago worked very hard indeed to gain a science PhD - the second-best step I ever took.
[I studied a ruined ecosystem and how it might be helped - a noble cause, addressed with careful science whose results led me where they wanted to take me]
My first-best step was to feel the overwhelming burden of sin, and beg for cleansing by the Creator, the Saviour and the Comforter.
They responded with an abundance of mercy, love and truth, and I am changed...
Psuedoscience is also a weapon used to fight change and solutions by fearful and stubborn conspiracy theorists. When you googe "what I want to hear" don't be surprised if you get it.
Exactly. Show me a person who self righteously says, "I trust the science," and I'll show you a retarded asshole. I remember learning the scientific method in elementary school, and trust isn't a component. And yet, you hear these "scientific" folks treat people conducting experiments that test alternative theories as sacrilegious or somehow "unscientific" while they get all of their "info" from the largest producers of propaganda in human history (corporate media).
All belief systems run into this issue. They begin organically as a means to explore some new space, and eventually they become culturally dominant, and with that, they represent a way for individuals to have and express various forms of political power and influence. This is true of spiritual belief systems, and science is no different.
Any culturally dominant system will become corrupted by people who want leverage over the culture it is dominant within.
Just like the message of unconditional love from Christianity became a tool to oppress and murder non-christian people, the intention of neutral, objective investigation of nature becomes a set of rigid, unquestionable axioms which prevent and discourage inquiry outside of their limits. Why? Lab grants. Prestige. Funding. Reputation. The careers of hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists are hitched to many of these axioms, and the axioms will be vigorously defended for the sake of these people's careers and reputations.
Science is not our deity, it is our collective knowledge of tangible things that we can presently perceive. It is an excellent tool for our prosperity, when accurate, but it is only ever a tool.
But if they can turn it into a religion or belief system, they can bring it down to their level and poke holes in all the strawmen, and make their own belief system seem more credible and reasonable xD.
Science is a substitute deity for atheists; one which is presumed to have no consciousness. But Diet Coke is still Coke despite the absence of sugar.
@@reignman30Well science never claims to be true, it just observes things. If you "believe" science to be true akin to a religion, what you *actually* believe is the changing nature of collective knowledge that is aimed toward truth. What is true today may not be true tommorow. You must therefore be comfortable with picking up and dropping new philosophies as progress is made which in many respects is a good thing.
One fact remains that science can be proven wrong and religion cannot. This fact is what seperates the two, science can progress toward empirical truth while religion cant. If you believe in science it is a fundamentally different kind of belief than religious belief. Karl Popper's papers on the subject are worth looking into if you havnt already as they form the basis for how science seperated itself from other institutions in the mid 20th century.
@@gavinferguson2938 Perfectly described. No one could have said it better.
@@gavinferguson2938 He didn't said that sience claims this he just said that it is easy for a human (ego) to make a belief out of it. An ISM, if like though, "scienceism". Don't say that isn't true because that's the topic here.
Cause what?
"everybody's talk about bagism, shagism this ism ism-ism..."
And exactly this i am gonna listen now.
Give Peace a Chance
In my experience in college and having to work in departments that call themselves a science, I have personally experienced that academics are some of the most closed minded and dogmatic individuals who are so disconnected from the world and other people within it, and are so certain that they know the answer to everything, despite the scientific method being a philosophical method of enquiry, discovery, but not certainty
that is ego getting in the way, pride and arrogance are ugly things but we all have to deal with it and refashion it to humiliyt and modesty. too much knowledge pretending to be science can make people become arrogant and proud. I would think the more you know the more you realize how much you dont know and that the more you seek answers the more questions pop up then answers would humble one.
Widespread Right hemisphere function atrophication among individuals.
Or:
The apprentice believing in his being competent to run the entire shop !
@@siyaindagulag.
Think about this way:
the distribution of right- and left-hemisphere prefering people may stood the same over time, its just not 50%-50%, rather being about 80%-20% or anything in that area, gradually linked to the prefered sidedness, wich is also spread out from nearly both sides being used pretty evenly to complete one-sidedness (->authism etc...)
But since population is growing and/or the everage person is getting older, wich may also effect conservativity... it may just "seem" like its the way you see it^^ Or it may really changes, but that is maybe not really a problem. The only problem is, that most people don´t know it´s implications, especially in science...
I usually see it this way: there are 2 types of thinking and therefore also 2 types of science!
- One that goes into the broad from a set of axioms or dogmas, by combining what is actually known, and creation new thechnology, predictions, ect. this way - but without going into depht at all; cause it´s the standard Question-Answere principle wich is also most usefull in daily life - and most of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology etc falls into that category... (typical left-side-prefered, 2-dimmensional, rational linear thinking) whereby most of this would not even be possible without taking current assumptions, Axioms as a fixed Basis! You can´t literally question everything everytime, when your goal is to simply create things efficiently. Simply stated - you don´t need to know, how your Car, PC or Smartphone is actually funktioning in most detail to be able to work with them and create new things with them, as long as they work for what you need them.
- Second One that goes upwards the stream, by finding the question to given answers by trying out different directions into the unknown... and re-evaluating the existing basis, constantly questioning everything, rather it be new theories or commonly agreed on ones in the process. (right-side-prefered, 3-dimmensional holografic thinking)
Whereby you don´t need that many people doing the second, even if it has the biggest impact on the applications of knowledge after all.
So as conclusion, the really BIG PROBLEM arises with the fact, that nobody in science (and other fields) seems to be aware of this concept, after all...
It rather seems like there is a wave-like shift between both sides over time, wich affects everything from science, mass-psychology and (global) economy to literally all aspects of humanity. Maybe one day we will be able to smooth out this fluctiations and their various effects by commonly accepting that there are different peole with different ways of (prefered) thinking, while also understanding our own with it´s uses and flaws. Maybe this is the #1 thing we should focus to implement and set as the basis of our schoolsystems worldwide, to create a beautiful future of humanity as a whole.
@@Neooowin Yes. I've read your reply and am glad you made it to the school system. Training is as much responsible, perhaps even more so, than say personal proclivity in practical application of thought.
I mostly agree, our society (or at least the economic system) has ushered in the 80%; trouble being ,the mode has eked it's way into the social, i.e. interpersonal aspect, giving rise to the screaming mass of polarization observable on a daily basis.
Logical , analytic deduction, strangely enough is a right-hemispheres function , whereas the inductive , knowledge based tools we ,like it or not, use most often are the black & white "sledgehammer" of left-hemisphere dominance.
Our very humanity ,I reckon , will be better served by getting that balance returned.
How? I don't know but I'm off to read more McGilchrist....
Cheers.
@@time3735 Rick Astley?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
They would never forgive such a well established and detailed analysis.
I've personally been thinking about this subject for a while now. Many fields of science have interested me since I was a kid, and I am definitely not "anti-science" by any means. But over the years I've begun to notice that most of the scientific world subscribes uncompromisingly to the materialistic view, almost to the point of it being a religion in its own right. Many scientists have become rigid and dogmatic, anything that might go against their materialistic views is not bothered with, and anyone who does study these things are not given much credence. I would think that as a scientist, you would want to find the truth, and to do so, study all possible avenues.
Out of ALL existing subjects, the ONE subject that institution-science HATES the MOST is called Para-Psychology (yes, they HATE it even MORE than they hate the Christian-Religion, believe it or not), and, you can see just how irrational those Materialists become by reading the eight-minute article titled : «How The Skeptics Lost Their Minds Over a Precognition Experiment»
@@aeiuscercle5010 Yes that's what I've observed as well. Mainstream science seems to look at the paranormal with disdain and give it no recognition. In many cases materialistic approaches cannot solve the problem. Whether that's due to a lack in our knowledge, or a truly paranormal occurrence, I do not know, but I would think it was worth pursuing. Skeptics are sometimes so skeptical to the point where the paranormal explanation begins to sound more plausible lol.
You should check out a study called ‘The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential’. I found it interesting because the researcher took the modern scientific method and used it to measure non-materialistic things in yhe brain. It’s been a long while since I read it and can’t recall very well the results but I guarantee you’ll find it interesting
Tbf, science comes from the Age of Enlightenment and the Enlightenment is all about measurable and thus, materialism.
Though the dogma about constants is definitely NOT true to science since the change in constants is measurable and it should be analyzed if it is measurable. Shows the direction science was going in the 70s…. Like a lot of things rational thought exited in the 70s. Just look at the finance sector. MMT is an absolute farce.
I've looked into various mysteries over the years, studying the data, eliminating impossible conclusions and leaning toward the likely ones. I've delved into the idea of Atlantis as a real historical place and what destroyed it/neolithic (and possibly pre-neolithic trans-oceanic trading civilization,) presidential assassinations, the anthropogenic global warming hoax, mainstream media brainwashing/social engineering that is pushing us toward totalitarianism (as Aldus Huxley and others warned us about) and the influence that central banking/big business have over politics/war/human thinking. I have data from scientists, US presidents and various figures of influence as well as people who were hungry for truth over dogmatically-accepted narrative. Let me know if any subject piques your interest and I'll send you links.
I'm not on board with his hypotheses, but he is asking the right questions. That's the whole point of science: question everything.
Are you not on board because you question what you have been taught/know might in fact be wrong or ever evolving?
yep its clearly bullshit but hes doing the right thing by asking
@@Socksks Can you elaborate on why it is bullshit?
His whole point is that we're not questioning. Even your sentence shows this, it starts with no, it ain't so, and the rest is a warm fuzzy feeling footnote.
@@JohnnyBravo-sb8hq thank you.
Dogmatic thinking is the problem, whether science or religion. Humans want definite answers to speculative questions, without having to think, or do any of the hard work necessary to make thinking productive.
There is no dogmatic thinking in the scientific method, and you have that method to thank for the uplifting of your civilization from the dark days of human superstition and savagery.
@@mrosskne Really? We're supp0sed to take your word for that? Dogmatism is a human trait, affecting every activity humans engage in. We are taught dogmatic beliefs from birth, so how in the world can we ever escape their clutches? It takes a special human to be able to see beyond the trees, to recognize the forest. You might remember that from your childhood.
