| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dear-ted-is-it-bad-scienc_b_3104049.html
Category:Educational, Science & Technology
Tags:science, religion, Rupert Sheldrake, say what you will about his theories mans got a po
Submitted:candyheadrobot
Date:05/09/13
Views:1690
Rating:
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
Alain de Botton - Status Anxiety
Almost 10 minutes of Palitoy commercials
Gwar Goes Trick-or-Treating
10 years later and these truthers are still at it
Gohmert: 'Obama's lying about the risk of a possible default so he can have a big birthday party'
IT'S HUGE! Giant Black Slug!
Jonny Quest stuffs Bandit under his shirt
I, Robot (Atari, arcade, 1983)
Something Weird Video DVD Opener
CWC Sub-Episode 2 official videobook
Comment count is 17
Old_Zircon
Chopra to the left of me, TED Talks to the right
memedumpster
"Kittens are mules."
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Gmork
HE DONE FLIPPED THA SCRIPT
memedumpster
If a train carrying enriched weaponized stupid derailed suddenly, this talk and the Deepak Chopra apology would come spilling out.
Gmork
I obviously mis-rated this entry

IrishWhiskey
That aborted tag says "The man's got a point" right? Because I"m not quite sure what point he makes other than simply lying through his teeth about the reason his theories aren't taken seriously.

It's not because scientists refuse to consider psychic phenomenon, they've done thousands of tests. It's because when he presents charts showing the speed of light has changed over time, scientists who actually put data first and conclusions second can quickly point out that all the results are within the margin of error for the equipment of the time, and the only way to make it look like a large deviation is to manipulate the data.

For me the defining Deepak Chopra moment was when interviewed by Dawkins, he admitted his regular use of words like "quantum" weren't based on the actual meaning of the words in science. He was using science words to convince regular listeners there was a scientific basis behind his claims, but was simply misleading them.
HarrietTubmanPI
This guy is deluded. I don't care how much research he has done or peer reviewed studies he has published. He is dead wrong in assuming that 'materialism' is some evil world view.

To know that something is part of reality, it has to have a materialistic explanation or some material explanation in order to make it work. To not have one would be like saying "all made up explanations are equally valid".

Say we want to know how an airplane flies. Well, if we use non-materialistic explanations we can conjure up an infinite number of things to say why an airplane flies, and they are all equally worthless. Non material things cannot be tested, and cannot be distinguished from reality.

Bullshit artists love them because not only do the gullible buy them up, but nobody can ever prove them wrong because of their absurd methods. How do you know I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage?

cognitivedissonance
"Materialism" as evil world view is classic pseudognosticism, too, which particularly infuriates people who actually read up on gnosticism and know that it was not The Secret.

HarrietTubmanPI
I also like to point out the following:

Advances due to materialism include vaccines, modern medicine, MRI machines, CERN, nuclear power, fusion technology, automobiles, trains, computers, the internet, and millions of other inventions we take for granted every day that improve our lives.

Advances due to metaphysics include - NONE

Even amazing things that were done under the guise of religion (Bach Cantatas, cathedrals, renaissance paintings) were done with materialism and material things. The exist in the real world. They aren't metaphysical.

Besides, you don't have to think of something as magical or governed by fairies and unicorns to find beauty in something.

Bort
"But without metaphysics there is no purpose to life," some will protest. Hogwash; purpose is where you find it. Here's a purpose so simple that you could even explain it to Kirk Cameron: if life on this world is all there is, then work to make the world even better for the next generation of people who live here.

candyheadrobot
Maybe my logic is faulty, but the point I was agreeing with had nothing to do with his theories (which I sort of already said), or TED removing their association from him (though I don't understand why, as they've hosted people with much dumber ideas). I just happen to think I see what he's talking about, when he refers to science materialism, as it's pretty apparent that lots of scientists are devoting their time to very well known things, which also happen to make money.

I get it, you gotta make a living. I'm sure making robots for DARPA is probably fun (hooray for war), being a bank's Quant must be great (cause who cares about poor people), and it must be rewarding to come up medicine that helps people (if they can afford it); but is it a good thing that neuroscientists and botanists have to resort to kickstarter to get work done, or that even in 2013 we still have scientists hard at work debunking global warming, or how's about them rocketships at NASA? Science can't afford to keep moving in such a direction, and if it takes having Sheldrake's theories put to the test, then so be it.

Then again, heaven forbid that scientists waste time on far fetched theories, like cloning or nanotechnology, when there are so many more important things to look into, like string and M theory, which have come so far since they began 50 plus years ago. Yes, this is the good old “science is agnostic” argument. Why? Because, we don't know for sure, and probably never will (besides, only a sith deals in absolutes). If someone's theories can be disproven, let them be, but science isn't practiced by just citing what someone has said in a book, it's practiced by experimentation and documenting the results thereof. The only people who stand on what they know in science, are the ones who end up preforming lobotomy till people tell them they aren't allowed to anymore.

I could add more about science education, the idea of expertise, and parentheses, but I've got to get off the internet before google collects my red data, unless the Acherons among you tipped them off to me already.

EvilHomer
I got in a fist fight with a Deepak Chopra supporter once. Drinking was involved, but I like to think I'd have done the same sober.

That said, I don't see why TED should be adverse to posting pseudo-science online. The best way to see why pseudo-science is bullshit is to experience it firsthand. Maybe I'm overestimating the TED audience's capacity to think critically, but I say, bring it on!
IrishWhiskey
Psuedo-science is already online and easily available.

The way this man and Chopra work is not by using science, but by adopting it's mannerisms and guise to fool others into thinking they are doing science. It's a simple fact that most people won't investigate all the studies they are exposed to, even including scientists. That's why experts peer-review it first, to check for misleading and variables which change the conclusion but were missed. After that, most people take the results on trust.

By putting a guy on stage who simply lies through his teeth or presents information in a deliberately misleading way, TED is making it so that he has a greater illusion of authority. Most people who see it won't look up his studies and find the flaws in his methodology.

His main premise is that scientists reject conclusions which contradict established knowledge, specifically his conclusions. Physicists have correctly pointed out they'd LOVE to learn something like the speed of light changing. They'd be passing around Nobel prizes like candy, publishing books about it twice a day, and basically engaging in the nerd equivalent of a coke and hookers party. If there were any evidence people can learn things through psychic means without personal effort, companies would have monetized the crap out of it. The reason his ideas aren't taken seriously, is because he engages in lazy studies which find correlation, then assumes a specific causation by abusing scientific terms like "quantum".

cognitivedissonance
Dude, I once had a very loud verbal argument with a Chopper once, too. They seem to internalize the bullshit more than most cultists.

SteamPoweredKleenex
Those who believe pseudo-science is real believe videos shot of unwashed schizoids with a webcam that lets you see far too much detail about their trailer-park ghetto lifestyle. Why add any semblance of credibility to that horseshit?

Mr. Purple Cat Esq.
How is this 'banned' ?
boner
I don't know bout this one specifically but TED's policy is to refuse pseudoscientific bullshitters, and they have totally cut ties to at least one TEDx event (independent events that have TED branding) because of that.

Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement