Exposing Scientific Dogmas - Banned TED Talk - Rupert Sheldrake
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 01. 2023
- Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, is a biologist and author best known for his hypothesis of morphic resonance. At Cambridge University he worked in developmental biology as a Fellow of Clare College. He was Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in Hyderabad, India. From 2005 to 2010 he was Director of the Perrott-Warrick project for research on unexplained human and animal abilities, administered by Trinity College, Cambridge. Sheldrake has published a number of books - A New Science of Life (1981), The Presence of the Past (1988), The Rebirth of Nature (1991), Seven Experiments That Could Change the World (1994), Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home (1999), The Sense of Being Stared At (2003), The Science Delusion (Science Set Free) (2012), Science and Spiritual Practices (2017), Ways of Going Beyond and Why They Work (2019).
Rupert gave a talk entitled The Science Delusion at TEDx Whitechapel, Jan 12, 2013. The theme for the night was Visions for Transition: Challenging existing paradigms and redefining values (for a more beautiful world). In response to protests from two materialists in the US, the talk was taken out of circulation by TED, relegated to a corner of their website and stamped with a warning label.
To Learn more about Rupert Sheldrake and his research, please visit www.sheldrake.org/
Subscribe to After Skool for more insightful videos.
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
This channel is anti science anti peer review garbage. Not the first or even fifth time I've seen afterskool present opinions as fact while trying to put suspicion on others with accusations of doing the same. I sub to this channel because I do enjoy getting different opinions but I can't continue to sub to a channel that misrepresents facts or tries to delegitimize the ENTIRE field of scientific discovery and peer review. What's next a video about American elections bieng fake?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd firstly like to preface that this video isn't necessarily a bad one. As a researcher, I agree pop science spins these overly simplistic and wrong conclusions about the philosophy of science as well as the methods/discoveries. Science communication is very difficult and people should question this and our current results.
However, the speaker is doing the exact same thing he is criticizing. Being overly reductive (multiple times with the big bang while not digging deeper), putting forth fringe or tenuous explanations as true (crystal memory is not really memory. It is nucleation, a concept from general chemistry), and prefacing to a nebulous "evidence" for said explanations.
There is something to be said for actively questioning our current understanding. This is a basis of everyone's research, to varying degrees. For instance, with the speed of light supposedly changing, part of it is due to different observation methods that may have other sources of error or phenomena that change results. We do currently research the disparity in calculations of the speed of light. It's one of the biggest open problems in cosmology that we ACTIVELY RESEARCH IN COSMOLOGY. The fact the speaker went to a scientist not in this field of research and immediately takes his word and extrapolates it to all scientists is rather reductive.
I don't believe the speaker has truly questioned these hypotheses without checking his biases. He stops at a shoddy explanation from a non-expert and then places that explanation on science. This is going halfway with your inquiries! You should push further, you should work with the experts and bring questions! But don't stop at one bad explanation or one non-expert. The first thing us researchers do when studying a problem is to see if anyone's studied or solved it before. The speaker has not done this effectively.
Regardless, I beg of people here to watch other videos on this topic. A great starting point would be from @acollierastro. She makes great videos on similar topics. I hope everyone here has a fantastic day and keeps questioning about our own knowledge. Science should be a collaboration for everyone, not just researchers.
"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
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.
@@zz-nc5kx 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.
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 "considering new perspectives". The people who drank the Kool Aid in Jonestown were just "considering new perspectives". Is the Kool-aid tasty?
"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.
The problem is that the "dogmas" he mentions are just the most plausible explanations we have for various problems. The conservation of energy (and matter), for example, is just based on the fact that we haven't found any situation that breaks this rule, so we assume it is universal. Another example is the brain: if it is damaged you can lose memory, so it is logical to think that memory is stored in there. Why the hell should we assume otherwise?
In the end, we make assumptions based on the informations that we have, it's not like someone randomly made these up.
@GIGABIGOT What do you mean by "forgetting biology"?
@GIGABIGOT Being skeptical is fantastic, it is the base of science from Galileo's times. But you must have studied and comprehend the subject you're discussing. You can't just say "I don't think so" if you know very little about the subject you're talking about because you should prove others wrong with facts, not just by saying "no".
