Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

[Rich Murray-2]

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics kill talks about wider views)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Weiler Psi <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
To: [hidden email]

craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v"

Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on The Weiler Psi

The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending by craigweiler

TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was never with TED, it's with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or suffer huge PR damage as a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:  On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.  In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While people obviously aren't out conducting experiments en mass and publishing them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify scientific claims such as "there is no evidence for psychic phenomena."  If this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has gotten pretty common.

It's precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these past couple of weeks.  Just a few short years ago, this problem with Sheldrake and Hancock would have been easily managed.  Drop the speakers, ignore the few protest emails and proceed as if nothing had happened.  It would have been over before most of the public even knew what was happening.  What happened a few weeks ago however, is something that will play out more and more in the future.    The two videos were taken down for the usual skeptical reason of being unscientific.  People who were well informed about this topic showed up for the debate, but it also started to draw attention largely due to the fact that word spread about what had happened.  Someone mentioned it on the parapsychology forum I hang out on and I blogged about it.  I sent a link to parapsychologist Dean Radin, he posted a link on his blog, it got picked up by The Daily Grail and took off from there.

Now, all eyes were on TED and they were forced to back down from their original position due not only to the outcry, but also the obviously well informed logic behind it.  Anyone who saw that comment thread objectively could see the weakness of skeptical arguments, the irritating nature of paternalistic drive-by comments by TED staff and, well, everything.  This is the new reality; everyone gets to share and see what everyone else is sharing.

One outcome of this is that skeptics are being forced into the intellectual debates which expose the weakness of their arguments and more importantly, their arrogant attitudes.  One of the hardest things to convey to other people not familiar with the debate is the unreasonableness of skeptics, but in these comment threads it's there for everyone to see.  TED and it's skeptics have not recognized the impact of this yet and do not understand how much this is changing things.  This crowdsourcing is going to increasingly force intellectually honest discussions which will ultimately force change that companies and institutions like TED and its skeptics would rather not deal with.  They are operating according to an old paradigm in which they believe that they can make whatever decisions they please, irrespective of pesky comments.  That era though, is fast coming to a close.  The tail is wagging the dog.

Academia will surely be the last bastion to fall under the new order, but it ultimately answers to the public and if that public is well informed and communicating constantly with each other, as they now do, then fall it will.  The basic problem, -that they are ignoring important evidence- is exactly the sort of thing that will put a target on their back.  An energized public can award power and prestige to some while taking it away from others.  Universities aren't blind, deaf and dumb.  If they start losing money and grants because their skeptics are putting people off, they'll do something about it.  I'm fairly sure that's what it would take.

I've been following the psi wars for a number of years and I can see two things:  First of all, this is not a debate over science, despite what skeptics claim.  The body of evidence supporting the marriage of consciousness and physics is simply enormous and utterly convincing by any sane scientific standard.  (and here) The science, in other words, is settled.  The TED controversy deeply underscores this point: TED has never clearly defined their reasons for censorship; they have never taken Rupert Sheldrake up on his offer to debate the TED science board; the reasons for axing TEDxWestHollywood have never been convincingly laid out;  Jerry Coyne, in his blog, (which unwittingly helped raise the profile of the censorship issue considerably) has never scientifically spelled out his objections either.  They all pretend as if it's a problem with a solution so obviously in their favor that it doesn't need discussion.  Thus, they never engage the evidence in any meaningful way.  The lack of meaningful discussion highlights a very significant point.  The controversy isn't a scientific one; it's a social one.

Second:  The internet has given the opposing side two tools it has never had before; we now have an easy way to find each other and we have a way to spread scientific information that skirts the normal walls that science builds around ideas it doesn't like.  Typically, the mass media goes along with this wall and tends to avoid publishing controversial topics as truths because they are far too technical and it's easier to trust mainstream scientists than to go out on a limb.  But the internet skirts around mass media as well.  A community has developed that spreads the information through an informal chain of blogs that together have the reach of lesser forms of mass media.  It's hard to judge exactly, but I would guess, based on the interest that this topic has generated, that news of the axing of TEDxWestHollywood has probably reached 100,000 people with no mass media intervention.  (My blog post alone would account for about 12% of that traffic.)

This community contains parapsychology scientists and other people with advanced degrees; as well as a very large number of well read individuals, such as myself, who can see the evidence and decide for themselves.  These scientists, by the way, no longer need rely on academic and scientific institutions to forward their ideas and evidence and make rebuttals to obvious smears:  They can take to to the streets, so to speak.  It has taken several years for this community to form because much of the information has not been on line and people needed to get used to this new format of communicating.  People, such as myself, needed time to develop a portfolio of work and build a reputation, which is just now coming to good use.  As these blogs have developed, people needed to find them and set the groundwork for this loose connected network of like minded people.  There have always been far more of us, than skeptics, so the issue hasn't been persuading people, but merely getting them together and getting them properly informed.

Now that the network is in place and this group has had time to settle in and grow in numbers, an attitude change has taken place.  With the scientific evidence on its side and a firm sense of being right, this group has gone increasingly on the offensive, pushing back at empty skeptical claims and denouncing obvious lies and half truths.  The message is fairly simple and straightforward:  "Don't suppress this stuff."  This is where we are now; pushing back.  The controversy, which is social, is getting a social solution and it's starting to have a pronounced effect.

The effect has been to cause the skeptics to polarize the debate and send them into a furious campaign to put the genie back into the bottle.  There is no longer any pretense of being nice about it and in the near future it is this frenzied activity by the skeptics that will create the change more than anything we do.  The skeptics are to science, what the Tea party is to Republicans.  They're on the same side, but their radicalized attitude, just as with the Tea Party, presents both a solid base of support and sends moderates running in the other direction.  You can see what has happened to TED as the skeptics have gained control.  Their heavy handed attitude is having an impact on the TED brand (it's too soon to tell just how much), and they are so consumed with their small battles that they are losing sight of the war they are losing.

The parapsychological sciences  that are shunned by mainstream science have always been very popular with the public.  This huge gap has always existed and it has led to a sort of running 140 year battle between the mainstream sciences and parapsychology.  The skeptics in academia have always succeeded by simply shutting out both the scientists and the public interest, but they can't do that anymore.  Their main tool, control over information, has been taken away from them.  As the TED drama has shown, they have no ability to fight on open ground.  It is just the beginning of an ideological clash that will spread all over the world and eventually force a change.

The wall that the skeptics have put up is like a shaky dam with a rapidly growing river behind it.  They will hold sway for awhile, and it will look as though they are succeeding because so little gets past them, but it is an illusion.  The broad network of people supporting an alternative view of the universe, backed by solid evidence, is still growing and getting increasingly aware of its power.  Everything will be fine in Camp Skeptic until it isn't. Then, change will come swiftly and the sciences will be fundamentally altered forever.

craigweiler | April 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM | Tags: skeptic, TED, TEDxWestHollywood | Categories: Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments | URL: http://wp.me/ppYvF-s8

Comment

See all comments

Like

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-that-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

[psi]

 

N

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics kill talks about wider views)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Weiler Psi <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
To: [hidden email]

craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v"

Respond to this post by replying above this line

 

 

New post on The Weiler Psi

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Error! Filename not specified.

The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending by craigweiler

TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was never with TED, it's with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or suffer huge PR damage as a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:  On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.  In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While people obviously aren't out conducting experiments en mass and publishing them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify scientific claims such as "there is no evidence for psychic phenomena."  If this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has gotten pretty common.

It's precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these past couple of weeks.  Just a few short years ago, this problem with Sheldrake and Hancock would have been easily managed.  Drop the speakers, ignore the few protest emails and proceed as if nothing had happened.  It would have been over before most of the public even knew what was happening.  What happened a few weeks ago however, is something that will play out more and more in the future.    The two videos were taken down for the usual skeptical reason of being unscientific.  People who were well informed about this topic showed up for the debate, but it also started to draw attention largely due to the fact that word spread about what had happened.  Someone mentioned it on the parapsychology forum I hang out on and I blogged about it.  I sent a link to parapsychologist Dean Radin, he posted a link on his blog, it got picked up by The Daily Grail and took off from there.

Now, all eyes were on TED and they were forced to back down from their original position due not only to the outcry, but also the obviously well informed logic behind it.  Anyone who saw that comment thread objectively could see the weakness of skeptical arguments, the irritating nature of paternalistic drive-by comments by TED staff and, well, everything.  This is the new reality; everyone gets to share and see what everyone else is sharing.

One outcome of this is that skeptics are being forced into the intellectual debates which expose the weakness of their arguments and more importantly, their arrogant attitudes.  One of the hardest things to convey to other people not familiar with the debate is the unreasonableness of skeptics, but in these comment threads it's there for everyone to see.  TED and it's skeptics have not recognized the impact of this yet and do not understand how much this is changing things.  This crowdsourcing is going to increasingly force intellectually honest discussions which will ultimately force change that companies and institutions like TED and its skeptics would rather not deal with.  They are operating according to an old paradigm in which they believe that they can make whatever decisions they please, irrespective of pesky comments.  That era though, is fast coming to a close.  The tail is wagging the dog.

Academia will surely be the last bastion to fall under the new order, but it ultimately answers to the public and if that public is well informed and communicating constantly with each other, as they now do, then fall it will.  The basic problem, -that they are ignoring important evidence- is exactly the sort of thing that will put a target on their back.  An energized public can award power and prestige to some while taking it away from others.  Universities aren't blind, deaf and dumb.  If they start losing money and grants because their skeptics are putting people off, they'll do something about it.  I'm fairly sure that's what it would take.

I've been following the psi wars for a number of years and I can see two things:  First of all, this is not a debate over science, despite what skeptics claim.  The body of evidence supporting the marriage of consciousness and physics is simply enormous and utterly convincing by any sane scientific standard.  (and here) The science, in other words, is settled.  The TED controversy deeply underscores this point: TED has never clearly defined their reasons for censorship; they have never taken Rupert Sheldrake up on his offer to debate the TED science board; the reasons for axing TEDxWestHollywood have never been convincingly laid out;  Jerry Coyne, in his blog, (which unwittingly helped raise the profile of the censorship issue considerably) has never scientifically spelled out his objections either.  They all pretend as if it's a problem with a solution so obviously in their favor that it doesn't need discussion.  Thus, they never engage the evidence in any meaningful way.  The lack of meaningful discussion highlights a very significant point.  The controversy isn't a scientific one; it's a social one.

Second:  The internet has given the opposing side two tools it has never had before; we now have an easy way to find each other and we have a way to spread scientific information that skirts the normal walls that science builds around ideas it doesn't like.  Typically, the mass media goes along with this wall and tends to avoid publishing controversial topics as truths because they are far too technical and it's easier to trust mainstream scientists than to go out on a limb.  But the internet skirts around mass media as well.  A community has developed that spreads the information through an informal chain of blogs that together have the reach of lesser forms of mass media.  It's hard to judge exactly, but I would guess, based on the interest that this topic has generated, that news of the axing of TEDxWestHollywood has probably reached 100,000 people with no mass media intervention.  (My blog post alone would account for about 12% of that traffic.)

This community contains parapsychology scientists and other people with advanced degrees; as well as a very large number of well read individuals, such as myself, who can see the evidence and decide for themselves.  These scientists, by the way, no longer need rely on academic and scientific institutions to forward their ideas and evidence and make rebuttals to obvious smears:  They can take to to the streets, so to speak.  It has taken several years for this community to form because much of the information has not been on line and people needed to get used to this new format of communicating.  People, such as myself, needed time to develop a portfolio of work and build a reputation, which is just now coming to good use.  As these blogs have developed, people needed to find them and set the groundwork for this loose connected network of like minded people.  There have always been far more of us, than skeptics, so the issue hasn't been persuading people, but merely getting them together and getting them properly informed.

Now that the network is in place and this group has had time to settle in and grow in numbers, an attitude change has taken place.  With the scientific evidence on its side and a firm sense of being right, this group has gone increasingly on the offensive, pushing back at empty skeptical claims and denouncing obvious lies and half truths.  The message is fairly simple and straightforward:  "Don't suppress this stuff."  This is where we are now; pushing back.  The controversy, which is social, is getting a social solution and it's starting to have a pronounced effect.

The effect has been to cause the skeptics to polarize the debate and send them into a furious campaign to put the genie back into the bottle.  There is no longer any pretense of being nice about it and in the near future it is this frenzied activity by the skeptics that will create the change more than anything we do.  The skeptics are to science, what the Tea party is to Republicans.  They're on the same side, but their radicalized attitude, just as with the Tea Party, presents both a solid base of support and sends moderates running in the other direction.  You can see what has happened to TED as the skeptics have gained control.  Their heavy handed attitude is having an impact on the TED brand (it's too soon to tell just how much), and they are so consumed with their small battles that they are losing sight of the war they are losing.

The parapsychological sciences  that are shunned by mainstream science have always been very popular with the public.  This huge gap has always existed and it has led to a sort of running 140 year battle between the mainstream sciences and parapsychology.  The skeptics in academia have always succeeded by simply shutting out both the scientists and the public interest, but they can't do that anymore.  Their main tool, control over information, has been taken away from them.  As the TED drama has shown, they have no ability to fight on open ground.  It is just the beginning of an ideological clash that will spread all over the world and eventually force a change.

The wall that the skeptics have put up is like a shaky dam with a rapidly growing river behind it.  They will hold sway for awhile, and it will look as though they are succeeding because so little gets past them, but it is an illusion.  The broad network of people supporting an alternative view of the universe, backed by solid evidence, is still growing and getting increasingly aware of its power.  Everything will be fine in Camp Skeptic until it isn't. Then, change will come swiftly and the sciences will be fundamentally altered forever.

craigweiler | April 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM | Tags: skeptic, TED, TEDxWestHollywood | Categories: Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments | URL: http://wp.me/ppYvF-s8

Comment

See all comments

Like

 

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-that-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/

 

 

Thanks for flying with Error! Filename not specified.WordPress.com

Error! Filename not specified.

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Psi = sigh = psychology = pounds per square inch = ?

 

Am I close?

 

How were Galveston and the trip back?

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[hidden email]     [hidden email]

Phone:  [phone]      Cell:  [phone]

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:49 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

[psi]

 

N

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics kill talks about wider views)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Weiler Psi <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
To: [hidden email]

craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v"

Respond to this post by replying above this line

 

 

New post on The Weiler Psi

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Error! Filename not specified.

The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending by craigweiler

TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was never with TED, it's with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or suffer huge PR damage as a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:  On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.  In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While people obviously aren't out conducting experiments en mass and publishing them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify scientific claims such as "there is no evidence for psychic phenomena."  If this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has gotten pretty common.

It's precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these past couple of weeks.  Just a few short years ago, this problem with Sheldrake and Hancock would have been easily managed.  Drop the speakers, ignore the few protest emails and proceed as if nothing had happened.  It would have been over before most of the public even knew what was happening.  What happened a few weeks ago however, is something that will play out more and more in the future.    The two videos were taken down for the usual skeptical reason of being unscientific.  People who were well informed about this topic showed up for the debate, but it also started to draw attention largely due to the fact that word spread about what had happened.  Someone mentioned it on the parapsychology forum I hang out on and I blogged about it.  I sent a link to parapsychologist Dean Radin, he posted a link on his blog, it got picked up by The Daily Grail and took off from there.

Now, all eyes were on TED and they were forced to back down from their original position due not only to the outcry, but also the obviously well informed logic behind it.  Anyone who saw that comment thread objectively could see the weakness of skeptical arguments, the irritating nature of paternalistic drive-by comments by TED staff and, well, everything.  This is the new reality; everyone gets to share and see what everyone else is sharing.

One outcome of this is that skeptics are being forced into the intellectual debates which expose the weakness of their arguments and more importantly, their arrogant attitudes.  One of the hardest things to convey to other people not familiar with the debate is the unreasonableness of skeptics, but in these comment threads it's there for everyone to see.  TED and it's skeptics have not recognized the impact of this yet and do not understand how much this is changing things.  This crowdsourcing is going to increasingly force intellectually honest discussions which will ultimately force change that companies and institutions like TED and its skeptics would rather not deal with.  They are operating according to an old paradigm in which they believe that they can make whatever decisions they please, irrespective of pesky comments.  That era though, is fast coming to a close.  The tail is wagging the dog.

Academia will surely be the last bastion to fall under the new order, but it ultimately answers to the public and if that public is well informed and communicating constantly with each other, as they now do, then fall it will.  The basic problem, -that they are ignoring important evidence- is exactly the sort of thing that will put a target on their back.  An energized public can award power and prestige to some while taking it away from others.  Universities aren't blind, deaf and dumb.  If they start losing money and grants because their skeptics are putting people off, they'll do something about it.  I'm fairly sure that's what it would take.

I've been following the psi wars for a number of years and I can see two things:  First of all, this is not a debate over science, despite what skeptics claim.  The body of evidence supporting the marriage of consciousness and physics is simply enormous and utterly convincing by any sane scientific standard.  (and here) The science, in other words, is settled.  The TED controversy deeply underscores this point: TED has never clearly defined their reasons for censorship; they have never taken Rupert Sheldrake up on his offer to debate the TED science board; the reasons for axing TEDxWestHollywood have never been convincingly laid out;  Jerry Coyne, in his blog, (which unwittingly helped raise the profile of the censorship issue considerably) has never scientifically spelled out his objections either.  They all pretend as if it's a problem with a solution so obviously in their favor that it doesn't need discussion.  Thus, they never engage the evidence in any meaningful way.  The lack of meaningful discussion highlights a very significant point.  The controversy isn't a scientific one; it's a social one.

Second:  The internet has given the opposing side two tools it has never had before; we now have an easy way to find each other and we have a way to spread scientific information that skirts the normal walls that science builds around ideas it doesn't like.  Typically, the mass media goes along with this wall and tends to avoid publishing controversial topics as truths because they are far too technical and it's easier to trust mainstream scientists than to go out on a limb.  But the internet skirts around mass media as well.  A community has developed that spreads the information through an informal chain of blogs that together have the reach of lesser forms of mass media.  It's hard to judge exactly, but I would guess, based on the interest that this topic has generated, that news of the axing of TEDxWestHollywood has probably reached 100,000 people with no mass media intervention.  (My blog post alone would account for about 12% of that traffic.)

This community contains parapsychology scientists and other people with advanced degrees; as well as a very large number of well read individuals, such as myself, who can see the evidence and decide for themselves.  These scientists, by the way, no longer need rely on academic and scientific institutions to forward their ideas and evidence and make rebuttals to obvious smears:  They can take to to the streets, so to speak.  It has taken several years for this community to form because much of the information has not been on line and people needed to get used to this new format of communicating.  People, such as myself, needed time to develop a portfolio of work and build a reputation, which is just now coming to good use.  As these blogs have developed, people needed to find them and set the groundwork for this loose connected network of like minded people.  There have always been far more of us, than skeptics, so the issue hasn't been persuading people, but merely getting them together and getting them properly informed.

Now that the network is in place and this group has had time to settle in and grow in numbers, an attitude change has taken place.  With the scientific evidence on its side and a firm sense of being right, this group has gone increasingly on the offensive, pushing back at empty skeptical claims and denouncing obvious lies and half truths.  The message is fairly simple and straightforward:  "Don't suppress this stuff."  This is where we are now; pushing back.  The controversy, which is social, is getting a social solution and it's starting to have a pronounced effect.

The effect has been to cause the skeptics to polarize the debate and send them into a furious campaign to put the genie back into the bottle.  There is no longer any pretense of being nice about it and in the near future it is this frenzied activity by the skeptics that will create the change more than anything we do.  The skeptics are to science, what the Tea party is to Republicans.  They're on the same side, but their radicalized attitude, just as with the Tea Party, presents both a solid base of support and sends moderates running in the other direction.  You can see what has happened to TED as the skeptics have gained control.  Their heavy handed attitude is having an impact on the TED brand (it's too soon to tell just how much), and they are so consumed with their small battles that they are losing sight of the war they are losing.

The parapsychological sciences  that are shunned by mainstream science have always been very popular with the public.  This huge gap has always existed and it has led to a sort of running 140 year battle between the mainstream sciences and parapsychology.  The skeptics in academia have always succeeded by simply shutting out both the scientists and the public interest, but they can't do that anymore.  Their main tool, control over information, has been taken away from them.  As the TED drama has shown, they have no ability to fight on open ground.  It is just the beginning of an ideological clash that will spread all over the world and eventually force a change.