Until 1804, the "scientific community", in Europe, refused to acknowledge the existence of meteors, and meteorites, until one fell, literally at their feet, near a conference. When Van Allen proposed his radiation belts, the scientific community revolted against the idea, as they would against Plate Tectonics, Ice Ages (they were right about that one), and Jupiter being a radio source.
The Catholic Church excommunicated Galileo, for insisting the Sun did not travel around the Earth, but the Earth, instead, traveled around the Sun, while spinning to create the "day", an idea known to Greeks, two millennia before. Mankind is more noted for its inability to process new information, than its willingness to accept new realities.
What "uplift(ed) -of y-our civilization" was trial and error, and brave men, and women, speaking truth to power. It's still the most effective way to get new ideas out, because "dogma" is a human reaction to change.
@@TheAnarchitek No, not good enough. Provide evidence of the scientific method being dogmatic or don't reply.
@@TheAnarchitek looks like mrosskne is offended lol
@@mrosskne Sir, whether I reply is entirely up to me. You don't seem to understand the examples I cited, so let's start with Lyell's Steady State hypothesis, a "theory" (in name only) that dominated "science", far too long (and still crops up in thinking). Which specific examples would suit you?
Thank you to AfterSkool for uploading great information like this.
Morphic resonance is complete pseudoscience
Only through humility, by admitting that we don't know everything, can we learn something. The universe is likely full of so many variables that we've only just begun to understand that to say anything is constant is ignorant by default. Dr. Sheldrake may not have all of the answers, but he's asking the right questions.
Which is what any and every good scientist needs to be doing...
The passage of time was long thought to be a constant. Now we know it's not.
The older I get, and the more I learn and gain knowledge, the more I realize that the less I really know!
I agree with some of what he said vis a vis consciousness, but his knowledge of "variable constants" is badly wrong. This is an old and well-known topic in physics, and it has been explored and pretty much shot to pieces, in my opinion. I just saw a paper recently bringing it up again, so it won't die. That said, this biologist doesn't get that the speed of light isn't about light. It's about causality itself and fundamental laws that keep the universe from flying apart. Change c and you change the strength of electromagnetic interactions (fine structure constant). That has NEVER been observed. If it changed, basic chemical reactions would change and his frogs wouldn't work.
Nobody has all the answers.
That a Ted Talk questioning scientific dogma is itself banned is a great indicator of the existence of scientific dogma
The talk does go way into non-scientific stuff, but even if it didn't, it probably would have been banned anyway. The biggest scientific dogma I can think of is that science is mankind's duty. Real science never makes that claim, but many in the scientific community believe and promote that. I agree with them. But it's still dogma. Science tells you HOW things function, but it can't tell you what path you SHOULD follow. Religion and philosophy do that. So if you believe science is mankind's duty, you're pushing something that's either a religion or a philosophy.
@@theboombody how does it go into “non-scientific stuff”? Because he poses unproven theories? That’s part of the scientific method, scientists do that all the time, in every field. Asking questions and formulating hypothesis is the basis of scientific inquiry. Claiming something is “non-scientific” without specifically disproving the statements is in itself non-scientific. It often shows the existence of dogma, in this case probably the belief the current model is both mathematically accurate and a true description of reality. So when another scientist poses claims that radically alter the model or views reality in a different way than the model, it’s automatically inferred as being false or non-scientific.
@@CoenBijpost matter not inherently being consiouse is reasonable, not a dogma. science is observation, we have not observed what would give stars or matter intelligence, thus for now, those things can not think. what has been observed is that things have different properties when combined, we have consiousness because we have observed that to be the case, and we defined consiousness that way. there is a lot of ways his talk was not very scientific, and falling closer to belief in a greater meaning, belief in not just physical, but also spiritual properties of things. basically he condoned assuming an explanation for something, even if that explaination lacked ground in the physical world. which that would hold back science because it would prevent finding material and observable explanations for somethings people believe they already know an otherly explanation for.
@@CoenBijpost Well, there is nothing wrong with proposing another model or phrasing a new hypothesis: just that you must provide sufficient evidence. For example, if someone were to propose an alternative to Darwinian evolution with no palpable evidence, he would obviously be scorned. That is a sound and logical inference.
There is a direct link between spirituality and quantum physics.
“Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the Universe.”
-Theoretical quantum physicist Amit Goswami
“Genes in my view are grossly overrated because they only account for the proteins an organism can make, not the shape or the form or the behaviour”. At that point right there you can completely tune out the rest of his point because he has no idea what he’s talking about.
So you weren’t listening then.
@@raymondharnack4160 Correct! I also don’t listen to paranoid schizophrenics about this sort of thing for the same type of reason.
As a biology nerd, this is where I finally lost it. Proteins DO MAKE THE SHAPE AND FORM AND PROBABLY BEHAVIOR OF THE GODDAMN ORGANISM(Sad thing is Rupert Sheldrake used to be a plant biologist.....)
People like @@jackmadden1078 find critical thinking a threat. They cannot be helped because they reject new data and perspectives. In other words, they are deeply anti-science, and you're not going to change someone like that by providing new scientific perspectives.
It's fascinating that people like @@thatonekerbal cannot grasp they basic concept of information.
*"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”* quote by Max Planck
A bit like how the USA will adopt the metric system eventually?
This rather crude idea was more finely defined by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Great breakthroughs ("paradigm changes") are often made by relative outsiders or newcomers to a field, and those wedded to the old paradigms often fall by the wayside, though how that happens is a function of the social and political conditions of the time.
sometimes, that's what evolution takes.
Planck also said, after studying Atoms for decades, that "there is no Matter as such" - today he would be cancelled!!
When the world discovers that they will die from taking the 'You know what', it'll be too late.
There should never be a thing called a “banned Ted Talk.”
What, not even if someone gave a Ted talk that celebrated the imagined benefits that victims of paedophilia might experience?
No, I'm not equating the above hypothetic talk with questioning aspects of science, I'm questioning whether there should be zero limits on Ted talks as you suggest.
It was REMOVED not Banned.
@@Xorfic does that mean it was removed from the Ted platform? If so, doesn't that constitute a banning?
This was TEDx talk. Which makes it more interesting that it was removed since they allow all kinds of wacky stuff there.
Perhaps what should be banned are TED Talks, since TED Talk controllers are so fond of banning.
"The thing that doesn't fit is the thing that's the most interesting: the part that doesn't go according to what you expected." R. P. Feynman
Yes, but Rupert Sheldrake's saying "we can't expect anything bc it's all just a habit of nature". So yeah nice quote
Congratulations Rupert. You can tell by the many comments your work inspired that there are many people ready to enquire and explore outside their conditioning
I recognize some dogmas here at my own university. The ironic thing is that our professors teach students not to take assumptions. However, when challenged on certain matters, their reasoning typically hinges entirely on assumptions.
That anything liberal is morally correct. And thay they being scientists, most of which come from rich or upper middle class families know better than poor uneducated people.
@@QVUTDN High school teacher: You are going to learn this in College.
Professor: I *assume* that this is already taught in your high school years so I'm not going to teach you this.
Me:🙂
Lol hope your classmates also recognize thatty.
Nonsense.
@@QVUTDN objective morality is based in wellness and anything that goes against that can very well be considered bad. Science can most definitely determine something to be bad or even relatively bad. If you went around stabbing people, that would be objectively morally bad because it goes against their wellness.
"So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." - Albert Einstein
Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥
Another dogma is that we need animal products to be healthy and happy. The truth is that animal products are incredibly cruel (Dominion (2018)) and bad for health: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets (2016)
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 animal meat is amazing
The real dogma is about vaccines
Humanity has never once, in its entire history, ever, in any culture or subset of culture, survived more than one generation without eating meat. Calling meat product unhealthy is like saying your heart beating is unhealthy because eventually it will run itself to death. Calling meat product cruel is to ignore its necessity in nature, despite vegetarians and vegans professing to love it. How can you insist you love something, while vehemently rejecting an entire half of it just because it’s unpleasant to you?
@@amihere383 And that's not even taking into consideration that the average vegan/vegetarian needs supplements which are, themselves, primarily extracted from animals - and often with a lesser exchange rate than just eating the animal. Meaning, there's a good chance more cows died to make a vegan's protein pill than to generate the same amount of protein from eating steak.
The speed of light being a constant has to do with relativity. No matter what speed and direction one is going you will measure C to be the same thing. The idea that people using people-made equipment and techniques to try to measure something precisely, and that measurement changing over time, is very common in science. The measured mass of the proton has also been updated recently. Its common knowledge that C varies depending on the medium- C as we try to measure it is in a vacuum, and in reality a vacuum still has a lot going on so even this measurement has some wiggle room (its quantum mechanics, in the end there is always wiggle room. And yes, physicists know this but it is easier to use the best average which has worked well enough to give us things like smart phones and GPS).
On the subject of the meter: a meter is an arbitrary unit of measurement, a human made concept. C is used because it is easily and consistently measured, as opposed to trying to machine a material to a length or some other method. If we find that we measure C more accurately our standard of the meter length will change- if the new measurement of C blows up the meter we can revert to a different standard. Weights and measures are arbitrary human constructs.
As mentioned elsewhere, we are in the gravity well of other bodies of the solar system as well as the simple fact that our understanding of gravity is that it is caused by mass. The reality is the more accurately we can measure it the more other factors will affect our measurements. The planets have enough gravitational influence to move the Sun around!
Lastly, the Big Bang doesn't state something came from nothing, it states that at a certain point we can't see any further back in history. Who knows, we may discover that with newer more powerful telescopes that our current observations don't tell the whole story and Big Bang will get scrapped.
The Big Bang is just theory and only works a fraction of a second after it has begun
You're correct. And I think that's the reason why Ted Talkx took the video down. Because it is indeed pseudo science.
underrated comment
Wow! Thought provoking
The heart of what he is saying isn't just wrong, it's really, badly wrong. He should have spoken to a physicist, not a metrologist who specializes in measuring. First, the speed of light is badly named for historical reasons. It is the speed which massless particles interact in a vacuum. I much prefer the term "the speed of causality" because causality itself (one thing causes another) runs at that speed. Light is just one thing that runs at that speed.