Exactly. Simple logic isn't DOGMA
When a person or group actively ostracize or persecute those who question their assumptions (or beliefs), that's one of the clearest signs that they have become dogmatic.
Academic scientists should celebrate those who ask valid questions that challenge the truthfulness of their theories. Rather than ostracize such persons, they should instead be working hard to answer those challenging questions, or be prepared to admit that there is the possibility that they may be wrong.
It should be this simple:
Scientists come up with a theory . . . Valid questions that challenge the theory are asked . . . They (scientists) either satisfactorily answer those questions or admit the possibility that their theory may be wrong.
But instead what we see is:
Scientists come up with a theory . . . They reach a consensus accepting this theory as fact . . . Valid questions that challenge the theory are asked . . . They refuse to answer those questions, and instead go on a smear campaign to discredit and ostracize whoever dared to question their theories.
Does that not sound very much like what a dogmatic cult would do ??
@@kaluidika5534 I don't know where you got the fact that scientists don't answer questions. If you ask a question to any scientist they will try to answer. Instead, if you don't really want to ask questions but only want to defend your ideas (like flat-earthers) you probably won't change your opinion even if proven otherwise, so most scientists just don't want to use their time answering.
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.
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?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
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.
Lol … you’re a “STEM graduate”? Do you mean you have a degree in science, technology, engineering, or math? It’s not a single degree. And which class was it in particular? Anyone who has a degree in any of these disciplines knows that the instructors don’t sit students down on their first day and say, “so, first lesson: never take a fact at face value”, and then everyone says “ohh”, as if that’s the kind of training they paid for. Each class is highly specialized to an specific aspect to a given discipline. Not to mention that university programs teach little true critical thinking, certainly not on the first year. You’re clearly in middle/high school, or you’re someone who aspires to be in this type of program. I hope the best for your future.
@@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.
I'd like to see examples for each time he says "in fact there's a great deal of evidence" or similar phrases.
He can't. Its a powerful figure of speech.
its completeb bs. There are no examples.
Right??? Imagine claiming that animals possess a collective unconcious and citing literally no sources.
Like anyone he certainly has some really questionable ideas himself. Just don't assume that all of his ideas are wrong. He did present an argument and some statistics that according to him exist and were talked about. (And I have heard similar things from other people.)
He talked about his evidence when he went on the Joe Rogan podcast a while back.
What it boils down to is “don’t stop questioning the universe”. We know enough now to know that we don’t know anything.
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
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 like his point that the speed of light being subjectively defined as a constant is a bit silly thing to do and that what we think of as constants might be changing. I don't really like his point about telepathy, but I'm all for discussing things like this. I'm not upset that he holds that position, and I definitely don't think he should be sensored.
I can certainly understand how annoying it would be to not be able to trust certain constants. It's hard to make progress if you have to keep going back and checking. If the final experiment is a success, maybe you can assume everything was close enough.
The speed of light wasn't subjectively defined as constant, it is the result of a set of 4 equations that govern electromagnetism (light is an electromagnetic wave), the Gauss equations if I remember correctly, and it has also been observed to be constant through many experiments, that were done before the theory of relativity was conceived, which were actually trying to observe a difference in the speed of light in different moments of the Earth's orbit, since they thought that the result of the equations was referring to a particular reference system, rather than being the same in all of them as we understand now
The speed of light is not subjectively defined, space and time LITERALLY CHANGE at relativistic speeds. This is a testable phenomena.
*//"and I definitely don't think he should be sensored."//*
There's a difference between being Unplatformed/Deplatformed and being Censored. No platform is Obligated to go beyond what is agreed to, including in Fine-Print.
Sheldrake wasn't *Owed* some kind of right that was stripped from him in that scenario.
And nobody was *Required* to host (or Continue Hosting) his talk about whatever wild, speculative, metaphysical and/or supernatural mumbo-jumbo of pseudoscience (pardon me, I mean "parapsychology") and treat it like it is somehow magically weighted & supported just as much as the other well-evidenced facts & findings being hosted (despite it being completely Unfalsifiable [So, ya know, utterly NON-Scientific]).