The wall that the skeptics have put up is like a shaky dam with a rapidly growing river behind it.  They will hold sway for awhile, and it will look as though they are succeeding because so little gets past them, but it is an illusion.  The broad network of people supporting an alternative view of the universe, backed by solid evidence, is still growing and getting increasingly aware of its power.  Everything will be fine in Camp Skeptic until it isn't. Then, change will come swiftly and the sciences will be fundamentally altered forever.

craigweiler | April 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM | Tags: skeptic, TED, TEDxWestHollywood | Categories: Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments | URL: http://wp.me/ppYvF-s8

Comment

See all comments

Like

 

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-that-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/

 

 

Thanks for flying with Error! Filename not specified.WordPress.com

Error! Filename not specified.

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Roger Critchlow-2]

Dang, I missed the thermodynamic reference.

I think there's a parallel between Sam Harris being outraged that people think he's a racist islamophobe (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2/ ) and the woo peddlers being outraged that TED doesn't think their ideas are worth spreading.

I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

-- rec --

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Psi = sigh = psychology = pounds per square inch = ?

 

Am I close?

 

How were Galveston and the trip back?

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[hidden email]     [hidden email]

Phone:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20995-8715" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]      Cell:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:49 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

[psi]

 

N

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics kill talks about wider views)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Weiler Psi <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
To: [hidden email]

craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v"

Respond to this post by replying above this line

 

 

New post on The Weiler Psi

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Error! Filename not specified.

The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending by craigweiler

TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was never with TED, it's with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or suffer huge PR damage as a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:  On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.  In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While people obviously aren't out conducting experiments en mass and publishing them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify scientific claims such as "there is no evidence for psychic phenomena."  If this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has gotten pretty common.

It's precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these past couple of weeks.  Just a few short years ago, this problem with Sheldrake and Hancock would have been easily managed.  Drop the speakers, ignore the few protest emails and proceed as if nothing had happened.  It would have been over before most of the public even knew what was happening.  What happened a few weeks ago however, is something that will play out more and more in the future.    The two videos were taken down for the usual skeptical reason of being unscientific.  People who were well informed about this topic showed up for the debate, but it also started to draw attention largely due to the fact that word spread about what had happened.  Someone mentioned it on the parapsychology forum I hang out on and I blogged about it.  I sent a link to parapsychologist Dean Radin, he posted a link on his blog, it got picked up by The Daily Grail and took off from there.

Now, all eyes were on TED and they were forced to back down from their original position due not only to the outcry, but also the obviously well informed logic behind it.  Anyone who saw that comment thread objectively could see the weakness of skeptical arguments, the irritating nature of paternalistic drive-by comments by TED staff and, well, everything.  This is the new reality; everyone gets to share and see what everyone else is sharing.

One outcome of this is that skeptics are being forced into the intellectual debates which expose the weakness of their arguments and more importantly, their arrogant attitudes.  One of the hardest things to convey to other people not familiar with the debate is the unreasonableness of skeptics, but in these comment threads it's there for everyone to see.  TED and it's skeptics have not recognized the impact of this yet and do not understand how much this is changing things.  This crowdsourcing is going to increasingly force intellectually honest discussions which will ultimately force change that companies and institutions like TED and its skeptics would rather not deal with.  They are operating according to an old paradigm in which they believe that they can make whatever decisions they please, irrespective of pesky comments.  That era though, is fast coming to a close.  The tail is wagging the dog.

Academia will surely be the last bastion to fall under the new order, but it ultimately answers to the public and if that public is well informed and communicating constantly with each other, as they now do, then fall it will.  The basic problem, -that they are ignoring important evidence- is exactly the sort of thing that will put a target on their back.  An energized public can award power and prestige to some while taking it away from others.  Universities aren't blind, deaf and dumb.  If they start losing money and grants because their skeptics are putting people off, they'll do something about it.  I'm fairly sure that's what it would take.

I've been following the psi wars for a number of years and I can see two things:  First of all, this is not a debate over science, despite what skeptics claim.  The body of evidence supporting the marriage of consciousness and physics is simply enormous and utterly convincing by any sane scientific standard.  (and here) The science, in other words, is settled.  The TED controversy deeply underscores this point: TED has never clearly defined their reasons for censorship; they have never taken Rupert Sheldrake up on his offer to debate the TED science board; the reasons for axing TEDxWestHollywood have never been convincingly laid out;  Jerry Coyne, in his blog, (which unwittingly helped raise the profile of the censorship issue considerably) has never scientifically spelled out his objections either.  They all pretend as if it's a problem with a solution so obviously in their favor that it doesn't need discussion.  Thus, they never engage the evidence in any meaningful way.  The lack of meaningful discussion highlights a very significant point.  The controversy isn't a scientific one; it's a social one.

Second:  The internet has given the opposing side two tools it has never had before; we now have an easy way to find each other and we have a way to spread scientific information that skirts the normal walls that science builds around ideas it doesn't like.  Typically, the mass media goes along with this wall and tends to avoid publishing controversial topics as truths because they are far too technical and it's easier to trust mainstream scientists than to go out on a limb.  But the internet skirts around mass media as well.  A community has developed that spreads the information through an informal chain of blogs that together have the reach of lesser forms of mass media.  It's hard to judge exactly, but I would guess, based on the interest that this topic has generated, that news of the axing of TEDxWestHollywood has probably reached 100,000 people with no mass media intervention.  (My blog post alone would account for about 12% of that traffic.)

This community contains parapsychology scientists and other people with advanced degrees; as well as a very large number of well read individuals, such as myself, who can see the evidence and decide for themselves.  These scientists, by the way, no longer need rely on academic and scientific institutions to forward their ideas and evidence and make rebuttals to obvious smears:  They can take to to the streets, so to speak.  It has taken several years for this community to form because much of the information has not been on line and people needed to get used to this new format of communicating.  People, such as myself, needed time to develop a portfolio of work and build a reputation, which is just now coming to good use.  As these blogs have developed, people needed to find them and set the groundwork for this loose connected network of like minded people.  There have always been far more of us, than skeptics, so the issue hasn't been persuading people, but merely getting them together and getting them properly informed.

Now that the network is in place and this group has had time to settle in and grow in numbers, an attitude change has taken place.  With the scientific evidence on its side and a firm sense of being right, this group has gone increasingly on the offensive, pushing back at empty skeptical claims and denouncing obvious lies and half truths.  The message is fairly simple and straightforward:  "Don't suppress this stuff."  This is where we are now; pushing back.  The controversy, which is social, is getting a social solution and it's starting to have a pronounced effect.

The effect has been to cause the skeptics to polarize the debate and send them into a furious campaign to put the genie back into the bottle.  There is no longer any pretense of being nice about it and in the near future it is this frenzied activity by the skeptics that will create the change more than anything we do.  The skeptics are to science, what the Tea party is to Republicans.  They're on the same side, but their radicalized attitude, just as with the Tea Party, presents both a solid base of support and sends moderates running in the other direction.  You can see what has happened to TED as the skeptics have gained control.  Their heavy handed attitude is having an impact on the TED brand (it's too soon to tell just how much), and they are so consumed with their small battles that they are losing sight of the war they are losing.