This idea of variable constants is an old one, and it has never been disproved, but it's had more than a few nails driven into the coffin. The speed of light is part of the fine structure constant (the strength of electromagnetic force), and no one has EVER measured changes in it. The speed of light appears in many, many equations (relativity, photon energy, Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, ...). Change it, and the universe falls apart.
Yes, something called Lorentz invariance allows c to be changed if everything it depends on changes, but that also says such a change wouldn't be noticeable.
"Science isn't Dogma, you're just stupid"
- Dave Farina
The Socratic method, further refined by Hegel, is about looking at an issue from all sides, not one, and trying to tear down each hypothetical answer until all that is left is what has survived this scrutiny. Or, as Sherlock Holmes says, remove the impossible and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the answer.
I'm not familiar with Hegel. Do you think he would object to any of the points raised in this video?
Hegel didn’t refine or extend the Socratic method, with dialectical reasoning he pushed it as the new dogma as the only “true” method. This influenced Marx which later like you all know created the biggest social experiment in human history with countless suffering
@@KarloSiljeg-ci6wgSo did Hegel say questioning should be endless with nothing off limits, or did he set a boundary past which questions could not be asked? And what of Socrates?
@@marqod1437no, Hegel declared that reality was made of dialectical materialism. What that means is that matter makes up the world and matter (material) is made from dialogue (dialectic).
What this means is that thoughts compete on this Earth for truth and when 2 thoughts are irreconcilable, they are synthesised together to make a separate third thought. This process is results in progress and progress is the point of civilisation and humanity.
Not a very scientific idea
Hegel understood knowledge as a resolution of conflicting ideas, which generated it own contradictions, which when resolved, followed this natural progression towards more and more refined knowledge. It is not a deductive method per se, as the thesis and the antithesis are both partially right in their own way. Dialectics is additive, deduction is... well... deductive, it removes what is not true until only the truth remains. The dialectical process isn't about removing falsehoods, but rather about integrating contradictions into a more "comprehensive truth".
The illustrations are wonderful... hats off to the artist. Made this so much more enjoyable for the big kids amongst us.
Amongst us
Had to say "Amongts" to avoid the trap.
Humongus
Mongoose
bot commenting haha
“crossed into the realm of pseudoscience”
The fact that they take his wholly valid, intellectual criticism of their worldview and label it “pseudoscience” despite science not actually being the basis for what he’s talking about essentially proves him right.
You don’t agree with us, you’re guilty of pseudoscience, because everything we believe is science
My opinion, it is just the other way around. They have nothing at all without Thought. Dont know what Thoughts are, where they originate, what they are made of, and even less master this indispensible Tool. As in silencing the inner dialogue an exploring that silence. Eyes open, hours on end. There is sooo much to discover.
They got away with their sloppyness till now, but since qm and geeneral relativity theories are incompatible, And the "observer" question arises, it is high time they learn to "observe" because of that they also have no clue.
@@gammaraygemHave you hit your head recently, or?🤷♂️🤦♂️🤡
the word that stuck out the most is "appears" like they aren't even sure why they had to take it down but the guy that pays my bosses check told them to kind of vibe... idk lol
It's probably also lost on them that by censoring this talk they basically prove his point about "Science as belief system" > "Science as method of inquiry".
Very dogmatic of them .
I love rewatching these videos after a few months or even years. Every time it’s like watching it from a new perspective and I take something new from it each and every time. Thank you 🙌🏼
There are some bits of this that sound a bit odd but I 100% support the idea of testing these things.
The video makes it sound odd, and is deceptive in the way its is presented. One only need to look superficially into the examples presented (eg the speed of light, the natural laws) to discover that he is bending the concepts to make them seem that way.
@@key-va Let says one thousand year ago, according to then standard you make a one metre rod as the reference and latter Science defined one metre using wavelength. Overtime, that rod can be measured as 0.99 and some time 1.01 and other time 1.02. Do you question the rod or the standard? Both agreed with the law yet contradict each other. It may be insignificant to most but in todays nano scale scientific advancement such trivial becomes important.
@@Growthunlimited The rod can only be as long as the rod is, it cannot be 0.99 of its own length.. You say the rod is 1 meter, then you use some other definition of what a meter is to actually measure the rod. I think this the same oddity that is pointed out in the video with regards to constants, but in fact it is not fair. A meter (or the length of which) is not a constant in the same sense that pi, or the speed of light is. -edited because typos :)
@@key-va Apparantly you're not Engineering trained or you don't understand what I meant. If the reference point is the wavelength of light, it is possible that the same rod can get different wavelength reading, that is what the video tried to explain.
Sure, to most of us, "morphic resonance" sounds like pseudoscience. But maybe we have to think about these things in a different way. Suppose I told you that I was taught one set of supposedly concrete facts in school, and then after I graduated, everyone started saying the exact opposite and acted like they had no knowledge of anything that was taught in school. Well this happened to me! It is almost as if I was thrown into an alternate universe after I graduated from high school! Maybe morphic resonance is pseudoscience, but the truth is that most of the so called science used by other people to justify the things they do to us, is also pseudoscience, but perhaps even more sinister! Another possibility is that morphic resonance actually is real. It seems the more we think we can tell real science from pseudoscience, the more they will manipulate everything against us!
Kudos to the artist for making this come alive 😊
I wish I had that artistic talent.
Amen!
This comment is a lovely oasis of appreciation, like flowers brought in a classroom after a heated debate. Debates are good, but joyous wise progress to a better world ( after the disagreements) are even better.
„actully“ … really?
I believe there are programs that can make sketch animations, semi automated, to video/text.
In high school my physics teacher started our quantum mechanics chapter with 3 full classes of him philosophizing in front of the class and he made very sure we knew there was a lot that no one knows
A really snarky response would be to tell him that the Dunning-Kruger effect also exists lmao
No, we *know* a lot about quantum mechanics. We just don't understand it well enough. Quantum physics, at the end of the day, is such a science that despite having all the data and results, you can't quote come to grips about the why all of it happens.
That's great
@@tejas4567 Yeah, my experience with teachers was that they pretended that we knew a lot more than we do. What we don't know absolutely dwarfs what we know.
I must disagree with him, we know much. The real tragedy is that many scientist have little knowledge in the field of philosophy (which is funny because science is a philosophy, it was created by philosophers whom devised a method to find natural law not much different than the concept of a logic system) as such when we see what would support certain views on reality they simply pretend that quantum mechanics don't have meaning to our reality.
To put it bluntly, many scientist are cowards and afraid of the truth their eyes can perceive.
This is one of the best talks I've ever heard. The animation is superb, top notch job all around 🎉
No it’s deranged. Morphic resonance has no evidence. Telepathy is not real.
@@enolopanr9820 Yes it is. Such things are happening all the time, all over the world experienced by countless people in every culture, age, walk of life. Their lived experience does not become invalid, regardless of whether it meets your standards of evidence or is something you are willing to accept. There is a world outside your ivory tower.
"The problem with science is science follows the money." ~Russell Brand
Stop being so racist to science people, you bigot.
Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥
I think it would be better said “the problem with following the science is that science follows the money”.
Another dogma is that we need animal products to be healthy and happy. The truth is that animal products are incredibly cruel (Dominion (2018)) and bad for health: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets (2016)
Yea like religion doesnt follow money. Yo come donate in my church and i will tell you things you want to hear
I was once a science scholar and I came across a quote from Dr Sydney Brenner. It goes like this:
Once you have an established science, it has got its high priests-the guys who know everything that will work or won't work, and they don't want to be bothered. The great thing is that young people are ignorant and we should catch them before they turn into the priests
They are becoming the mechanicus, quick, hide the toasters!
Which kind of science scholar you previously were that you believed this kind of statement?
@@amedeoromagnolo6108 do you mean a true statement? your comment is impressively unimpressive.
@@amedeoromagnolo6108 I used to be bonded under a statuary board and after being subjected to a grilling session involving my choice of modules (I took engineering modules). I realised that they are looking for a high GPA and not aptitude for research and scientific inquiry. I just left the programme while paying damages.
@@carpaccio45 I will start by saying that I don't have a clear understanding of what a statuary board is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I perceived: you were taking some engineering classes, the commission didn't like the scores you got and went against you (which I don't support, for the record), and you decided that the whole scientific community of hundreds of thousands of researcher from thousands of institutes around the world behaves the same.
With all the due respect, being a science scholar means you have been a researcher and been involved in academia, which doesn't seem the case.
I'm not trying to insult here. I'm just showing my skepticism on whether your accusations could should be limited to the commission you are talking about or not, and from what I am seeing I'm not sure you have met plenty of scientists to make a general statement.
I was totally on board when the talk started by challenging the "dogmas of science" and how science is perceived by the layman. The whole resonance thing needed a lot setup though. We went from "is telepathy impossible" to "I think there's telepathy that influences entire species across the world."
Agreed
Yeah, the last half of the talk started to lose me too. But it is an idea that is worth investigation - I just wish we could physically investigate it. The only dumb question, the only dumb idea, is the unspoken one. So even if our person here turns out to be wrong about his telepathic theories, his initial ideas about questioning the constants and investigating further than the current boundaries still has value.
Stopped watching at the halfway point when I noticed the build up of strawmen. The speaker would state a universally accepted (but far from unquestioned) concept, and then tag on an extra bit ready for the takedown based on that extra bit. Such as stating Einstein's matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only reformed and then pivoting to the big bang theory a theory (of Christian origin) that states the expansion of the universe, based on observational data. But then tags on the moments before the big bang (that isn't part of the theory) claiming that science believes all matter popped into existence.
Then there is the fallacy of composition, if matter isn't conscious, then things made of matter shouldn't be conscious.