If the gravitational constant was off by even a tiny margin, no life would be able to exist in the universe. If these constants fluctuated by as much as he implies, we wouldn't be here. Quite the contradicting worldview he has.
I used to agree with this, until I went to school to be a lab technician. The Null Hypothesis is the most recent best explanation for a thing. It's not questioned until there's reason to question it. The speed of light is constant in a vacuume. As scientists make new discoveries, and make advancements in technology, they discover new things that sometimes challenge the null hypothesis giving reason to test it. Scientific laws are described laws, not prescribed laws. They are laws because we've never observed them to change. It would be exciting and interesting for a scientific law to be found wrong. It would be scrutinized and tested. That's the opposite of dogma.
Our ability to measure things accurately changes, meaning that the approximation of contestants changes with the technology. The speed of light didn't change. Our measuring devices changed. It wasn't wrong before, just not as accurate as it is now. Does anyone else notice that every single example in this video was a scientific observation that was later debunked by another scientific observation?
"The speed of light didn't change. Our measuring devices changed." How do you know this?
@@grahamstull2330 training for medical lab tech. Well... And it's obvious isn't it? Technology has improved to where we can make cartoons using individually animated atoms. I'm not a mathematician or a physicist, so I am not qualified to "prove it", but I am scientifically literate enough to understand it after having 9+ years of lab training. Carbon nanotubes can be laid out in a sheet to create the thinnest membrane possible to gauge the light that filters through. CERN labs can measure the gravity of two black holes colliding from billions of light years away. Nutrinos can be measured from a supernova. We know that light remains constant in a vacuume, but gravity can bend light and it doesn't affect it's speed. And these tests all individually and accurately confirm the mathematical equation E=mc².
Right! You became scientifically literate, and now you see why this kind of presentation is disingenuous, fallacious bullshit lol not because people shouldn't ask questions, but because his ideas are presented without any actual understanding of the science he is refuting. It promotes scientific illiteracy.
@@grahamstull2330What do you mean how do you know this? It’s taught in school, we evaluate it ourselves. When I calculated the speed of light I didn’t get a value to the eighth digit, I only got 2.98, 2.76, 2.88, etc. And then took an average to get about 2.80, that’s not the actual speed of light, but the accepted value was taken with very accurate machines. I was using the equivalent of two mirrors
@@nodefiance9178 there was a fun video on Veritasium I believe that we measure speed of light, but we always measure it back and forth or in some circle and can't be sure that it's not actually directional. Light can be slower in one direction and faster in the other, but our current measurement techniques wouldn't allow us to detect that.
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.
@@cineminds7903 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.
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.
Questioning our scientific understanding is perfectly healthy but there is a fine line between questioning normally and questioning too much to the point where we have no common ground to understand new ideas
Realizing each individual has uncommon ground via differences is what science without dogmas focuses on to find patterns if & when they emerge.
I've run into plenty of scientists that never question what they've been told. That's not science. That's ignorance.
Questioning science is perfectly fine, necessary even. But it's very important that you fully understand the science that you're questioning. Disregarding answers without understanding how we arrived at them is one of the key components of conspiratorial thinking in my opinion.
And yes, people have to believe in science, as much as they have to believe in any institution. When you go to the DMV you don't ask yourself "But are they _really_ going to renew my license?", because the wast majority of the time they have your interests at heart. There are exceptions, of course.
Well the speaker has a phd in biochemistry so I'd bet he knows the science. Therefore as you said its good that people question dogmas.
@@waffle.23 I didn't get the impression that he was saying these things in bad faith, but a lot of people use this line of reasoning to spread their stupidity, or even worse, exploit the gullible. This is why TED unlisted his talk.
there are tons of bogus PhDs, being a scientist does not make you a smart person. plus he is attacking the claims of physics, which is seemingly well outside his area of expertise @@waffle.23
@@milandavid7223Or it's just that his points actually do have some merit but it's just that people like you always dismiss them as "bad faith" all because there are some legitimate questions to be had
@@PeruvianPotato Yes, his points have merit, but unless the things he's talking about can be repeatedly and unambigously demonstrated it's neither here nor there as far as the scientific method is concerned. Maybe one day we will have the tools to investigate consciousness but until then this is all just speculation.