The parapsychological sciences  that are shunned by mainstream science have always been very popular with the public.  This huge gap has always existed and it has led to a sort of running 140 year battle between the mainstream sciences and parapsychology.  The skeptics in academia have always succeeded by simply shutting out both the scientists and the public interest, but they can't do that anymore.  Their main tool, control over information, has been taken away from them.  As the TED drama has shown, they have no ability to fight on open ground.  It is just the beginning of an ideological clash that will spread all over the world and eventually force a change.

The wall that the skeptics have put up is like a shaky dam with a rapidly growing river behind it.  They will hold sway for awhile, and it will look as though they are succeeding because so little gets past them, but it is an illusion.  The broad network of people supporting an alternative view of the universe, backed by solid evidence, is still growing and getting increasingly aware of its power.  Everything will be fine in Camp Skeptic until it isn't. Then, change will come swiftly and the sciences will be fundamentally altered forever.

craigweiler | April 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM | Tags: skeptic, TED, TEDxWestHollywood | Categories: Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments | URL: http://wp.me/ppYvF-s8

Comment

See all comments

Like

 

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-that-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/

 

 

Thanks for flying with Error! Filename not specified.WordPress.com

Error! Filename not specified.

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:
> I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
> arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear ... the
best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
"rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Roger-

Great characterization (rhetorical dyslexia)!

I'm *not* inclined to accept most of what you (and I) probably would call "woo", but as with other forms of censorship, I *am* interested in trying to keep an open mind and a level playing field.  I may not like a lot of what other people have to say/write, but I'm still pretty touchy about burning their books or throwing them in a dark hole for what they believe/say, even when it is offensive and even downright scary... it is the slippery slope problem.

Once someone starts calling "foul" it is often all over... they end up painting themselves as "woo" (or crazy) in the process.  

We have myriad precedents, however, where someone who was outside the established bounds of accepted "science" was finally vindicated (sometimes long after death) in their work/ideas/belief.  I consider myself a skeptic, yet when I among people who are *card carrying* skeptics I often find almost as zealous of beliefs in their specific brand of skepticism as those they are being skeptical about.

I am not following the TED controversy, but do think I heard that Sheldrake was in the midst of it.  I find his stuff *very* hard to take in, yet I do still keep looking for some glimmer of real sense in it.  Not because I want to believe *him* or even because I want to believe his *ideas*, but because I want to be sure I'm not missing something that he is seeing.  Or something parallel that his ideas allude to, if not point directly at.

Science, at it's root, has a lot going for it.  The repeatability aspect being perhaps the most obvious.   This is where psuedo-science seems most often to fall down.   But again, history has plenty of examples where a singular scientist (or small group) were on to something but it still took years to refine their experimental methods well enough to make their results repeatable by others.   In the meantime they often caught a lot of flack.  

Admittedly, what you and I would call "woo" is often justified by some mysterious equivalent of "faith" (this experiment only works if everyone observing believes it will work).   This is a hard argument to take, yet there *IS* the more legitimate paradigm shift that QM demanded of acknowledging the role of the observer in science.   It often gets misused by the "woo peddlers" but it is still a relevant issue.

There is also the issue of paradigm shift and confirmation bias.  I believe that paradigms (in the large) and theories (in the small) are canalizations of ideas which ultimately get bent, broken, or superceded through the erosive properties of millions of people running their ideas up against the walls of the channels.   Again, I think "woo peddlers" (or psuedoscientists as you prefer) *do* capitalize on the inherent tentative/provisional nature of all scientific knowledge and on the human desire to believe in great and wonderful things or to go up against the establishment.  

I guess my point (as much as I ever have one?) is that while I too want to dismiss *most* of this kind of stuff, I also want to use their confrontation as an excuse to take *yet another* look at the topics at hand.   For example, I'm not the least bit taken in by the *claim* of people who offer me a perpetual motion machine, but I *am* interested in separating out those who would deliberately trick me from those who have stumbled on some combination of high efficiency and unexpected coupling...   the former is interesting only to psychologists I suppose while the latter could expose *many* useful/interesting principles.  

Maybe I should follow the TED controversy closer.

- Steve

Dang, I missed the thermodynamic reference.

I think there's a parallel between Sam Harris being outraged that people think he's a racist islamophobe (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2/ ) and the woo peddlers being outraged that TED doesn't think their ideas are worth spreading.

I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

-- rec --

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Psi = sigh = psychology = pounds per square inch = ?

 

Am I close?

 

How were Galveston and the trip back?

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[hidden email]     [hidden email]

Phone:  <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28505%29%20995-8715" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]      Cell:  <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:49 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

[psi]

 

N

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics kill talks about wider views)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Weiler Psi <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
To: [hidden email]

craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v"

Respond to this post by replying above this line

 

 

New post on The Weiler Psi

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Error! Filename not specified.

The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending by craigweiler

TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was never with TED, it's with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or suffer huge PR damage as a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:  On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.  In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While people obviously aren't out conducting experiments en mass and publishing them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify scientific claims such as "there is no evidence for psychic phenomena."  If this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has gotten pretty common.

It's precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these past couple of weeks.  Just a few short years ago, this problem with Sheldrake and Hancock would have been easily managed.  Drop the speakers, ignore the few protest emails and proceed as if nothing had happened.  It would have been over before most of the public even knew what was happening.  What happened a few weeks ago however, is something that will play out more and more in the future.    The two videos were taken down for the usual skeptical reason of being unscientific.  People who were well informed about this topic showed up for the debate, but it also started to draw attention largely due to the fact that word spread about what had happened.  Someone mentioned it on the parapsychology forum I hang out on and I blogged about it.  I sent a link to parapsychologist Dean Radin, he posted a link on his blog, it got picked up by The Daily Grail and took off from there.

Now, all eyes were on TED and they were forced to back down from their original position due not only to the outcry, but also the obviously well informed logic behind it.  Anyone who saw that comment thread objectively could see the weakness of skeptical arguments, the irritating nature of paternalistic drive-by comments by TED staff and, well, everything.  This is the new reality; everyone gets to share and see what everyone else is sharing.

One outcome of this is that skeptics are being forced into the intellectual debates which expose the weakness of their arguments and more importantly, their arrogant attitudes.  One of the hardest things to convey to other people not familiar with the debate is the unreasonableness of skeptics, but in these comment threads it's there for everyone to see.  TED and it's skeptics have not recognized the impact of this yet and do not understand how much this is changing things.  This crowdsourcing is going to increasingly force intellectually honest discussions which will ultimately force change that companies and institutions like TED and its skeptics would rather not deal with.  They are operating according to an old paradigm in which they believe that they can make whatever decisions they please, irrespective of pesky comments.  That era though, is fast coming to a close.  The tail is wagging the dog.

Academia will surely be the last bastion to fall under the new order, but it ultimately answers to the public and if that public is well informed and communicating constantly with each other, as they now do, then fall it will.  The basic problem, -that they are ignoring important evidence- is exactly the sort of thing that will put a target on their back.  An energized public can award power and prestige to some while taking it away from others.  Universities aren't blind, deaf and dumb.  If they start losing money and grants because their skeptics are putting people off, they'll do something about it.  I'm fairly sure that's what it would take.

I've been following the psi wars for a number of years and I can see two things:  First of all, this is not a debate over science, despite what skeptics claim.  The body of evidence supporting the marriage of consciousness and physics is simply enormous and utterly convincing by any sane scientific standard.  (and here) The science, in other words, is settled.  The TED controversy deeply underscores this point: TED has never clearly defined their reasons for censorship; they have never taken Rupert Sheldrake up on his offer to debate the TED science board; the reasons for axing TEDxWestHollywood have never been convincingly laid out;  Jerry Coyne, in his blog, (which unwittingly helped raise the profile of the censorship issue considerably) has never scientifically spelled out his objections either.  They all pretend as if it's a problem with a solution so obviously in their favor that it doesn't need discussion.  Thus, they never engage the evidence in any meaningful way.  The lack of meaningful discussion highlights a very significant point.  The controversy isn't a scientific one; it's a social one.

Second:  The internet has given the opposing side two tools it has never had before; we now have an easy way to find each other and we have a way to spread scientific information that skirts the normal walls that science builds around ideas it doesn't like.  Typically, the mass media goes along with this wall and tends to avoid publishing controversial topics as truths because they are far too technical and it's easier to trust mainstream scientists than to go out on a limb.  But the internet skirts around mass media as well.  A community has developed that spreads the information through an informal chain of blogs that together have the reach of lesser forms of mass media.  It's hard to judge exactly, but I would guess, based on the interest that this topic has generated, that news of the axing of TEDxWestHollywood has probably reached 100,000 people with no mass media intervention.  (My blog post alone would account for about 12% of that traffic.)

This community contains parapsychology scientists and other people with advanced degrees; as well as a very large number of well read individuals, such as myself, who can see the evidence and decide for themselves.  These scientists, by the way, no longer need rely on academic and scientific institutions to forward their ideas and evidence and make rebuttals to obvious smears:  They can take to to the streets, so to speak.  It has taken several years for this community to form because much of the information has not been on line and people needed to get used to this new format of communicating.  People, such as myself, needed time to develop a portfolio of work and build a reputation, which is just now coming to good use.  As these blogs have developed, people needed to find them and set the groundwork for this loose connected network of like minded people.  There have always been far more of us, than skeptics, so the issue hasn't been persuading people, but merely getting them together and getting them properly informed.

Now that the network is in place and this group has had time to settle in and grow in numbers, an attitude change has taken place.  With the scientific evidence on its side and a firm sense of being right, this group has gone increasingly on the offensive, pushing back at empty skeptical claims and denouncing obvious lies and half truths.  The message is fairly simple and straightforward:  "Don't suppress this stuff."  This is where we are now; pushing back.  The controversy, which is social, is getting a social solution and it's starting to have a pronounced effect.

The effect has been to cause the skeptics to polarize the debate and send them into a furious campaign to put the genie back into the bottle.  There is no longer any pretense of being nice about it and in the near future it is this frenzied activity by the skeptics that will create the change more than anything we do.  The skeptics are to science, what the Tea party is to Republicans.  They're on the same side, but their radicalized attitude, just as with the Tea Party, presents both a solid base of support and sends moderates running in the other direction.  You can see what has happened to TED as the skeptics have gained control.  Their heavy handed attitude is having an impact on the TED brand (it's too soon to tell just how much), and they are so consumed with their small battles that they are losing sight of the war they are losing.

The parapsychological sciences  that are shunned by mainstream science have always been very popular with the public.  This huge gap has always existed and it has led to a sort of running 140 year battle between the mainstream sciences and parapsychology.  The skeptics in academia have always succeeded by simply shutting out both the scientists and the public interest, but they can't do that anymore.  Their main tool, control over information, has been taken away from them.  As the TED drama has shown, they have no ability to fight on open ground.  It is just the beginning of an ideological clash that will spread all over the world and eventually force a change.

The wall that the skeptics have put up is like a shaky dam with a rapidly growing river behind it.  They will hold sway for awhile, and it will look as though they are succeeding because so little gets past them, but it is an illusion.  The broad network of people supporting an alternative view of the universe, backed by solid evidence, is still growing and getting increasingly aware of its power.  Everything will be fine in Camp Skeptic until it isn't. Then, change will come swiftly and the sciences will be fundamentally altered forever.

craigweiler | April 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM | Tags: skeptic, TED, TEDxWestHollywood | Categories: Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments | URL: http://wp.me/ppYvF-s8

Comment

See all comments

Like

 

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-that-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/

 

 

Thanks for flying with Error! Filename not specified.WordPress.com

Error! Filename not specified.

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Roger Critchlow-2]

You're right, dyslexia is a bad match.

Probably should have called it dysrhetorica, failure to recognize the significance of your own arguments, as evidenced by your dismay when people tell you what they heard you say.  

Or maybe it should be humpty-dumpty-itis, as in the words mean just what I meant them to mean, and it is very hurtful to me that you heard them mean something else.

-- rec --

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:

> I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
> arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear ... the
best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
"rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Robert J. Cordingley]

I like the two quotes:

What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

I think you think you heard what I said but I don't think you heard what I meant. - a mentor

- Robert C

On 4/3/13 12:24 PM, glen wrote:

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:

I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear ... the
best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
"rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Roger/Glen -

Dysrhetorica even better!

 Humpty-Dumpty-itis... more cynical perhaps.

"I am who you think I think I am" also seems relevant.

 It is perhaps why the most stubborn of us in our own self-image seem to be the easiest to deal with (one way or the other).  If we offer no doubt about who we think we are (or what our words mean) then others are not puzzled or confused about how to respond to us. 

This is the scant charm I find in those who stubbornly stick to their extreme positions (psuedoscientists, religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists) with or without effective argumentation or evidence in support of it.

What this topic still leaves me open to seek is an understanding of what parts, if any, of the psuedoscientists and/or woo peddlers ideas that TED is trying to ignore/exclude/silence might have some validity.   The whole baby/bathwater duality?

- Steve

You're right, dyslexia is a bad match.

Probably should have called it dysrhetorica, failure to recognize the significance of your own arguments, as evidenced by your dismay when people tell you what they heard you say.  

Or maybe it should be humpty-dumpty-itis, as in the words mean just what I meant them to mean, and it is very hurtful to me that you heard them mean something else.

-- rec --

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/03/2013 11:04 AM:

> I think it's a form of rhetorical dyslexia -- what one thinks one is
> arguing is not the argument that others hear one making.

I don't grok the map to dyslexia.  But the disconnect between the
thoughts of the sender and those of the receiver is quite clear ... the
best evidence against "psi" ... or perhaps with a softening like the
"rare earth hypothesis", that psi is so rare it may as well not exist.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Well, Psi is the “phenomenon” and [sigh] is what I wanted to say about it.   Clearly it didn’t pass the funniest post ever made on Friam test, which is what I thought when I wrote it.

 

A good rest, we had.  I didn’t make a menu for 6 days.  Huzzzah!  Jess has a new dog, picture of me with I will send you. 

 

See you Friday morning????

 

Nick

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:31 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

Psi = sigh = psychology = pounds per square inch = ?

 

Am I close?

 

How were Galveston and the trip back?

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[hidden email]     [hidden email]

Phone:  [phone]      Cell:  [phone]

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:49 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

[psi]

 

N

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Rich Murray
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

 The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending (skeptics kill talks about wider views)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Weiler Psi <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Subject: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending
To: [hidden email]

craigweiler posted: "TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site v"

Respond to this post by replying above this line

 

 

New post on The Weiler Psi

Error! Filename not specified.

 

Error! Filename not specified.

The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending by craigweiler

TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I've been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don't hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they've been pretty good to me.  They've helped me increase my site views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet blogs in general, by views.  What's not to like?  They have picked sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been seen before and I'm delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was never with TED, it's with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or suffer huge PR damage as a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn't coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mas acceptance and are starting to redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:  On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.  In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally won't hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this which is pretty much why there's a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While people obviously aren't out conducting experiments en mass and publishing them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify scientific claims such as "there is no evidence for psychic phenomena."  If this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has gotten pretty common.

It's precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these past couple of weeks.  Just a few short years ago, this problem with Sheldrake and Hancock would have been easily managed.  Drop the speakers, ignore the few protest emails and proceed as if nothing had happened.  It would have been over before most of the public even knew what was happening.  What happened a few weeks ago however, is something that will play out more and more in the future.    The two videos were taken down for the usual skeptical reason of being unscientific.  People who were well informed about this topic showed up for the debate, but it also started to draw attention largely due to the fact that word spread about what had happened.  Someone mentioned it on the parapsychology forum I hang out on and I blogged about it.  I sent a link to parapsychologist Dean Radin, he posted a link on his blog, it got picked up by The Daily Grail and took off from there.

Now, all eyes were on TED and they were forced to back down from their original position due not only to the outcry, but also the obviously well informed logic behind it.  Anyone who saw that comment thread objectively could see the weakness of skeptical arguments, the irritating nature of paternalistic drive-by comments by TED staff and, well, everything.  This is the new reality; everyone gets to share and see what everyone else is sharing.

One outcome of this is that skeptics are being forced into the intellectual debates which expose the weakness of their arguments and more importantly, their arrogant attitudes.  One of the hardest things to convey to other people not familiar with the debate is the unreasonableness of skeptics, but in these comment threads it's there for everyone to see.  TED and it's skeptics have not recognized the impact of this yet and do not understand how much this is changing things.  This crowdsourcing is going to increasingly force intellectually honest discussions which will ultimately force change that companies and institutions like TED and its skeptics would rather not deal with.  They are operating according to an old paradigm in which they believe that they can make whatever decisions they please, irrespective of pesky comments.  That era though, is fast coming to a close.  The tail is wagging the dog.

Academia will surely be the last bastion to fall under the new order, but it ultimately answers to the public and if that public is well informed and communicating constantly with each other, as they now do, then fall it will.  The basic problem, -that they are ignoring important evidence- is exactly the sort of thing that will put a target on their back.  An energized public can award power and prestige to some while taking it away from others.  Universities aren't blind, deaf and dumb.  If they start losing money and grants because their skeptics are putting people off, they'll do something about it.  I'm fairly sure that's what it would take.

I've been following the psi wars for a number of years and I can see two things:  First of all, this is not a debate over science, despite what skeptics claim.  The body of evidence supporting the marriage of consciousness and physics is simply enormous and utterly convincing by any sane scientific standard.  (and here) The science, in other words, is settled.  The TED controversy deeply underscores this point: TED has never clearly defined their reasons for censorship; they have never taken Rupert Sheldrake up on his offer to debate the TED science board; the reasons for axing TEDxWestHollywood have never been convincingly laid out;  Jerry Coyne, in his blog, (which unwittingly helped raise the profile of the censorship issue considerably) has never scientifically spelled out his objections either.  They all pretend as if it's a problem with a solution so obviously in their favor that it doesn't need discussion.  Thus, they never engage the evidence in any meaningful way.  The lack of meaningful discussion highlights a very significant point.  The controversy isn't a scientific one; it's a social one.

Second:  The internet has given the opposing side two tools it has never had before; we now have an easy way to find each other and we have a way to spread scientific information that skirts the normal walls that science builds around ideas it doesn't like.  Typically, the mass media goes along with this wall and tends to avoid publishing controversial topics as truths because they are far too technical and it's easier to trust mainstream scientists than to go out on a limb.  But the internet skirts around mass media as well.  A community has developed that spreads the information through an informal chain of blogs that together have the reach of lesser forms of mass media.  It's hard to judge exactly, but I would guess, based on the interest that this topic has generated, that news of the axing of TEDxWestHollywood has probably reached 100,000 people with no mass media intervention.  (My blog post alone would account for about 12% of that traffic.)

This community contains parapsychology scientists and other people with advanced degrees; as well as a very large number of well read individuals, such as myself, who can see the evidence and decide for themselves.  These scientists, by the way, no longer need rely on academic and scientific institutions to forward their ideas and evidence and make rebuttals to obvious smears:  They can take to to the streets, so to speak.  It has taken several years for this community to form because much of the information has not been on line and people needed to get used to this new format of communicating.  People, such as myself, needed time to develop a portfolio of work and build a reputation, which is just now coming to good use.  As these blogs have developed, people needed to find them and set the groundwork for this loose connected network of like minded people.  There have always been far more of us, than skeptics, so the issue hasn't been persuading people, but merely getting them together and getting them properly informed.

Now that the network is in place and this group has had time to settle in and grow in numbers, an attitude change has taken place.  With the scientific evidence on its side and a firm sense of being right, this group has gone increasingly on the offensive, pushing back at empty skeptical claims and denouncing obvious lies and half truths.  The message is fairly simple and straightforward:  "Don't suppress this stuff."  This is where we are now; pushing back.  The controversy, which is social, is getting a social solution and it's starting to have a pronounced effect.

The effect has been to cause the skeptics to polarize the debate and send them into a furious campaign to put the genie back into the bottle.  There is no longer any pretense of being nice about it and in the near future it is this frenzied activity by the skeptics that will create the change more than anything we do.  The skeptics are to science, what the Tea party is to Republicans.  They're on the same side, but their radicalized attitude, just as with the Tea Party, presents both a solid base of support and sends moderates running in the other direction.  You can see what has happened to TED as the skeptics have gained control.  Their heavy handed attitude is having an impact on the TED brand (it's too soon to tell just how much), and they are so consumed with their small battles that they are losing sight of the war they are losing.

