Ted Talks censored a talk on DMT/Psychedelics

[Bancopuma]

This is silly, but if anything it getting banned by TED will get it more attention and get it seen more than if it hadn't, no such thing as bad publicity as some say.

 

[DeDao]

glad we can still access it. thanks for sharing

 

[John Smith]

"(1) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “…he misrepresents what scientists actually think. He suggests, for example, that no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness.”

I would like TED to identify where exactly in my talk they believe I say that “no scientists are working on the problem of consciousness”? Also in what other specific ways does TED believe I misrepresent what scientists actually think?

(2) TED says of my presentation: “He states as fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an “emergence into consciousness,” and that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture.”

I would like TED to identify where exactly in my talk they believe I state as a fact that psychotropic drug use is essential for an emergence into consciousness. I would also like TED to identify where exactly in my talk I state that one can use psychotropic plants to connect directly with an ancient mother culture.

(3) TED states that there are many inaccuracies in my presentation which display a disrespect both for my audience and for my arguments.

I would like TED to indentify where exactly in my talk these alleged “many inaccuracies” occur.

TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “He offers a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs), which just doesn’t hold up.”

...

I've been following that conversation between Graham and Chris Anderson, who is TED curator. His replies remind me that of a skilled politician when being asked questions they don't wanna answer by journalists.

His answer to Graham, which is quoted above:

Graham, greetings, and thanks for engaging here personally. We’ll try to get you some more detailed comments early next week. I’m currently tied up at National Geographic in DC helping launch the TEDxDeExtinction event (which, by the way, is an indication that we have no problem with radical scientific ideas per se.)

I understand why you’re upset at the talk being pulled off Youtube, but we’re quite serious in saying we’re not censoring you. The talk will live here as long it takes for this conversation to work itself out, and perhaps indefinitely. I must say, you’re a compelling speaker and I personally enjoyed the talk quite a bit. I can understand why you and your books have attracted a huge following.

It would help your cause to let this whole discussion calm down a little. You seem to have whipped your supporters up into a bit of a frenzy. There’s no conspiracy out to get you. We just have certain guidelines for our TEDx events that weren’t fully implemented in this instance, and it’s OK to have a public discussion about that.

So here’s a suggestion. While I reach out and see if any of our advisors is able to go into more depth in answering your specific questions, perhaps you could help me understand why your work is widely characterized as pseudo-archeology, as in the current version of this wikipedia page.

Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is that a distorted description of your views? Is mainstream archaeology simply misguided? Or is there some other explanation?

Do you agree that we should have *some* form of guidelines for our TEDx organizers as to what constitutes credible science, or do you think our approach should be let anyone put anything they want out there and just let the public decide?

I’m signing off now till Monday, but truly I would value your and your supporters’ help in turning this into a more constructive discussion.

Thanks, Graham.

None of the GH's queries were adressed. This whole idea of a Board of Scientists and their guidelines doesn't seem plausible. TED talks is not just about compilation of peer-reviewed studies. There are plenty of talks on sociology, poetry, art... "Ideas worth spreading". One of most popular TED videos is a recount of a mystical experience of having a stroke.

Chris, your reply is very strange and does no credit to you in your role at the Curator of the TED Conference or to TED as a whole.

Quite simply the issue is this: TED has defamed me by making a number of accusations against me in this public forum on the TED website – accusations that are highly damaging to my reputation as an author and public speaker. I have asked you to substantiate those allegations which surely should be a matter of the highest priority to you if you have a genuine commitment to science and to truth. Yet instead of doing so you dodge my reasonable request for substantiation by telling me you are attending an event in DC, posing a number of irrelevant questions to me, making a reference to Wikipedia, and asking those you see as my “supporters” to “calm down a little.” This is all sleight of hand. All that is required of you here on the public record is simply to substantiate the grave allegations that TED has made against me in the introductory remarks to this page of the TED blog, or, if you cannot substantiate those allegations then retract them and apologize. Your present tactic allows the allegations to remain in the prominent opening statements to this blog page while you “reach out to see” if any of your advisers are “able to go into more depth” in answering my specific questions and while you yourself “sign off” until Monday.

...

(4) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “He offers a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs), which just doesn’t hold up.”

Again I would like TED to identify the point in my talk where I state this. Do I not rather say (between 1 min 06 seconds 1 min 54 seconds) that some scientists in the last thirty years have raised an intriguing possibility — emphasis on POSSIBILITY — which is that the exploration of altered states of consciousness, in which psychedelic plants have been implicated, was fundamental to the emergence into fully symbolic consciousness witnessed by the great cave art? I can cite a wide range of respectable peer-reviewed scientists who have suggested this possibility and I do not see how reporting their work, which I have every right to do, can be construed as offering “a one-note explanation for how culture arises (drugs).” Besides is every talk that touches on the origins of culture obliged to consider all possible factors that might be involved in the origins of culture? How could any speaker be expected to do that in one 18-minute talk?

(5) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “… it’s no surprise his work has often been characterized as pseudo-archeology.”