*"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.
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.
Honestly I think that anyone who took the time to categorically measure their real world life experiences would find that modern scientific theory (not scientific method of deduction) is quite solidly flawed. Dogma is interpreted as confidence and certainty by anyone looking on until the general consensus becomes quite literally hostile to those who would seek to apply actual scientific method towards "established/known" variables and constants. A solid rule of thumb to analyze people's faith in their own ideals is "banks don't mind audits when the books are in order"; meaning that anyone in a position to know will only feel threatened if they're aware that something is likely amiss.
this is highly highly interesting to me and something i've often talked about and i can't believe it took me so long to find someone talking about it to a larger audience 😮
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.
"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.
Your content and the efforts you put in is amazing!!👏
An absolute pleasure to listen to. Thankfully there are scientists with open minds and the possibility of making discoveries that will benefit thinning, feeling and conscious human beings. Thank you Rupert you do your profession and all of us a great favour.
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.
Name one such assumption
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.
@@urumomaos2478 Science does not make any moral claims. So if scientists did make a moral claim it must have been unrelated to their profession. Science can minimize something deemed harmful but the idea of harm being bad is outside science
@@NotBot0251 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.
"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
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?
Even within my own family, my openness to new ideas has been frowned upon. I enjoyed this talk, especially as progress?, is proving this person's ideas to be true. Thanks for this joyful experience
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?
i remember loving this particular ted talks episode back then .. its still great
Thank you Rupert for being who you are … and sharing … it is good to know there are people with the capacity and interest in independent enquiry … and shame on TED Talks for suppressing independent enquiry …
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.
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.
I think this needs to be something we talk about more regularly, because the more I think about it, the more I realize that even today we are still doing this same stuff, and we continue to build on data that we believe is constant, until someone ends up asking questions and uproots it. I think that there’s a big problem with the vacuum of science as well. We feel as though we h a v e to explain everything and sometimes that creates a void that needs to be filled. It’s not bad to question and learn, it’s just when you start to play mad libs with science and history, and scattering data to prove a point - we get stuck in a cycle we can’t get out of. That’s really scary….
This is nonsense. Everything he calls "Dogma" is the result of this bullshit being completely unverifiable
@@thatonekerbal i mean i would argue that is the whole point. you yourself have stated that its "completely unverifiable", but if that is the case, if we truly can not verify if it is accurate information, then why is it considered to be based in truth? one of the dogmas he talks about is "matter is unconscious". you are absolutely correct, this is unverifiable information. so why do we see it as a fact of reality, and when someone says matter is conscious we tell them they are wrong. this mans entire point is we base science on unverifiable building blocks, and you yourself agreed, our basis of science is "completely unverifiable". can you actually please explain to me how it is "nonsense" and "bullshit", when you agreed it is correct. you can not verify that information, please explain why you believe it is true then
@@fluffyminecraftpigs How can matter be conscious. Tht doesn't even make any sense....oh no I'm stepping on my floor and karate kicking the air. Poor matter!
That is exactly why science is not dogmatic.
Science is not an absolute truth, and is treated with a level of uncertainty.
Theories backed by substantiative evidence create confidence in the science.
These theories are always open to being disproven.
@@zerog1037 i think consciousness is too strictly defined. we know so little of the human mind, who are we to say that stars or even galaxies are not conscious. i personally think the point of this ted talk is to open people up to the idea of considering certain ideas, instead of pushing them away by making silly comments of karate kicking the air😅nothing should be set in stone, that is the key essence of science. everything should be constantly questioned as this is how you make new discoveries
Crazy that the speed of light changed coincidentally with the evolution of better tools to measure it more accurately, cause it's so easy to measure perfectly accurately ya know
My thoughts exactly.
Yeah but he explained that measurements around the world were lining up during that drop off phase, inaccurate measurements doesn't explain this.