Evolution has no purpose of direction. Technically true, but missing the second half of the concept. A living world that very much gives a direction and purpose (survival of the fittest). Everything you inherit is material. Again technically true, but misses the living world that we all live in and the effects that will have on us. My brother inherited my father's near superhuman strength, but was raised in a loving family so didn't develop my father's sociopathy.
And so on and on.
@@pensandshakers Yeah, we should also take into account that things like "Medicine is Magic" was questioned as "is medicine not magical?" then became "I think there's a way to manipulate literal atoms and molecules to influence the health and behaviour of humans" and here we are
@@BlaxeFrost-X When you put it like that, there does seem to be some mysticism in every aspect of life. I mean, in ancient times, glass was considered magical because it was usually only created when lightning struck sand. The Egyptians all but revered it.
I'm more of a fan of the hard sciences - biology, engineering, geology, etc - but the theoretical bounds of our understanding definitely sound fuzzier and fuzzier whenever I touch back with them. Just thinking of the current work with quantum and atomic computers makes me feel like we're trespassing a boundary of scientific knowledge.
I guess it's true what they say: Magic is science not yet understood.
Banning it from ted made it super popular…”If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine…” -obi wan
As part of the scientific community, Rupert is interested in free inquiry and the advancement of human knowledge. Unfortunately, many in the scientific community are interested in a paycheck. You are not challenging ideas, you are threatening livelihoods and that will always meet with the most violent resistance.
They're protecting a perceived monopoly, perhaps?
Few people who've invested pelf, time, and effort into acquiring a current education are going to sit idly by as some Johnny-come-lately threatens their feed-bowl.
no?
As a skeptic, I would love to see the Gravitational constant data he is referring to. I can't imagine physicists ignoring a 1.3% error for big G. Additionally, I'm imagining that the long-term variation of G would cause instability in orbits, enough so that astronomers would notice. For scientists that concern themselves with 0.001% errors in measurements, this is surprising.
Very interesting talk but we can't just believe everything he says. I also would like to see the evidence that rats in other countries would learn the tricks faster
I'm an aerospace engineer and you better know that geostationary satellites have to constantly readjust because of exactly what he is talking about. BUT gravity and light are intertwined and they do change as our Solar System speeds at thousands of miles per second through the galaxy. Earth's surface has gravitational differences from place to place and they have precisely measured different lightspeeds because of gravity. I do not like the worldview of assumed Materialism either.
Know Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria he put on scientific endeavor and was accepted as valid?
Know what group had a tizzy fit because when he said "If a field of science explains everything it really explains nothing."?
Underlying argument of video is daft. Science may have some holes in it but that is not so that the science can be made better but to support some far worse ideas which have very little basis at all. X is not perfect so Y is right!
@@alanrobertson9790 The point of the video is not that "Y is right", the point is "X has flaws can we talk about it??". Fact is academy became the new church, and "science" the new religion.
@@alanrobertson9790 But I totally agree with not falling for the "X is not perfect so Y is right" trap.
Thank you for reviving that talk, it was excellent and goes to show there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to man’s behavior. Arrogance and pride lead to closed minds and censorship.
Money is the key
@@TheACCmy yes who is funding these scientists and resesearchers, do their findings have to fit a narrative to get published and pushed onto the public
Amen!
Never underestimate the power of an institutions sense of self preservation.
"Give us one free miracle and we will figure out the rest"
Thats a good one tbh 😅
Agreed. And I'm not even a fan of McKenna.
No one scientist says that the big bang theory is a given or that it occurred because a miracle happened. They just observe the universe and give the most accurate theory to explain what they observe
Banned talk is talk that inherently makes me want to listen more.
No doubt this was cancelled, is filled with misinformation and misrepresentation of scientific concept or ideas, such as the fact that matter is not conscious, therefore science want to disprove that we are conscious " that's just re- taking an idea and representing in a stupid and incorrect way, to make it sound less true
And the scientists that want to ban particular attitudes and ideas that don't fit in with what is considered to be " scientific " are the Inquisition tribunal of our age !!
Yeah that's the same thing as people watching incest porn because it's considered bad in society and people like taboo and incest porn
that's why it was meantioned in the title. It is one of the ways to sell content, regardless of it's quality and ban existence
It might also be "banned" for being proved to be really bad and misinformative.
got back to university at 33, studying biological sciences, having such and more thoughts about science itself and nature and the universe...I hope the times are ripe for such a renaissance, and I will try what I can, to move in that direction.
As a bio grad, oh god I hope you stay away from healthcare if you bought into this video
There’s all sorts of fantastic things you can get into when you finish your biology studies.
I completed my Masters in the mid 80’s and choose a career in the environmental field. I’ve had a great career and have had all sorts of adventures and misadventures and still feel passion for my work. I also earn above average compensation.
My point being is theirs all sorts of interesting and productive things you can apply your knowledge to and you’ll probably find your passion if you haven’t already done so.
Im not convinced with this guy. Im all for thinking outside the box but he’s trying to redefine the the box.
His opening premise is illogical. It’s a strawman. I don’t know many persons educated in the natural sciences who would agree with his opening thesis on what science believes. I have never believed that science “already understands the nature of reality’.
His next comment is misrepresentation of science. He claims science is based on materialist Philosophy. That’s just not correct. Science is based on Natural Philosophy and there’s a big difference.
The general belief of what science is, that it is what can be explained by natural causation. If what we are trying to understand can’t be explained by natural causes then it is something other than science. That doesn’t mean that science is always right. It just means it isn’t science so science can’t explain it. No big deal right?
So what he has done here is changed the argument by changing the definition of science.
I caught on to this old trick over the years debating creationists on evolutionary theory. In fact I’ve debated creationists who used identical arguments in attempts to refute evolutionary theory.
To be honest this is a lot like the stuff that comes out of the Discovery institute.
@@Mottleydude1 If more people could grasp that science doesn't have all the answers, abd that the answers it provides are always changing, then we wouldn't have to have this debate between theists and atheists. Instead we see arguments that are driven purely by the desire to be right, in my opinion the least productive types of arguments. I'm other words, evo's and creationists tend to have a miopic perspective while defending their team. What if they aren't meant to replace each other after all?
@@taylorsessions4143 They certainly are not meant to replace each other. In fact scientists have nothing to say about religious and supernatural beliefs other than they are not science. That does not mean scientists can’t have religious beliefs. It just means those belief systems are different and separate.
The late biologist J. Elliot Gould said it best when he described science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria.
As to your point, in the times I have debated creationists on evolutionary theory I have never once told my debate opponent they were wrong. I’ve simply pointed out to them their beliefs are not science because they break the fundamental rules of science.
The main one being science cannot infer supernatural causation.
An example of what I mean. I personally believe in theistic evolution. That God set the rules and laws of nature and lets nature take its course without interference.
However understanding science I know that this is a personal religious belief and not a scientific belief of mine. Thus the two beliefs are not incompatible. Science is just a very self-limited belief system. It can only explain natural phenomena and even that knowledge is qualified by the fact that in science all knowledge is tentative. No matter how well a natural phenomenon is known by science there always a probability, even if it is remote, that science could be wrong. Now when you’re working on the frontiers of science the probability of being wrong is greatest due to lack of knowledge and when new facts and knowledge are gained then the hypothesis and theories those scientific conclusions are based on must be changed to account for those facts and if they cannot then those hypothesis and theories have been falsified and you get to start over again. Which is why science on the frontiers of knowledge is constantly changing as our knowledge expands and as we discover new facts. This is important as this is what makes science self correcting.
@@Mottleydude1 I love your comment, thank you for sharing
Everyone is susceptible to ideology. But science is the best approach we have for deriving truth.
The change in the speed of light throughout history is due to the accuracy of the equipment and measure methods and they are improved over the development of science and tecnology.
And reject the fact that the speed of light or gravitational constant are CONSTANTS does not mean they are habitual or have the so-called collective memories.
Dr Rupert has to provide some ways to prove his theories.
Yes, this talk was very shallow in providing evidence to _prove_ his theories. To cast doubt on existing ones - sure, but to prove his ones, far from it. That’s the frustrating necessity and strength of the scientific method.
@@Liliarthanit’s more to say that there are possible holes in the current understandings that require deeper explanations and not laziness in ignoring the potential holes.
The changes in gravity wouldn’t necessarily say that our current math is wrong but that they should account for other variables. And/Or maybe the constants are more “nearly constants”
I think you’re forgetting the definition of the word “theory.” A theory that is scientifically proven is no longer a theory.
There is no absolute proof in science. A belief can be held for hundreds of years before being disproven. The idea that science is a magical absolute truth generating machine is I'm afraid, just dogmatic.
Contemporary science believes the weak and strong nuclear force just popped into existence out of nowhere and now you are sure the speed of light cannot change on this scale of time?
As a physician, I witnessed scientific dogma play out in high-def during the COVID pandemic. It was horrifying. I have had a rebirth in my desire to really understand biostatistics and trial design. My BS detector is getting stronger by the day. Pretty sure I'm not alone on this...
That's the first thing I thought of too. "Trust the science"? That's not how science works. It's constantly tested and challenged. The charges of heresy for not trusting the "facts" reminds me of what Galileo must have gone through.
For sure, covid was scary. I despise all the normies for letting it slide, they stripped me of my rights because I didnt want to take a shot that I dont need and that hurt alot of people.
I cant believe we didnt lynch some politicians over this
Absolutely!
The covid farce is still playing out, excess mortality sky-rocketing the world over, blood clots on levels not seen by mortitions or pathologists, heart attacks on the increase etc
All while governments refuse to investigate
Median age of covid death is 84.7 years of age, chance of death for those under 60 is 0.03% and when you rank causes of death, covid is way down at number 34, that's well before influenza at number 22, falling at number 10, and still governments refuse to even look at the excess mortality rates!
The scientific method isn't being applied, it's being auperceeded by dogma
The only thing that you need to have a solid grasp on to understand the current state of science is a deep understanding of political corruption.
Why wouldn't once trust science? Its by-product, technology, is what drives our lives.
I regretted having to drop TED from my subscriptions, but did so after learning about how they'd done this to several other wonderful guests who'd given of their time and intellect. They are becoming the PBS of RUclips rather quickly...
“The PBS of RUclips”
TED talks are still very good and educational. You could just watch and take what speaks to you, like most everything else.
@@manic217 No, he is not.
Watch it again, especially the part having to do with Gravitational constants and the speed of Light, and get back to us about what he got so wrong.
Me too. They have an agenda and everything about Ted has clearly been exposed. People need to open their eyes to this --> ruclips.net/video/oHg5SJYRHA0/видео.html
@@manic217 Genuinely insane to see so many people eating this up. Anti-intellectualism is all this video supports and I absolutely see why this video was suppressed. Just spreading blatant misinformation from the malformed perspective of this author.
Some points he brings up are intersecting, like constants evolving. But to believe it's within our lifetimes is absurd and honestly just funny.
I'm smelling what he's laying down. In a universe that is in constant motion and flux, how could anything be constant? Magnetic fields will fluctuate as the world spins and rumbles from within. Everything moves. Nothing is constant. Makes perfect sense. Morphic resonance is maybe a little too far for me but I'm not counting it completely out. As with most things argued about, the truth is usually a combination of said things plus. Brilliant. Thank you for this. I love this channel so much.
It's important to remember in science that you shouldn't just ask "why" but also "what-if"
You should rather ask "what if not"
Right
Then of course, people will respond with the common, automatic criticism of hypotheticals. Another way they discredit science and further research.
Yes it's called "making a hypothesis" and science knows that very well.
You ask "What if" with the motivation to prove your what if statement false. If you cannot find a way to prove it false, you throw it out. If you have found a way to prove it false, but it succeeds at proving itself true, then you have a successful hypothetical.
Certainly is thought provoking. As someone who is pursuing science, I feel that the most genuine approach is to always keep an open mind. Obviously we have useful conventions to solve real world engineering problems reliably. When it comes to understanding the fundamental qualities of our reality scientifically, we really shouldn't make any unnecessary assumptions. I may have found a thing or two questionable, but it was a very cerebral experience none-the-less. Also, I have always really appreciated your animation style!
Agreed. Using the small errors in the speed of light measurement is not a strong argument if the measurements were performed incorrectly (but I have no proof that the measurements were performed incorrectly). Even so, it is not up to TED to silence this work. Science is not a church, it requires an open mind to flourish.
The engineering community is successful and rests mostly on technology and marketability but somewhat science. The scientific institution is academic and rests on an imaginary credibility (to draw absract conclusions) based on the success of engineering. The two overlap but are not the same. One is concrete and observable; the other is abstract.
If technology were not successful in bringing products to market, the credibility of all science would be zilch despite its correctness or errancy. Even though the overlap between science and technology is limited.
I object to how the scientific institution misuses their own empirical tools such as statistics, math, and sampling to draw questionable conclusions. I'm thinking of the empirical data on Darwinianism, in particular, which has such issues, and also the math of a genetic evolutionary landscape which (though not a disproof) contradicts Darwin's theory and ALL the fossil and geological evidence for it. But, biologists don't recognize their gross statistical methodological errors or their serious lack of math logic skills.
@@whimpypatrol5503 "...contradicts Darwin's theory and ALL the fossil and geological evidence for it". I have to say that I have heard of no such contradictions and I am reasonably conversant with evolutionary theory.
As I drive into work at MIT I can't help but think that he really has something. But it's like shouting at the wind. I expected more from Ted talks than to ban a talk like this
They shouldn't have banned it, but only because of Streisand effect.
hopefully once this talk gets more publicized, everyone will start questioning about the basis of science itself, im excited if it does
MIT has been so disappointing the past few years. I was ignorant of what a staunch Pharma Partner the place is. I hope it still has people who can think outside The Narrative.
Noam Chomsky said question everything. I immediately started questioning things about science that never made sense and in reading volumes of material on a quest for knowledge I found multitudes of contradictions in “facts” relating to scientific information which gave me pause. It led me to creative thinking and very healthy skepticism.😎
@@fairyprincess911 Sadly, poor ol' Noam apparently abandoned skepticism in 2020, to the point where in 2021 he called for the unclean to be isolated from the rest of society.
I seriously doubt if majority of people have heard this man talk. I am all for free expression. There shouldn't be a banned ted talk... but this man has very clearly never looked into how scientists actually work. Take his idea of laws of nature. They aren't laws because they cannot be broken or something bad will happen, they are principles which seem to best describe observable reality. Even one instance of them being insufficient to explain observations calls for re-examination. We do it all the time.
I am vocal critic of science as a belief system. It is a very real thing that makes doing science as a method much harder than it needs to be. But this man is raving madman who takes dogmatic definitions and tries to explain why he thinks they are insufficient while never taking the time to actually understand them and talk it over with people who use these assumptions about our universe.
"This man..." you mean the man whose education includes: Clare College, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University, University of Cambridge (PhD)...? He doesn't understand how science works? Try harder if you're going to make wild assumptions to demean others you disagree with...
@@Akaeus You can be educated as much as you wish. That doesn't mean you understand anything. And this by the way is exactly what he's criticizing. A culture where "trust the institution bro" is somehow said as if it has any validity. He goes about doing this in the stupidest manner imaginable, but it is rather amusing to see defence of someone by a thing they are fighting against.
@@Akaeus "blindly trusting the science is bad but blindly trusting the PhDs is good" lol do you have any self awareness?
Even though I don’t agree with everything in this Ted talk it’s still great to see a yt channel posting something that’s otherwise banned because the lack of censorship is important even if some of the info might turn out to be incorrect
I it's a crazy world. We are in right now. RUclips censored all kinds of completely accurate stuff during the pandemic yet I still have to give them credit because they allow more stuff than any other major platform, I guess save from the new Twitter.
@@jasondashney RUclips censored all kinds of accurate stuff??! What are you referring to? You make it sound as if censorship is always bad. That thought is dogmatic.
Banning patently incorrect info that is made to mislead is important. So many Americans just blindly believe in the freedom of speech and this saddens me how benighted most Americans are.
@@morninglift1253 Who then is the arbiter of truth? who decides what to ban? power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So many people blindly follow authority figures and it saddens me how ignorant to the lessons of history they are.
@@neowolf09 Your comment is a common response. The arbiters of truth are the same ones who decide what is murder or stealing. The same ones who decide whether something is considered intellectual property or public property.
Legislators will create laws that state if someone intentionally promulgates incorrect information, they will get fined or go to jail. And, judges will decide if someone violates that law. Actually, they do have laws right now for this. It's called defamation. However, right now, defamation requires an element of maliciousness. Not only do they have to intentionally lie but the victim has to prove they did it maliciously. It's such a high bar that it's extremely difficult to sue someone for defamation and win.
Fox News currently knowingly spreads false information and it's ripping apart this country. For example, they state that elections were rigged when they know it wasn't. Laws need to be put in place to stop news outlets from spreading lies and misleading info. The standard for defamation needs to change to remove the maliciousness requirement. When there is no basis for an assertion, journalists can't keep pumping out propaganda. Look at what is happening in Russia.
This doesn't mean you can't criticize people. It doesn't mean you can't accidentally say things that are wrong. It means you can't state stuff that is knowingly false. It also includes stating stuff that calls for violence on a specific group which falls under hate speech. You can criticize groups for group traits but you can't make stuff up.
You would think that this should be the mininum that a civilized society should adhere to. I'm surprised we are having this discussion.
Dr. Sheldrake -- I viewed this video with interest, particularly because of the TED reaction to the ideas you are advocating. After carefully considering the content of your presentation, I am impressed by the thoughtfulness of the questions you raise regarding the fundamental assumptions held by the scientific community. Your queries are sound, appropriate and deserving of serious consideration.
However, when you make the leap into offering your own alternative speculations as to how the universe actually works, you put forward far more subjective and far less demonstrable notions than those offered by scientific methodology. You suggest that the mystical and constantly variable aspects of the cosmos play a larger and more fundamental role in our reality than does the concrete and verifiable. This approach merely substitutes your set of assumptions (currently unsupported) for the existing assumptions of science that clearly have an empirical foundation. It goes without saying that simply because you think things are so, does not indeed make them so. You've offered a bridge too far, don't you think? Regards, Dr. A
Thanks for raising this. While Dr Sheldrake raises many excellent points, I agree with TED's assertion that this "crossed the line in to pseudoscience".
Very well put. I was actually rather excited in the beginning of this presentation, the idea of "Science as a method of inquiry vs. science as a belief system". I thought there was tremendous potential there. But as the talk went on, the sheer volume of things he was just throwing to the wind... well, it became too much. Great comment.
I've left a comment here that is far too verbose, lacking in structure and waffles, trying to communicate the same thing. I agree with you all. There is a seam of metaphorical gold in a talk of scientific inquiry VS Science TM - the belief system. Unfortunately Dr Sheldrake raised it and then failed to mention it again, instead offering very weak alternatives. It's like he forgot a fundamental part of science. If you're going to replace laws, especially, you have to have a very well evidenced case for it's supplanting. The speed of light or Gravity not being completely constant, whilst interesting, doesn't warrant the replacement of, at this point, centuries of supporting data. At the very least he HAS to use this data and explain how it actually shows something else.
What would you all say are examples of dogmatic thought in science being damaging?
Hard. Agree. I am a platonist. I think materialism is disprovable bs. This guy is crazy and makes every nonmaterialist sound crazy too.
Boom roasted. Good one Dr A
I took research studies in university. 2 of my top favourite classes. My peers hated them as they were mandatory classes and found them boring, but I was fascinated. In short what I learned, The zeitgeist view will dictate what ‘science’ spits out at any given time, and who pays for the experiments gets the outcomes they want; why would the payor expect anything else?
Pardon my ignorance - is "Research Studies" a topic in itself ("I've signed up for Research Studies 101 this semester, because I want to major in it!"); or is it a general description of various classes in (possibly) different disciplines (where, for example, one's research on the history of a certain play would be quite different from one's research on a particular culinary procedure), or is it a particular discipline under one particular course of study?
If the former, where would one find such classes, and under what kind of titles? (From what I've been able to find out on my own, everything seems to point to its being particular to the study of medicine, but I wanted to double-check!)
2020 has opened a lot of eyes about "the science"
exactly
@@MikeBarbarossa Yes, it made mentally capable people realize how advanced modern medicine is and how vaccines helped us overcome a massive pandemic. Agreed.
What you are doing is talking about corruption and jumping to the conclusion that in general science is so corrupt that we can't trust it in general. ie. you are focusing on corruption and assuming that is how science works.
Thanks for reviving this. Now decades later, these ideas don’t seem so radical especially in light of new scientific developments that are hard to ignore. I am reminded of Thomas Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” , required reading for anyone pursuing a scientific discipline in spite of some weak arguments against it by a few writers.
Amazing. After watching the entire video, I felt a bit upset that it had to be over. Great presentation.
Right?!?!?!? Now I really want to watch the presentation covering all 10.
Most TED talks can be categorized as pseudo science. I remember a talk by Aubrey DeGray where he said if you were under the age of 50, you will become immortal through technology.
Transhumanism agenda.
"Most" is a huge overstatement.
Unfortunately, TED talks now only allow talks that support the party line
@@QVUTDN you mean cancer?
@@QVUTDN ah
"i don't know" is a perfectly fine answer, both the people who say they "believe in science" and the person making this talk should really integrate that.
That’s a cop out, you know somethings and you extrapolate from them
@@zrakonthekrakon494 make sure you know why you know, and avoid logical errors, but the first part is critical
i posted the previous comment because the person in the video seem to condemn "falling short" on anwsers (been a while since i watched tho). My point is that it's critical to not keep extrapolating out of your ass if you excuse me.
@@wontcreepthat last sentence 😂
"Believe in science" is something out of WHO and Fauci's playbook. Scientists don't usually :believe in science", but use scientific methods. And those are sometimes questionable or arbitrary in some fields. For example in psychological experiments p value is kinda arbitrary and just an experienced guess. However double blind tests is a scientific method that should in theory mitigate all possible interference. But nobody blindly belief someone who claims they've done a correct study when no other group couldn't replicate it. It might stick for some time while others try to replicate it. It might stick longer if there's no incentive to replicate or it's very costly or unethical, but eventually that usually backfire.
Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment for example or Hendrik Schön scandal
The fact that this TED Talk was censored shows your hypothesis has merit, because the scientific community has turned into religious dogma.
No it was censored because morphic resonance is clearly made up
@@enolopanr9820 I twas refreshing to expose that T edious. E vasive. Dogma Has no humour or humanity it’s all a mixture of your critical neurotransmitters.
I can only quote Chesterton,
"As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out".
This is exactly how I felt after four years of studying science. Something was definitely missing. The whole thing rested on foundations that were adequate but insufficient.
I read The Science Delusion and while I have problems with some of Sheldrake's own pet theories which veer towards the New Agey, his criticism of the established dogmas of mainstream science is valid.
The TED talk should not have been banned. It is important for people to realise that many of the things that science regards as fact are largely unproven assumptions based on a preconceived materialist worldview.
💯💯
Best comment on this video by far. 🤜🏼🤛🏼
Yes, one of the best long comments I have read
Chesterton liked these sorts of logical arguments: *"Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it."*
Nothing in science is ever truly proven, and science is just humanity's collective attempt to learn about our reality. I'd like to know what big scientific facts are assumptions built around popular biases and not conclusions from research and experimentation.
Coming from the guy wrote that the idea that memories are stored in our brains was "only a theory" and "despite decades of research, the phenomenon of memory remains mysterious." Well it doesn’t. Believe whoever you want, it is a free country, but you should know Sheldrake only studied botany. Stephen Rose, a neuroscientist, heavily criticized Sheldrake for being "a researcher trained in another discipline,” and, for not respecting data collected by neuroscientists.
I’m all for offering alternative explanations, but I don’t think ignoring, denying, and arguing over massive amounts of collected evidence, vs pure scientific theory, will help our state in the universe. Neuroscience alone over the past two decades has proved that memories are stored in specific changes in brain cells, and our technology for this data has advanced rapidly from when he hypothesized this theory in 1981. I think it’s time we start to apply a bit of common sense and say, “maybe let’s not trust data that was calculated by someone who probably couldn’t operate a cellphone.”
An excellent demonstration of multiple fallacies. Thank you for explaining how to assess theory on the basis of completely superfluous criteria.
In my experience, the number one problem with the way we as a society think, is that we want everything to be totally binary. Either something is completely true, or completely false, you either completely agree with something or you're completely against it. Life is extremely nuanced, but people want it to be simple and unchanging, which - when you think about it - is extremely odd considering we live in a universe that is constantly changing and unbelievably complex.
I think another big issue is that a lot of people are lazy thinkers. Some call it "stupidity" and while I'm not going to say that that is necessarily the wrong term, (though it is a bit rude), I think it fails to identify the real problem. Though this might be wishful thinking on my part, I think most people are capable of thinking critically and rationally, we just tend to not want to because it's too much work. A lot of us would rather just be told what to believe because we aren't too terribly interested in the topic being discussed.
You guys are kicking ass love it. I’m teaching my kids and we’re all above 40 thank God science can actually have growth if people will just stop with the dogmas
Science needs paradigms to move forward. Those paradigms simply are guidelines to help us explore the universe in a systematic, repeatable, and verifiable fashion. However, all paradigms will at some point be replaced by others as our understanding of the universe deepens. It certianly does not mean that science isn't reliable. On the contrary, science's ability to question paradigms and force "paradigm shifts" is the very reason why it is the most reliable exploratory method we have.
ironically the issue is "scientists" tend to question everyone's paradigm except their own where they grossly over-assume the thoroughness of their understanding.
@@tylerhall95 ironically, that doesn't tend to be a thing that happens.
@@timeshark8727I can’t tell which thing you are referring to
@tylerhall95 ... how many options about what it could be are there in your post?
@@tylerhall95 Oh well comparing is major part of the scientific process. You see, it's not a problem but strenght to have different perspectives and theories. By comparing we can see which one is more useful. The perspectives that do not match testing and experience are left to die. Now if you happen to believe an outdated idea like stone can be turned into gold well a scientist will still laugh at you until you show him that it is possible. And he will not deny it. But often you will not be able to turn stone into gold aka show that they are wrong because unlike you it's there job to find out things that are in there domain of expertise. That high level fighting is dropped when most of them agree. Like most scientist agree with General Relaticity. But even though Newtones theory was wrong it is still useful. And Earth is flat is a good assumption when building a house but not when sending a rocket to the moon. Also a scientist that doesn't question his own paradigm is NOT a scientist but rest assured they do, because else science would not evolve and they'll get mocked as Einstein himself got dunked for refuting Quantum mechanics and he did change his mind later on.
Never forget that when everyone leans forward to see what is happening, keep your eye on the individual that takes a step back to get a different perspective.
May WE be that individual!
Could this be extrapolated even further? They are watching the event from different angles - and you are watching them from one perspective.
Rupert basically pulled back the curtain on the scientific community for the greater world to see and they do not like it. Many others are doing the same in various communities of knowledge worldwide and none of the assembled communities like it either. This has needed to happen for decades and it is absolutely magnificent it is occurring now thanks largely to the Internet and the mass awakening it is bringing.
Actually it is the spreading of pseudo-science via the platform of the internet.
It is a beautiful thing.
@@dignan193 truly! 🤩🙌🏽🤩
If something cannot stand while being challenged, let it fall. The great awakening is here my friend
This. It proves they just ignore any paranormal case despite being semi-materialistic like a ghost turning solid having a few beers. To this being the reason why so much of our understanding should be much higher in 2023. Hell people can see shadow being while sober the same things that are common on a 250mg Benadryl trip.
This is why I pay no attention to anyone featured on TED.
TED is a component of the "dogma".
As a physicist and mathematician, I totally agree with Sheldrake. Thank you for reposting this talk.
As a biochemistry student, I don't understand why Sheldrake believes it makes more sense for the universe to work more based on habits than laws. His examples such as giraffe embryology, ease of unrelated rat learning, and crystal forming seem to be unlikely to be true. I'm guessing those studies were flawed in some way and I would not be able to replicate them.
Though the light speed and G, I'll have to hear the other side of the story...
@@hansomekim1219 its plausible that the tests evolved and researchers just became better at teaching mice and breeding crystals. Singular causes are unlikely.
It is concerning that you are a mathematician and cant’t see that the way the speed of light graph was analysed was misleading. The percent change in measurements is extremely small and only looks significant because the y axis starts from 297.7 and not 0. So the differences are due to different measuring methods, which have become more precise over time evidenced by the smaller error bars. Now that we’ve gotten better at measuring it, we get about the same value each time (within the very small experimental error). Because it’s constant. GPS wouldnt work if speed of light wasnt constant.
As a mathematician, I'm not entirely certain if I agree with his theory, I'd need to see more research, but I don't dismiss it out of hand either and I think he does a good service in questioning scientific orthodoxy. When you dig into it you quickly see that the sciences are built on rather shaky foundations, in no way comparable to the rigor of theoretical mathematics (which even itself has problems, as Godel proved); some results are accepted based on only a few dozen isolated observations and others are accepted without any justification at all, just because nobody has been imaginative enough to think up another explanation. The observation of minor physical phenomena are often blown out of all proportion to make grand and overarching metaphysical claims and completely unverifiable hypotheses (such as statements about the distant past which we have no way to ever test) are accepted as fact. And, despite all these problems, they seem to have even less humility with regard to their field than Mathematicians who are universally aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the inherent limitations of mathematics.
As I am getting back on the Academia Benches, at 42, I can't help but witness all of this, embedded in the teachings. And even the revised editions of the textbook seem to double-down on the Scientific Dogma. At times I can still find the enthusiasm and wonder in learning, but some other times, especially when there is an obvious blindfold, I can't help but wonder how I will manage to keep the same motivation. Science is full of "If there is no proof, then it doesn't exist." As if we have all figured out. Cocky, Stubborn empirical ways.
You know me so well
This attitude of scientific materialism helps the Q Anon evangelical right wing white supremacist power mongers. Why? Because it allows entry to the rational world only those who bow down to the constant orthodoxy. If you're not on board with science, well, you must be a nut. So, ordinary people, who could learn to respect science, lose respect. The solution is LSD and mushrooms for all scientists. Let them provide a measurement of that experience. The only one who could really provide such a measurement was Jimi Hendrix.
From my own place in existence, I am also struggling to have the same innocent beautiful curiosity and joy about learning when at age 38, I'm only more and more aware of how patriarchally brainwashed I have been the whole time, surrounded by multiinfinite manufactured lies and deceptions that I absorbed as my own. My college was shamefully teaching just whitewashed art history. And the brainwashing just came from everywhere all the time. I thought scientists were supposed to research and cure illnesses, to help humanity. Wish it mattered to whoever it's supposed to matter to, to find an actual cure for ME/CFS and fibromyalgia, and cancer. I had to save myself with acupressure mats, those should be more researched, they've done more for me than any health professional ever has.
No. There is no proof that fairies dwell at the bottom of my garden. That does not mean they do not exist, but it does mean I have no reason to accept that they do.
We do not have it all figured out by a long shot. If we did all the scientists would be out of a job. But science requires evidence.
@@UnicornUniverse333 "I thought scientists were supposed to research and cure illnesses, to help humanity."
That is exactly what I was doing before I retired.
And I did it following the rigorous rules of the scientific method. I have even worked for and with women who did not have a problem with the alleged "patriarchal" brainwashing.
I remember listening to this talk.
I cant believe they removed it.
You can always tell who's in control by who you're not allowed to criticize.
How does this work? I can view this now here...What do they do remove and replace or what happens that I can see it now? Thank you for your insights in advance. I hope I hear back...
Okay, so maybe it was just on Ted Talk and banned there?? Forgive my confusion...
Thank you so much for this Mark and Rupert. My, how timely it is that you have uncovered this for us at now, 10 years later, when likely more of us can really see what you are trying to convey. Brilliant.
By banning this TED talk didn't they just prove his point? 🤣
Exactly what i thought, it's poetic
Less eyes though
They took it from their platform because it's full of lies and misinformation and they didn't want to have their name associated with a hack disguised as a scientist. Half of his claims about scientific dogma aren't even true. He claims he is a martyr for exposing blindspots that in reality are known and actively studied by scientists and then he interjects his own crackpot theories after he has your attention. You guys are all falling for his manipulation by saying "Well if TED banned him then it must be true! It's a conspiracy!" that is exactly what he wants, because nobody would listen to him otherwise. Any time someone has to trick you into thinking you are getting secret information that scientists don't want you to have they are preying on your insecurities. It makes you feel important and smarter than scientists who have dedicated their lives to research, and it makes you feel better about the person who is "enlightening" you with this information. This is classic brainwashing that you can find in any cult or religion, it's manipulation 101.
If you write under it its not banned. ;)
Exactly
It's not outlandish to say that the process of science is being captured by dogma. There many instances people can point to.
However, this video isn't really about that... Instead, it is riddled with logical fallacies and blatant omissions meant to advance preconceived conclusions. One crucial omission is the incentive structure that makes the process of science inherently self-correcting over the long term.
Whether intentional or not, this video is a great case-study for how "science" can easily be co-opted into subjective belief systems using surface-level "evidence" to advance viewpoints to the lay public (who may also share the same cognitive biases).
these are not dogmas they are just our best current understanding. it is not dogmatic to fall back to conclusions drawn from empirical evidence when faced with an absurd or contradictory claim. id argue some are also strawmans but thats besides the point
When I was studying physics at the university library, this constants was driving me crazy. I clearly remember, the topic was electromagnetism from one of the Serway and Jewett books. After all of the reasonable assumptions I've digested about the topic, I could not wrap my mind around the constant in an equation. It seemed off that time. Maybe I've spent a couple of hours thinking about it, because I couldn't continue. Then, I decided that it refers to an unknown area in the equation and I could slice it later. Maybe after the exam :)
Now, changing constants seems like a so valuable information. Like the missing piece I was looking for is this. Thanks for preparing this talk and flourishing my mind again.
Keep thinking.
www.tsijournals.com/articles/the-relationship-between-the-speed-of-light-and-.pdf
If constants like G kept changing the universe would change day to day. Planetary orbits and the structure of galaxies would vary across what we see of the universe. We see no such thing.
@@Andre_XX have we observed the whole universe? amazing, i must have missed that
(i am being a bit sarcastic. but how much of your body do you think a bacterium sees, and how relevant would its extrapolations be to the rest of you, and then the world outside you? "oh smooth pink muscle as far as i can observe. therefore, that's probably constant")
@@tama_yaga We can see back to shortly after the big bang. If G were different then, the structure of galaxies would have noticeable differences. Also, the speed of light is related to the energy content of the universe. If it changed, all sorts of other issues would arise. Like the total energy in the universe would go up or down in concert. Where would the energy come from or go to? Actually, come to think of it, changing G would also affect the energy content of the universe.
I have been thinking about this for a very long time. I consider myself a very rational person. But, i firmly believe in something more… I found myself trying to rationalize why I believe in a higher power. Why i think love, joy, and laughter are more powerful than book smarts. I’m tired of people rolling their eyes at me because i meditate and believe in psychic connections. Thanks for this video. It was a immensely refreshing. Cheers!
I'm soooo conflicted about this, i have a physics degree and in my close family it's all about astrology and spiritism.. so I do believe as You that love, joy and laugh are powerfull.. but i also believe that intuition is fragile, we are exposed to fool ourselfs... Some questions are way too hard to answer
@@agusnegra yes i agree it wouldnt be wise to completely remove science and rationality, it absolutely serves a purpose. Spirituality also serves a purpose. For me, its the fact that society often forces people to choose one or the other. I know lots of people who identify as scientists and therefore automatically dont believe in God or anything supernatural. I think both disciplines serve us well if we can learn how to integrate both worlds.
Nothing has strengthened my belief in a higher power more than studying human biology, especially our incredible immune system.
I do not have a science background but when lockdowns started, I began studying up on virology and the new mRNA platform, and how childhood vaccines were developed, tested,and approved.
The more I learned about the immune system, the more convinced I became that humans were intelligently designed. We are not here by accident, we aren't some sort of afterthought brought about by a big bang.
We are incredibly well-designed by a masterful engineer. Each and every one of us are biological marvels. Our bodies are self-healing if we just supply the basics (diet, clean water, sunshine, sleep) and get out of our own damn way. It's such a shame that we haven't realize this yet, and we keep running back to pharma for temporary bandaids that always make the situation worse in the long run.
The efficiency of the human body is just mind blowing. I don't know who designed us, but they are much smarter than you or me.
@@MK-ih6wp Well said, friend. Cheers!
@@MK-ih6wp Yep this is the conclusion I have come to also, Gods not Dead!
Science is a description, not an answer. Thanks, Rupert, for a great talk.
Science is a method to find verifiable description.
Religion is a method to form unverifiable speculations.
Loved the talk, and believed 2% of what he said.
There is a direct link between spirituality and quantum physics.
“Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the Universe.”
- Theoretical quantum physicist Amit Goswami
No. It's a definition not a explanation. Have a great day!
Science is a method.
No matter if you believe it or not, it should not be banned.
Banned from TED ≠ banned. TED isn't and has never been a leading authority on any scientific opinions, they are a private platform that chooses who they deem worthy of a voice. He was deemed to be spewing nonsense, which he partially is, and removed. No one is stopping him from posting this anywhere else on a PUBLIC platform
@@SchrodingersTag I meant on TED
edit: I know that they can remove/ban certain talks, I am just saying that they shouldn't.
I agree. Nothing in science should necessarily be described as a constant. We should always be open to the possibility of change. However to postulate that "everything in nature has a collective memory because... reasons" doesn't really help either.
Great video, especially with the mind-numbing “scientific” dogmas of these last few years.
It isn't of these last few years, it is a recurring phenomenon that has some correlation IMO with philosophical worldview (aka religion) prevalent at the time. I call the 19th Century the age of myths because so many false historical claims were made in the defense of atheistic materialism at the time. The effects are still felt today as many of the myths are still taught in popular culture as "science" and now we have a group telling us to "trust the science" when they openly reject and deny scientific research on multiple subjects to the point where they fail basic biology by being unable to distinguish male and female.
Comments like this though I can’t help but wonder which dogmas you’re thinking of
It's of the human nature to believe in something. God, Alah, Zeus, outer gods, stars, healing crystals, "science", you name it. Everyone adopts at least one belief system to explain how they interact with the world around them
@@noobpie2 you must live under a rock 😂
@@gangiskon I just like science because its an open book, anyone is allowed to discredit a theory and the peer review process is what keeps science relevant, unlike other institutions that have head figures. You can say its "Dogma" but that's just a lazy mans way of saying, I won't disprove this theory.
He has legitimate questions and problems with the way things are handled. He offers some theories, but only as personal theories and not truth. There’s legitimate questions here that people should look into, if only just to sheer up what they think is true. He wants to get to the bottom of something and peoples assumptions are preventing that. I’m not 100% sold on his theories, but there’s definitely truth in what he’s saying and the purpose of the speech is 100% reasonable and worth hearing.
This is a well read and well traveled man who’s spoken to many of the top players in the scientific field just to gain an understanding of the way things are in the scientific space and they want to silence him because the alternatives he offers aren’t proven. They can’t be proven or disproven without more evidence. That’s the whole point of his speech. There needs to be more research, but the Dogma in the scientific community is preventing that. He wants an answer and nothing he said is against actual true science. He’s offered his own personal theories based off of the science we have available. If they sound ridiculous, disprove it, don’t silence it.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN G AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CHANGING AND NOBODY EVER TOLD ME, NEITHER TOLD EVERYONE I KNOW. Dude that gave me an existential crisis
God bless you for re-posting this presentation. The idea has been in our collective consciousness for time immemorial, and suppressed at every opportunity!
hahah laurah, stop being mystical for a youtube video that sells lies. using phrases like "time immemorial". new age shit has rotten too much minds.
@@motafoka1 God bless you too!
@@laurah1020 who is god? If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil.
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
@@motafoka1 because it's easy
@@motafoka1 Dude it's not that deep calm your shit
The ideas about morphic resonance would be huge if true. It would fundamentally change our understanding of everything. So it caught my attention.
He mentioned that there is evidence of crystals being easier to form after the first time.
So I searched... and the evidence for the crystals comes from himself, in his book "The Presence of the Past", where he says "It is in fact well known to chemists [that crystals are easier to form the more often they are made]", citing no source.
TL;DR: Sheldrake lies about evidence for morphic resonance. "Evidence" = "trust me bro".
Have you talked to any chemists who grow crystals?
@@BradKandyCroftFamily i am a chemist that grows crystals and have never tested any lab evidence suggesting it's easier to recrystallize the same molecules multiple times. Now you have both chatted with an organic chemist.
Friend, he does cite his source as “Woodward and McCrone Journal of Applied Crystalligraphy (1975) 8, 342” and it is about turanose that crystallized “unusual crystallization behavior” first in 1920s. Easy to find references to it 🙂
@@DodgesMountain SMACKDOWN!!!
@@DodgesMountain Which was actually an arguably overdramatic letter about certain crystal forms not being reproducible. In their 1995 discussion paper "Disappearing Polymorphs", Dunitz and Bernstein addresses the 1920 letter and some of the compounds discussed.
To make a long story short, it seems that it was simply due to crystallisation conditions not being consistent, or contamination (which was more pervasive than expected) by the other crystalline form resulting in what is known by scientists as "seeding" which "biases" the type crystals formed.
That is to say science is perfectly capable of explaining what happened in the letter; no need for what Sheldrake is peddling.
Another note; I found Dunitz and Bernstein's paper by looking at which papers cited McCrone's letter, which meant Sheldrake should've been able to find it too.
"The speed of light is variable". That thought has been on my mind for a very very long time. "Consciousness is the highest physics" as well. Great video. The people who ban and censor certain topics or opinions seem to forget that the free flow of information is fundamental to science. Trying to control your environment leads to nothing but a dreary way of life.
The problem is that most of the people concerned with this censorship have little idea for why it truly happens. It is not because of the beliefs of what a scientist thinks is worth pursuing, it is because of the people that provide their funding don't want their power threatened by a healthy and educated society. Science today will never be able to sever the political umbilical cord that controls its destiny. Proof of this can be found by researching the problem of cancer curing research done by people that are not beholden to those funding agencies. They will allow sanctioned treatments but not cures, not when billions are at stake and a population reduction agenda is being implemented.
I always thought that it meant to the conditions in which you're measuring the speed of light. For example, the speed of light *in a vacuum,* or going through an specific material
The RUclips Channel "Unzicker's Real Physics" makes videos about Variable Speed of Light Cosmology if that's something you're interested in learning more about
@@shadowdragon3521 Interesting, I'll check it out. thanks
""The speed of light is variable". That thought has been on my mind for a very very long time."
It may well be, but nearly everything we could possibly use to measure it is also bound up in that very thing. The speed of light is bound up with time, and time with the speed of light. How long does it take to go to the moon and back? That's the speed of light. How far away is the moon? bounce some light off it and see how long it takes! It would be hopeless but at least should not change. But we can also use orbital mechanics to calibrate the distance. But how were orbital mechanics themselves calibrated?
the ironic thing about this is this guy says that we shouldn't take what science says at face value because it could be flawed or based on other biases yet people are taking everything he says at face value because it confirms their own biases.
I have no idea why it took me this long to find atleast one person state the obvious.
I'm dissapointed in authorities in general, be it govermental or scientific, but that doesn't in any way shred my appreciation of the whole of scientific progress. This guy just waltzes in, throws shit on conservation of matter & energy (y'know, that one thermodynamic concept that's tested every time you do reactions in chemistry for example) and labels it as dogma. And not only that, but shits on the constants too.
How the hell does he plan on testing anything without the assumption of constant physical laws is beyond me.
Well, perhaps i'm just too closed minded. Jfc.
@@noone-ez6on its because hes arguing in bad faith. his talk is designed to not make people consider the limits of science and the danger of authority but rather to bring science down to the level of his own world view and push people into accepting its authority.
@@Andrew_Sword Oh i get that, don't get me wrong.
I'm just perplexed at the hordes of yesmen in the comments. How can one be skeptical if they're willing to latch onto anyone only because they dissagree with the status quo?
Wait I didn’t even know they censored and removed content! Thank you for re uploading this ❤
This was one of the first presentations that was removed along with Graham Hancock's. The removal of these set a precedent to censor many more.
Yes. If you were invited on to perform a talk on economics and instead you went into a diatribe on how there's a dragon in your bathroom and that nobody could prove you wrong, your content would be removed. That's pretty much what happened here.
@@antagonizerr oh so talks in general should be banned... from *checks notes* tedx. Yep very important. One of the prestigious local institutions of the local drunk.
@@antagonizerr I see you either failed to watch the video in its entirety or failed to grasp the concepts being presented. This is not about his unproven theories or yours for that matter (though your dragon in the bathroom sounds fun). This is about the fact that science has essentially become a religion and no longer follows its own process. Definitions have been purposefully changed to ensure stability in the current model. At no point in history have new ideas been readily accepted without the innovator being ostracized or killed.
ps. I get a kick out of you liking your own comment
@@antagonizerrWhy would that content be removed? What does that accomplish?
How long have you had these severe comprehension issues? Did your drunk mom drop you down stairs as a baby or something?🤡🤦♂️
Censorship is never a good thing
All we know is censorship. We live in a world filled with lies. Even history is a fabricated one. Archeology and geology shows what they hide from the people. The ancient scriptures tell our world's cycles. The signs to look for. Earth, sun,stars and planets have a 12000 year where our sun nova and all the stars aswell. All planets have a pole reversal. All oceans on earth will be trown on land first east when the earth rotation around the center of universe stops and to west when rotation starts again in opposite direction. It's not a extinction event aslong your not facing the nova side. Last time it was China and Russia. This time Europe and Africa. USA has bin digging tunnels and bunkers since the 50th's...they know this since 1957!
Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥
Censorship lead me to distrust the covid vaccine. If someone is wrong disprove them, dont censor them in the name of $cience
Well, I don't want 5 year olds watching explicit pornography. It fucks them up mentally.
Censorship definitelly has it's uses if we can all agree on moral grounds it is necessary.
The problem is that some people are unilaterally pushing it for an all but explicit reason of corrupting morals for their own gain.
@@ThZuao nice point. Unfortunately the world is full of soft porn. The internet is even worse.
Great stuff as usual, this is one of my favorite channels! It never fails to be thought provoking & insightful; Big Thanks from Texas to all involved with making this happen!
More people need to hear about this, i put this as a reminder for anyone, tell your friends about this, share on facebook, or tik tok for younger audiences.
It’s unfortunate this was banned from TT , although very fortunate it is here now.
It makes sense. Very eloquently spoken. Thank you.
In terms of predator-prey relationship, animals can sense a predator partly bc the animals and insects in the area where the predator is residing become silent. And for an animal of nature, silence is deafening
Yeah, exactly. Lots of "sixth senses" in animals are just normal senses (even though there are more than five of them, obviously) that we don't have or are not used to using them bc we no longer live in the habitat they were evolved for.
In my 3/4 century of "secretly" eyeing a girl, I couldn't count the number of times I've been caught. By sheer good fortune, my cousins in late teenhood gave me Carl Jung's "Symbols of Man" (they considered me a dreamer); it explains everything said here in spades. Once you (as a majority of ancient and tribal cultures have) connect with/ into the spiritual realm, acceptance and worship of materialism turns into a cruel joke on the "ignorant".
The "I'm being watched" feeling was vital for the survival of the hominid line. People like to think of humans as the mighty hunter and apex predator, and perhaps for H Sapiens that's true. However for most of our evolution we were lunch for something else. It's even been suggested that the reason we stand upright is so that we could see over the grass and see predators approaching. We are the descendants of the ones who could stand erect and tell when they were being watched. The others died out.
It’s better to think about evolution in more non directional or with no purpose ways, when you say we stand upright SO THAT WE COULD you’re implying evolution is some kind of intelligent being which destined species to evolve a certain way, I know it’s an expression but it’s a comment in a video that will blow up so just reminding people. Natural selection acts on pre existing phenotypes (sets of characteristics), it never “plans” the appearance of traits in future descendants of the generation it’s acting upon.
@@sergioibarra3461 “Random mutation” wouldve summarized that in 2 words lol
@@dryfox11 not really but it’s good to add that
We're not too bad:
For a pack of oversized Meerkats !
@@sergioibarra3461 - perhaps a more accurate way of saying it would be "some were more upright than others and were able to look over the grass and they survived longer and had more children."
But then you challenge a different dogma - the dogma of equality - and will get a different gang of academics hounding you for wrongthink.
This guy is on point... TED lost a huge amount of respect for me for having removed this. There is a deep inherent danger in blind belief systems... whether they be based on science, philosophy or myth. Holding anyone of those above the rest is asking for a repeat of historical atrocities.
More importantly, this is not about his unproven theories. This is about the fact that science has essentially become a religion and no longer follows its own process. Definitions have been purposefully changed to ensure stability in the current model. At no point in history have new ideas been readily accepted without the innovator being ostracized or killed.
Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥
@@eladesorviews6561
That's the point. Countless millions of dollars go into making science nonsense. Some of the top scientific journals have *admitted* that up to *50%* of published research findings are *falsified.* A hell of a thing to base your worldview on.
me too
yet that’s exactly what Sheldrake asked you to do: forget science and believe him
it seems to me the more advances we make in scientific discovery the more we end up actually proving the existence of god...
Materialistic thinking is a habit. It can be hard sometimes to admit to yourself that what you cherish is actually nothing but a habit.