Of what possible relevance is this remark? Many different people have characterised my work in many different ways but at issue here is not what people have said about my work over the years but the actual content of this specific TEDx presentation.

So there are the damaging and defamatory allegations TED has made against me in its website, and here again is my request that you either substantiate these allegations forthwith, or withdraw them and apologize to me prominently and publicly, allowing no further time to elapse to worsen the harm and damage you have already done.

Signed Graham Hancock, 15 March 2013, at 09:50 GMT

Their reaction to the fact that there over 750 comments(and growing rapidly) and vast majority of them are outraged over this decision:

...

Right now this comment section is over-run by the hordes of supporters sent our way by Graham Hancock

...

Chris, unless I’ve missed something no-one at TED, including yourself, has replied yet to my two posts posing four questions asking TED to substantiate the allegations you have made publicly against my presentations. Answer these questions, with reference to my statements within my presentation and referring us with minutes and seconds to the exact points in my talk that you feel justify your defamatory allegations against me. You are receiving a lot of criticism here and it is patronising and shameful of you to try to write that off as “this comments section is over-run by hordes of supporters sent our way by Graham Hancock.” My “supporters” are small in numbers by comparison with the millions who log on to the TED website, but their comments deserve to be taken as seriously not dismissed in this high-handed way. You want posters to read criticisms of my work but I still await your reply to the four questions I have posed in my two original comments here. Surely, if you have a leg to stand on, then those four questions offer you an excellent opportunity to present criticisms of my work?

Chris Anderson doesn't to come off as person he is advertised to be here:

Chris Anderson

After a long career in journalism and publishing, Chris Anderson became the curator of the TED Conference in 2002 and has developed it as a platform for identifying and disseminating ideas worth spreading.

www.ted.com

 

[universecannon]

one of the big reasons- if not the reason- the videos got taken down in the first place is because these two militant atheist materialist bloggers complained and tried to convince some atheist members of Ted to remove them because they were so "offended" by the talks and saying it would trash Teds name forever, lol. i forget the names, its mentioned in the comments

 

[Baby Bonnie Hood]

By banning it they are making it more interesting

 

[Botanical Bliss]

I liked the talk. People don't like what they don't understand... I guess Ted and his people don't understand or don't want to understand what Graham is discussing

 

[ymer]

I liked the talk. People don't like what they don't understand... I guess Ted and his people don't understand or don't want to understand what Graham is discussing

Not quite, they are afraid that their notions of the universe and how everything is work and what they believe is wrong, their ego is protecting itself.

 

[universecannon]

[YOUTUBE]

another banned ted talk

very weird stuff. especially after seeing Robert Wadlow - Wikipedia

 

[universecannon]

[YOUTUBE]

another banned one...this ones really hilarious

 

[cyb]

^^^ A vid about 'Honest Communication'...and TED couldn't handle it !...

(Dripping with Irony)...

 

[SpiceMind]

The comments on the page are now nearing one thousand.. The only reply from TED and Chris Anderson have been childish and naive and will not awnser to Graham Hancocks simple questions, to point out in the video where these accusations have come from. I'm very dissapointed in TED but its good also that some light has been shed on these guys so we can see how they really work. Love all the speakers..not so much the TED part.

Btw I met Graham in Aus last year and he really doesn't deserve this from them. He is genuine and is just trying to help and spread some information. Not misinformation. He is smarter than that. He could of really went off the radar with the talk but out of respect just kept it about a personal journey and plea to start researching conciousness..:surprised

 

[brokin]

That's really disrespectful, you call a guest speaker, he agrees and gives his time to TED than you just ban the speech...

 

[obliguhl]

TED has retracted their statement and is open for a renewed dialogue see Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake, a fresh take | TED Blog

Let's see what that brings.

 

[hug46]

[YOUTUBE]

another banned ted talk

very weird stuff. especially after seeing Robert Wadlow - Wikipedia

^^^I liked that talk. Here is a link for change.org petitioning for Sheldrake, including his rebuttal. If you havent already seen it

Sign the Petition

TED: Stop the censoring of the Rupert Sheldrake TEDx Talks video.

www.change.org

and Hancock

Sign the Petition

TED: Stop the censoring of the Graham Hancock TEDx Talks video.

www.change.org

 

[Michal_R]

It is not only shameful but truly embarrassing (and therefore kind of funny at the same time) when "politics" masks itself as "science", yet unable to engage in simple rational dialogue. It is very unprofessional and "unscientific" not to substantiate one´s serious allegation against another person´s claims.

Not only is TED an embarrassing caricature of "science", it does its "politics" very badly.

I´m not interested in following TED´s political agenda anymore.

 

[d-T-r]

Glad it happened as i'm hoping there will now be a proper re-examination of why people are so quick to jump on the 'psudeoscience' accusation bandwaggon without fully listening with an open mind.

The comments are worth reading to see how others have responded;

a comment i found on there from the 20th:

TED, the term ‘PSEUDOSCIENCE’ is a non-scientific, propaganda term designed to insult researchers of unconventional claims. If you use that term, you are aligning yourself with aggressive political pressure groups that popularized the term. There is no need to use the term ‘pseudo-science’ at all.