@@Gabe7Gal obviously because everyone was literally using the same tech and methodology that was widely accepted at that particular time? if say, we are both measuring a temperature of a certain object using a mercury thermometer in the 1920s, regardless of what brand of mercury thermometer we are using, as long as both brands are manufactured with cutting edge tech at the time, the accuracy of the temp reading we will obtain will always be limited by the expansion of the mercury inside the thermometers due to transfer of thermal energy from the said object we were measuring
@jaredoperana1842 well now you're saying the equipment and methodology was faulty not lacking accuracy
@@1upads if we compare them to future experiments, then yes, we can consider them faulty in a sense that they were limited. A quick research on the history of measuring the speed of light will show you that improvements were made BY employing very different methods of measurement, mainly due to technological advances. I mean, it's not like we are using the same method used in 1880 but suddenly we are getting different results.
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.
“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 .
Coming back to this video after some of the results of research in and of the mind/consciousness regarding dogma #8 is an interesting point we all should definitely be talking more about.
I get why it was banned, i still appreciate the gist of it. We should have an openminded yet rational approach towards everything. It is what science is after all
"I get why it was banned" so you get that the powers that be are trying to indoctrinate people by controlling speech and therefore thought?
There was no reason to ban it.
"The problem with science is science follows the money." ~Russell Brand
Jeffy Eppy
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)
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
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 🙌🏼
Babes. We have pretty solid data showing the mechanisms by which embryos distinguish body parts, like chemical gradients. That's introductory genetics. Additionally, there's evidence to assert that the gravitational constant G IS changing, albeit incredibly slowly, as the universe continues to expand, which is consistent with our geometric understanding of how gravity works. I've seen these experiments replicated, and find it hard to seriously attend to the idea that a "belief system" as science is so frequently be called could seriously possess the mechanism and actively encourages its own direct testing and frequent revision.
Chemical gradients is NOT an enough explanation to distuinguished body parts, as even in ideal conditions, development can still be made possible.
Heck, if you would argue on that lines, there are pregnant rats that still bore normal young in Zero Gravity, when chemicals are more equally distributed , and concluding either something else, or a combination of factors, some of which not yet known, to explain differentiation.
Also, the change in 'G' in gravity isn't as constant as you think, as it changes independently to the rate of universe expansion, hence why Dark Matter (which is STILL unproven BTW) was invented to explain it.
Then again, Quantum Mechanics breaks apart ALL of the known ways to acquire scientific knowledge as we know it, as all we have are numbers and data, and we have to interpret all that, which precludes everything to a bias.
@@skybattler2624Thank you! There's a reason this was dismissed as pseudoscience. He's not saying anything new, he just wants to profit with it
Did you just call him "babes?" Freak
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!
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.
The error bounds given are percentile confidence intervals, and how we measure leads to different biases in our conclusions. If a popular measurement approach tends to have a particular bias, we would find the average approach leads to conclusions above or below the actual value.
It’s unfortunate this was banned from TT , although very fortunate it is here now.
It makes sense. Very eloquently spoken. Thank you.
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.
@@lilmissjoodypoodyit’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”
"Morphogenic field theory" is BS. It's basically Shamanism Bullshit that is clearly nonsense
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.
"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
Remember that time you questioned the foundations of reality?
That was awesome.
“We feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talk which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.”
That’s rich coming from TED
my sentiment exactly ... thinking of the psychological talks that have been totally discredited (wonder of those were every removed?)
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 CZcams rather quickly...
“The PBS of CZcams”
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 --> czcams.com/video/oHg5SJYRHA0/video.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.
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.
It's very interesting and certainly worthwhile to ask the questions. It is another thing entirely to do what Sheldrake did and pose the questions without posing reproducible evidence to justify questioning things that are regarded as scientific laws. Science relies on reproducible experimental observation. He didn't talk about any.
"Science relies on reproducible experimental observation" and also predictability. These 2 tenets of science can't be applied on many facts: Big Bang, black holes, origin of lifeforms, weather, behavior, psychology, etc, etc, etc. Desperate materialists even rely only (!) on falsifiability...
@@edus9636yes they can. You just don't see how, demonstrating your scientific illiteracy plainly. Do some research, and try again.
@@CovenoftheOpenMind Oh, they just don't see how to reproduce the Big Bang? Or to forecast 100% the weather of next week or month? And I'm illiterate? Lol
Evidence is not needed to justify questioning things. Science questions things without evidence regularly, if it's actual science and not state propaganda. The evidence is revealed after the questioning takes place.
