This caught my eye a few days ago regarding TED's treatment of the ideas and concepts shared by Rupert S
It's pretty straight forward - TED eventually censored the talk and as later called out for it.

Here is a quick link that talks about it.
You can find others as well.

http://www.disinfo.com/2013/03/ted-back ... ensorship/

TED talks rock. But this behavior of theirs is inexcusable.
And their defense of their actions was weak.

I watch TED videos all the time and get a lot from them. If they chose not to 'back' someone, not to share the TED name with them, not to promote them, not to attach themselves to them, not to put their brand seal of approval on their ideas and their thoughts, then that's their business. The way I see it, freedom of speech is freedom of speech protected by the government but does not mean anyone is forced to approve or stand in defense of every single idea out there... By backing something that TED considers unworthy of support is like consumer reports giving everything the same rating... By not limiting who talks at TED conferences it will have a major impact on the respectability and trust people have for TED. This is disastrous for TED but a win for a$$holes everywhere. Why don't these people create their own version of TED? Why do they need to infest TED and attempt to bring it down? If their talks are so worthy then they can stand on their own and don't need TED's backing. This is retarded. TED isn't all powerful. These people, if turned away by TED, need to make their own separate institution to gain support. This is an injustice but not by TED.

Some people may wonder that I'm being contradictory. That arguing against Stahrwe's banning/suspension doesn't accord with the thoughts I have above. This is because this is an online community where thoughts are presented in a 'free market' atmosphere and if someone's ideas are not agreed with, then their free not to comment and to move on... of course I have my limits as well regarding spamming and trolling that may be more liberal than others and less than others... doesn't mean I'm right. It's just my opinion. With TED, though, it's a different dynamic altogether. That entity is meant to enlighten and teach. What people expect from them is to learn. Whatever TED decides to endorse, if it's garbage, people will see that and TED will lose the identity it has and become not only morally corrupt but will corrupt the people who trust this brand.

I watched Rupert Sheldrake's talk, and TED was right to not back it.

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-deba ... akes-talk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

I recommend watching his talk and checking his wiki page.

Rupert Sheldrake can make his talk anywhere he likes. That is his right. Whether people will bother to listen to him, or take him seriously is our right. TED is not obliged to keep his talk on their site. They are not obliged to endorse him. They are not obliged to let him use their name.

Refusing to endorse Sheldrake's talk is not the same as suppressing his freedom.

Haven't seen Sheldrake's talk yet, but based on his article in The Huffington Post, it seems the gist of his argument is that "bad" science—motivated by reasons other than to find the truth—can be as arrogant and dogmatic as science.

"Bad religion is arrogant, self-righteous, dogmatic and intolerant. And so is bad science. But unlike religious fundamentalists, scientific fundamentalists do not realize that their opinions are based on faith. They think they know the truth. They believe that science has already solved the fundamental questions. The details still need working out, but in principle the answers are known."

Sheldrake's general thesis seems rather straightforward. Arrogance is a quality that doesn't belong in science. But Sheldrake's main beef seems to be that materialists presume material explanations for the world.

"Despite the brilliant technical achievements of neuroscience, like brain scanning, there is still no proof that consciousness is merely brain activity," Sheldrake writes.

But as we study and research the nature of consciousness, we do have to make certain presumptions in order to ask questions and pose hypotheses to guide our research. Based on the workings of science, the materialist assumption is the only rational assumption, right? Isn't science a strictly materialist enterprise?

When we reach untestable hypotheses such as string theory Sheldrake says that we should stop assuming that everything can be explained in terms of physics. But he's not clear how we should do that? Does he think we should just give up? How do we form a hypothesis based on supernatural assumptions? How do you do research for that? Sheldrake doesn't say.

In that respect, the article is rather empty and insubstantial. More importantly, it seems driven by an ideology of its own. In the end, the controversy over TED has given Sheldrake much more attention than he really deserves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rupert ... 00597.html

Interesting indeed. No, constitutional freedom of speech isn't involved here. What appears to be involved is TED's process of "curating" the talks that occur at the independently organized events. Only a small percentage of the talks given end up on the internet, apparently. At the DC event there must have been over 30 talks, and fewer than half are available to be viewed. Some simply aren't outstanding, as you would expect to be the case. If Sheldrake's talk hadn't first been given the green light, no one would have known the difference. TED walks a tricky line, wanting the talks that it endorses to be provocative, but in a way that doesn't veer over to the flaky or the scientifically questionable.

geo wrote:the materialist assumption is the most rational

This is the nub of geo's post. Materialism, as an inexorable logic of science, is the stumbling block that defeats all irrational ideas. Due to my interest in new age mysticism, I have been aware of Rupert Sheldrake for some years. However, I am a materialist. Everything is reducible to matter. When writers like Sheldrake argue for an irreducible complexity, a magical supernatural spirituality, they are talking crap. Are your ideas compatible with scientific knowledge of matter? If yes, consider them further. If no, reject them.

LOL. This blogger says Sheldrake gives Deepak Chopra a run for the title of World’s Biggest Woomeister.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -dropping/

Now I've watched the talk. It doesn't seem to me to be a good TED talk even if it has merits that I might not be able to judge well, as I'm not competent in science. I haven't watched hundreds of these talks, but I can't recall one that lambastes a whole field of endeavor as Sheldrake does here. Would a talk about the dogmas of religion have even been accepted at a TED event? I don't think so. TED seems to be more about inclusiveness and avoiding social controversy that divides people. Also, the topics seem to be more focused than Sheldrake's is, so that the speaker has a reasonable chance of supporting any claims in his 18 minutes. I think TED should have left the talk alone, though, once it was already up.

At the MidAtlantic conference, there was a wide variety of speakers, including two from the military. There wasn't an ideological flavor to the event, which I really appreciated. I would have sensed a sour note creeping in if Sheldrake had spoken.

By the way, was Sheldrake barefoot in the video?

It seems to me they should just be more careful about who they allow to give Ted talks. Sheldrake, really? Who is surprised he went to woo town? However, there is also the issue of factual errors.. If someone is giving a talk filled with nonsense, should Ted refuse to support it? Hmm. I don't have the holy respect for free speech that a lot of Americans do. If someone builds an argument on the basis of lies and twisted truths, why should they be supported? So I think I'm with Johnson and Dwill here.

for me freedom of speach is all about "the government can't prevent people from saying what they want"

But that doesn't mean anybody at all is obliged to hear nonsense and keep silent. Or tacitly endorse nonsense by hosting it on their website.