Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

TED Controversy 2013 - Rupert Sheldrake & Graham Hancock censorship playlist. Both censored TED talks plus the first interview each speaker gave after the removal of the videos. youtube.com/playlist?list=PLianCjfvCJizbgJqVbbuL9X… 🙏

"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." - Rupert Sheldrake

The day we can’t question science, we are doomed.

Of course they banned it, he points out the huge contradictions of mainstream science and that is inevitably hilarious. And humor is a powerful tool for opening the minds of the audience. Since our current system of scientific education is no different than a church, the ban was inevitable. "If you want to see the truth, don't look at those who take themselves too seriously. Because they can't let go of what they believe even when there's no more reason to believe it except the petty need of being right"

Shame on TED to have censored this entertaining and enlightening talk, we are not idiots that can’t evaluate the accuracy of an argument, but surely some of the points he made helped us reflect and investigate further, thank you for allowing this video on YouTube...

"The science is settled" - only for people whose careers depend on it.

This dude has a very compelling way of speaking. His voice is soft, but resonates well. He has a mastery of the English language and yet doesn't sound like he's speaking down to you. So many speakers seem to lack that nuance.

"It takes a long time to understand nothing." ~ A Zen Proverb

The whole "intellectual phase-locking" is fascinating because I did some work in Philosophy of Science in graduate school, it was my primary focus. There have been numerous "paradigm shifts" over the history of scientific inquiry, this is where everyone is saying one thing and then someone else comes out and says, "I discovered something different." They're usually shunned and ostracized for awhile until the breakthrough is confirmed and then everybody ends up with egg on their faces. Just like in any field of study, there are things people take for granted and they look around, wanting to be part of the club, so they go along with it. If you think about what we know now, and what we will discover, just based on the history of science you can be certain that "intellectual phase-locking" is going on everywhere on a global scale. We just don't know to what extent, but it is most certainly happening. You only realize how deep it goes later when you find out how wrong you were. People in 100, 500, 1000 years will look back at some of the theories we hold so dear and they will think of us as uncivilized, foolish, child-like.

Imagine being a research scientist your entire career, and then having your talk be called pseudoscientific because you dared to question your own profession.

He is barefoot on stage. This man is definitely enlightened

Why is these talk banned? These are logical questions and remarks.

"As my friend Terence McKenna used to say, modern science is based on the principle, 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it from nothing in a single instant."

I'm a scientist, and what Mr Scheldrake challenges us to prove make perfect sense. We get the willies when it is implied that there may be some things that are not only just unknown, but also unknowable. We get all emotionally defensive and, in desperation, make the only argument at hand, Ad Hominen. Why don't we simply take his points one by one and refute them with science? Face it folks. There is little, if anything, that we truly "know," and can prove scientifically, without embracing non-validated assumptions, and self-evident truths. Its a mystery. We'll never know it, and we'll never control it. We are on a ride. We're generally afraid of what we cannot control. The universe and everything in it is in free-fall. That makes us uncomfortable in our delusion of control. What we call "science" is better described as "technology" or "tool-making." Nothing beyond the fact of existence, of being-consciousness can withstand the simplest of deconstructions. Well, last time around it was "God is Dead" and now, mercifully, it is finally "science is dead" [actually never existed], and we can all sigh a breath of relief, and relax into the reality that there is only "what is" and both religion and science are no more than mental concepts,unsupported by so-called reproducible observations.Religion and Science (and pseudoscience} are simply alternate belief-systems, and beautiful myths, depending on your point of view. I would vote for Religion as the more useful and interesting explanation of reality, but, I'm not religious in the least. Why not just see "what is" in our own direct experience, and let it unfold and reveal itself to us?

The Church of Wikipedia makes sure to introduce him as a parapsychology researcher and makes every effort to discredit him from the start of his bio. Disgusting 👎🏼👎🏼…. but I’am not swayed a bit. You are a true hero sir.

Rupert's latest interview on his book WAYS TO GO BEYOND for anyone interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJBXw1d6mfU

"Science...the belief that 'science' already understands the nature of reality in principle leaving only the details to be filled in." A wrong premise and horrible strawman. The scientific method is the process of creating taxonomy through observation coupled with establishing verifiable predictions. This method exists because it is a confession that we do not understand the world we live in. The methods of science were created because we don't understand the nature of reality, and is part of our constant quest to know more about it.

It is disgusting for TED to pull this talk because it "borders on pseudoscience." Like all their happy-clappy talks about meditation, positive thinking, etc, don't?

I find it odd that TED would ban this talk. Open inquiry and questioning dogma is healthy. It spawns debate and re-examination of ideas. This is necessary, if for no other reason than to gut-check our assumptions. He speaks very well.

Having been called a conspiracy theorist because I demanded that the science would form part of a discussion I was having, this talk really resonated with me.