It is ironic TED are being duped into using the term ‘pseudoscience’ as if performing some ethical duty, for the term ‘pseudoscience’ was first coined by a 1840s notorious vivisectionist Francois Magendie, who nailed living animals to lab benches for days to perform experiments.

The term ‘pseudoscience’ was rarely used until the 1980s because it is not a scientific term. The reason the term is all over wikipedia and other places today is that political pressure groups have put it there to try and exclude claims they dislike with a contrived list of what is and isn’t science to suit their political agenda. The term ‘pseudoscience’ is not scientific, it is a form of bigotry.

Science is a method, if enough replicated experiments produce evidence supportive of an unconventional claim, the scientific world view is supposed to accept it. Instead we see pressure groups label claims ‘pseudoscience’ and create contrived lists of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science with an attempt to move the goal posts from what science actually is – a method – into a dogma of preconceived prejudices.

TED’s list of pseudoscience guidelines contains circular reasoning fallacies. There is no need for such a list.

Sheldrake has long used the conventional scientific method to test unconventional claims. He has conducted randomized, blinded experiments in a properly controlled manner that rule out ‘normal’ explanations. If a conventional theory cannot explain his experimental results, one is perfectly free to speculate on other theories and create hypotheses and test these too over time. This is good science and it is exactly what Sheldrake has done for decades.

 

[Global]

Glad it happened as i'm hoping there will now be a proper re-examination of why people are so quick to jump on the 'psudeoscience' accusation bandwaggon without fully listening with an open mind.

The comments are worth reading to see how others have responded;

a comment i found on there from the 20th:

TED, the term ‘PSEUDOSCIENCE’ is a non-scientific, propaganda term designed to insult researchers of unconventional claims. If you use that term, you are aligning yourself with aggressive political pressure groups that popularized the term. There is no need to use the term ‘pseudo-science’ at all.

It is ironic TED are being duped into using the term ‘pseudoscience’ as if performing some ethical duty, for the term ‘pseudoscience’ was first coined by a 1840s notorious vivisectionist Francois Magendie, who nailed living animals to lab benches for days to perform experiments.

The term ‘pseudoscience’ was rarely used until the 1980s because it is not a scientific term. The reason the term is all over wikipedia and other places today is that political pressure groups have put it there to try and exclude claims they dislike with a contrived list of what is and isn’t science to suit their political agenda. The term ‘pseudoscience’ is not scientific, it is a form of bigotry.

Science is a method, if enough replicated experiments produce evidence supportive of an unconventional claim, the scientific world view is supposed to accept it. Instead we see pressure groups label claims ‘pseudoscience’ and create contrived lists of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science with an attempt to move the goal posts from what science actually is – a method – into a dogma of preconceived prejudices.

TED’s list of pseudoscience guidelines contains circular reasoning fallacies. There is no need for such a list.

Sheldrake has long used the conventional scientific method to test unconventional claims. He has conducted randomized, blinded experiments in a properly controlled manner that rule out ‘normal’ explanations. If a conventional theory cannot explain his experimental results, one is perfectly free to speculate on other theories and create hypotheses and test these too over time. This is good science and it is exactly what Sheldrake has done for decades.

Stellar quote DTR.

Also I actually remember seeing Sarah Silverman on Bill Maher talk about TED 3 years ago. I even remember where I was, but at the time, I didn't really understand what was going on.

 

[olympus mon]

[YOUTUBE]

another banned one...this ones really hilarious

Actually I saw this Ted Talk on their site only a month or 2 ago. They do remove some and add other and just so everyone knows, there are probably 3 times as many smaller Ted talksnthat never make it to their website.

Im not defending them on the censoring of talks of pschedelics, but It looks here like now every single talk that doesn't make their site is a "Banned" talk and that's just not often the case.

I don't put every single tattoo pic on my webite, I want it to have a certain feel, maybe their wanting to have a certain vision or feel. I can respect that.

And Ive seen a LOT of fringe pseudo science on Ted talks. More than I wish.

 

[universecannon]

Oly, I'm confused by your post

yes, i know their Ted Talk site doesn't post every Ted or Tedx talk that comes along (how could they?), those ones are hand picked. Tedx does several thousands of videos a year, and so obviously they all dont go on the main website... but thats not even what we're talking about here.

We're not talking about them removing these ted/tedx talks off of their site, we're talking about them banning them from their youtube channel where, currently, every ted and tedx talk is present- except these banned ones.

 

[Khronos]

I'm finding the whole debacle both pretentious and depressing.

Pretentious, because of how TED has assumed some sort of bullshit moral high ground (which they're sticking to despite retracting their initial statements).

Depressing, because as a scientist, I can't understand why it's so hard for some of these really intelligent people to keep an open mind. Sure, these guys will change their positions in the face of overwhelming evidence, but until they have it they continue to shut off doors to weird and wonderful worlds unknown with their dogmatic zeal.

Some of these guys need to take more psychedelic drugs.