@@CovenoftheOpenMind reproduce the big bang then genius 😅
“Science is the faith that the present will behave like the past”
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.
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
"Change is the only constant."
The ancient adage "As above, so below. As within, so without." continues to be validated over and over.
💯💯💯💯
The opening of the talk is interesting and raises what I believe to be a real topic that is worthy of discussion regarding the religious/fanatical approach some people take to science. It can also be tied to how the current publication and magazine system makes it difficult to discuss certain topics openly, creating a censorship of sorts (ie. this topic or idea isn't in vogue so nobody wants to publish it).
Unfortunately, it then moves on to drop a load of bull.
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
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
Part of adulthood is understanding you’re paid to be a specialist. I can’t possible know everything so to a certain extent I do need to believe other professionals in other fields. Academic circles aren’t above corruption but if I need to take anyone on their word, it’s going to be researchers to dedicate their entire life to the study of a particular subject.
this is exactly why academics end up believing the craziest stuff any normal person would scoff at
when everyone is hyper-specialized, the holistic wisdom normal people take for granted is outsourced to the bureaucratic system
the bureaucratic system has no wisdom
imagine trying to pick up a glass of water when a separate specialist controls every finger independently
now imagine the same but rather than direct control of the finger, instructions must go through a peer review process before being acted on
The sense of feeling being looked from behind us has been disproven with experiments recently, conversely to what you say in this talk
This is a perfect example of "just because someone got a book published, that doesn't mean they're an expert in anything".
The most deceptive part is that he does nail some things right on the head, and then takes that and runs off with it like he owes someone money, spinning off into the realm of pseudoscience...
@@edim108exactly what I thought. The questions he's asking aren't bad on their own, there definitely are many things in science that are assumed to be true even though we probably haven't provided the burden of evidence for them yet. But his alternative hypotheses have no supporting evidence at all, and yet he feels people should dogmatically accept them as better alternatives to our current theories. I can only hope he is blind to his hypocrisy, because to be this intentionally misleading would be very upsetting
@@edim108Idk you should maybe read some Einstein.
The ironic part is that there are already plenty of scientific works questioning all of those "dogmas": in particular, there are plenty of evidences that statements 6, 7, 8 and 10 may be inaccurate or incomplete. However, that is A LOT different than saying their opposite is true...
For example, even saying that mechanistic medicine is not the only kind that works still does not disprove that it is still your best shot (pun intended) at getting better; you would also need a very accurate definition of "mechanistic medicine" and "work"
@@Beregorn88 Well that’s because you take the fundamental assumptions to be correct. For example. The one way speed of light is unknown and we only have the two way speed of light. But entire theories and conventions are built on these unproven concepts and there are many things these theories fail to explain and effectively what this person is saying is that maybe we should go back to the basics for a bit because we are quite short of the mark
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 am one such person that unquestionably believed that science was my guiding principle and all else I could explain away. Now, of course, for at least the last few years, I have been revaluating that belief, which I feel was naive ignorance on my part. Have a clear, unbiased look at all things you can see and start exploring what you're seeing. That's where I am as I write this. I feel I don't physically need any proof to question science anymore. The journey continues down the rabbit hole and where it may lead, who knows.. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading, this is important. 💟🌌☮️
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
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. CZcams 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 CZcams 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.
That may be the single best talk I've ever heard.
Thank you after skool. You have my trust, and that's alot to say in this world of media. Please take care of this great chanel, you are waking alot of people up. Dont let it fall in the wrong hands
Lol 😂
This comment explains why people believe that humankind never got to land on the moon
@@franzj4040the comment doesn't need to say anything because you have already committed the sin the video is talking about, trusting blindly in something. I could say your comment "this comment explains why people believe that humankind never got to land on the moon" back to you and it would also apply to you, possibly even better. Trusting in alternate media blindly as the wider population does about normal media is not a good thing.
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.
He brings up some valid points. Maybe the laws of physics are prone to change too. Maybe the total amount of mass and matter was different at some point. And it's possible to feel pain even when it's not physical, so some forms of therapy could help with that. As for the argument about consciousness, I'll leave that as an exercise for the philosophy majors.
But I can see why it got taken down. Believing in psychic phenomena when it has never been observed in any laboratory is going too far in the opposite direction.
I think he argued quite well that of course it wouldn’t be observed in a laboratory because the nature of laboratory experiments have been predicated on the dogmas that he listed. You cannot test something if you don’t even consider it questionable.
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.
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.
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.
This video is a great example: Just because someone got a degree or even a phd in something, he does not necessarily understand his field. The amount of pseudoscience in this video is amazing.
I find more amazing the comments praising it while thinking themselves as so smart and open minded.
Infinitely depressing idiotic irony.
@@enekaitzteixeira7010 so true
Talking to metrologists about gravitational constant was either negligence or malpractice on his side. They're called metrology _engineers_ for a reason. They don't really deal with theories or question them. They implement theories already proven to work at some level of abstraction.
And I've never seen a scientist saying that telepathy is impossible. Just that they've not verifiably witnessed such event yet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge No claimed telepath has ever demonstrated their skill to win a million dollars.
The fact that one group of people is dogmatic doesn't mean that their opponents aren't also equally dogmatic.
Hey Eugene, why don't you do one of your videos debunking Sheldrake's nonsense? Proper scientists shouldn't allow this sort of garbage to go unchallenged.
@@Andre_XX iIt was banned from TED 🙃
@@aum82 With good reason.
@@Andre_XX That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. [Christoper Hitchens]
@@MartinKuras Yes, good one!
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.ra_nah 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.
Feeling the gaze even when you can’t see, someone isn’t really a really good sign of that it’s not happening in our minds. The reason why I would say that is because the subconscious is picking up on so much more information than we can know about with our conscious mind. For example, small pressure changes can alert us to possibilities. And the mind the subconscious mind may combine many of these very small parentheses, at least to the conscious mind parentheses metrics, and combine them to tell basically exactly what something is. And like you said, this specific thing evolved to be very precise. I know someone is looking at me from behind and I’ve used information from who knows what things that you can sense through your many abilities to sense things, again even though your conscious mind doesn’t really ever interact with these senses.
Overall though, I don’t see why this was censored, these are all extremely common things to talk about. Popular science, like Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about stuff like this that goes against the grain of all the really rigid stuff happening in science. Plus, I mean, of course ideas from Terence, McKenna and everything conflict with science, that’s not surprising.
But again, yeah, these issues are very much present in science. It was some thing I noticed right away, and just kind of became more familiar with it and then I ended up not really being too surprised by it because you know science is sort of a very pure feeling thing, but who are the people who carry out all the stuff you know they're people they’re people with jobs they’re people with expectations. They’re people manipulated by social politics and all that stuff so a lot of this crap happens and like the main idea in this talk, dogma. cheers.
This is incredibly interesting. Thank you for sharing!
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.
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.
I dont entirely agree with him but he raises an excellent point as a scientist... relying on laws is a shortcut and laws are merely observed as they describe the world and are unable to define it. Every analysis should acknowledge the reliance on such dogma and then address the extent that dogmas may affect conclusions
Scientists ain't got time to prove every little thing every time they need to run an experiment, they'd never get anywhere. It's not like laws are random guesses, they're well established, reliable and predictable. Your phone works doesn't it? Your car, your computer? Reliably? All based on laws, aka shortcuts. They don't just launch satellites into orbit and hope for the best. That tells me big G is a pretty damn accurate shortcut.
Materialistic thinking is a habit. It can be hard sometimes to admit to yourself that what you cherish is actually nothing but a habit.
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.
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.
I think these are meaningful questions. I'm studying math right now and in the late 1800s math was completely reevaluated like they way the speaker described. Mathematicians looked at assumptions that we have taken for granted for millenia and realized that if one were to prove for instance that "a number could be both positive and negative" at the same time, then it would uproot everything we know about math and force us back into a mathematical stone age. Luckily, they went step by step and questioned every single assumption and they were later proved or were made to be axioms, meaning that they were so base level that they were self evident.
That being said, I think you need to have a background in the questions you are asking or be knowledgeable enough on it to ask meaningful questions.
I think there are many mysteries associated with the behaviour of animals. They have senses, often far more acute than ours. They may have senses we are entirely unaware of.