The parapsychological sciences  that are shunned by mainstream science have always been very popular with the public.  This huge gap has always existed and it has led to a sort of running 140 year battle between the mainstream sciences and parapsychology.  The skeptics in academia have always succeeded by simply shutting out both the scientists and the public interest, but they can't do that anymore.  Their main tool, control over information, has been taken away from them.  As the TED drama has shown, they have no ability to fight on open ground.  It is just the beginning of an ideological clash that will spread all over the world and eventually force a change.

The wall that the skeptics have put up is like a shaky dam with a rapidly growing river behind it.  They will hold sway for awhile, and it will look as though they are succeeding because so little gets past them, but it is an illusion.  The broad network of people supporting an alternative view of the universe, backed by solid evidence, is still growing and getting increasingly aware of its power.  Everything will be fine in Camp Skeptic until it isn't. Then, change will come swiftly and the sciences will be fundamentally altered forever.

craigweiler | April 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM | Tags: skeptic, TED, TEDxWestHollywood | Categories: Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments | URL: http://wp.me/ppYvF-s8

Comment

See all comments

Like

 

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-loud-and-clear-message-that-the-ted-controversy-is-sending/

 

 

Thanks for flying with Error! Filename not specified.WordPress.com

Error! Filename not specified.

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Bruce Sherwood]

A small personal comment on related matters: It's not uncommon to hear statements of the form "Science can never explain X". Solving for X, one of the common solutions is "consciousness", but there are other popular solutions to the equation. Step back about 500 years, and humans were not in a position to understand a vast range of phenomena, from orbits to lightning to disease to speciation to oxidation. Little by little, it was science that provided insight. Given this hugely expanded and rapidly expanding region of understanding, I would not bet on the validity of the equation for most values of X.

Bruce

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Ron Newman]

So far in this thread I hear opinions mixed with some desire to examine evidence, but no discussion of the evidence itself.  We are ourselves  demonstrating one of the points made in the original blog post that spawned this thread - that it's about culture and assumptions, not science.

I don't have time to read the links to further discussion and experimental data given in that post, but would enjoy hearing on this list from those that do.

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Rich Murray-2]

Hello --

or Hell No ?

Hell Low?

I am pleased to see a candid consensus that there is simply nothing that is woo , so little motive to examine evidence, as one post pointed out:

from Ron Newman <[hidden email]>	5:31 PM (1 hour ago)
to Friday

So far in this thread I hear opinions mixed with some desire to examine evidence, but no discussion of the evidence itself.  We are ourselves  demonstrating one of the points made in the original blog post that spawned this thread - that it's about culture and assumptions, not science.

I don't have time to read the links to further discussion and experimental data given in that post, but would enjoy hearing on this list from those that do.

OK, from my viewpoint, as a moderately competent experiencer-teacher of woo, there is only woo...

i.e. woo is a reef on the island continent of mysticism, which in turn is about conscious awareness --

the testimony being that personal experience can display changes of state, or phase changes, similar to the transition from 2D to 3D vision, or black/white to shades of grey to full spectrum of color -- those who share this necessarily mainly share with others of like mind, in a variety of subcultures within the far larger number of those who rarely or never have these shifts, temporarily to permanently -- so woo for many is "the first step of a journey of a thousand miles" -- it is enticing to read and hear about myriad accounts of every variety and flavor of woo, but necessarily it is fundamental that any program of investigation of the reality status of altered, improved state of awareness can only be comprehended and chosen by persistent personal choice to investigate as direct personal experience...

this is accelerating worldwide exponentially, so now woo is socially mobilizing in ways never before possible, so now there are inevitably, new kinds of interactions among woo and non-woo groups --

so, accordingly, I sent this to friam last night:

comrades in awareness,  I like everything this old guy Fred Davis in South Carolina writes, so I got his brand new book for $ 4 on Kindle cloud reader and read half of it just now with relish -- very fresh open cheerful dialogue that really illuminates awareness fast -- new level of effective uncommon sense sharing, just the way he talks to clients via Skype since 2010...  within the fellowship of service,  Rich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jerry Katz <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM
Subject: [NDhighlights] #4881 - Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - Editor: Jerry Katz
To: [hidden email], iam <[hidden email]>, NDS <[hidden email]>, NDH <[hidden email]>

#4881 - Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - Editor: Jerry Katz

 

The Nonduality Highlights http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights/

 

 

 

THE BOOK OF UNDOING 
Direct Pointing to Nondual Awareness

 

by Fred Davis

 

 

Chapter One
A Look at the Book and the Process
  
This book has arisen from Direct Pointing sessions that I've had with clients around the world.  These deceptively simple inquiries and dialogues work.  Men and women who have studied Nonduality for decades, both in and out of structured traditions, without experiencing even the first authentic glimpse of themselves have come to recognize their true nature during these talks.  Some of them have been glimpses, and others remain ongoing.  Still others, who were confounded by oscillation when we began to talk, have moved from there into stable Nondual awareness.  And of course there are a few people who've reported no change at all; such is the way of it.

 

I will be using the term "awakening," but we should be clear that this is simply languaging to speak about a topic that is extremely difficult -- impossible, actually -- to communicate.  Silence is really the best medium for this message, but a blank book is unlikely to be very helpful, so we'll plow on ahead using the best words that we can find.  The core of all Nondual teachings is the experiential discovery of our shared true nature.  We could further say that just beyond the core of Nonduality lies an incredibly sharp and skillful vocabulary, which grows sharper daily as more and more teachers  emerge, and the teachers we have grow in experience.

 

Every teacher represents a unique set of hard and soft conditioning (nature and nurture), and thus each views the singular landscape in a slightly or radically different way.  So too will their experience, understandings, and presentations be distinct.  While this can cause some element of confusion, particularly early on, it also births a wonderfully diverse set of approaches.  We need all we can get, because it is the languaging of the teacher that is most widely and easily communicated, and therefore most apt to lead us from that place just beyond the heart, and into the heart itself.

 

It is the peculiar nature of Nondual teachings that we can only hear who and what we can hear.  We could fill a stadium with awake beings, yet you or I might only be able to really resonate with a few of them.  This doesn't mean the rest of these folks are wrong or deluded, it simply means they're someone else's teachers.  If we are sincere in our own approach to the teachings, we may be sure that we will find a teacher or teaching that we will resonate with perfectly.  We can't fail to; that's just how it works.

 

This teaching, my teaching, so to speak, starts from a position that is not new, yet which remains fairly radical.  I presume that clients don't need to wake up, because they are always already awake. 

 

Awakeness is not something you experience, it's what you are.  By the same token, I presume that there's no need for you to come out of oscillation and into stability, because you are always already still.  Stillness is not something you experience, once again it's what you are.  Having understood the absolute truth of these things, we then embrace the relative nature of them.  In other words, knowing all of this, I then go about the business of waking people up, or pulling them out of oscillation!  It's just one of many paradoxes we'll encounter.  If you've no stomach for paradox, you won't stay with Nonduality very long.

 

within the fellowship of service,  Rich

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Ok, time for me to weigh in as the Village Pragmatist.  Some forms of discourse have tended in the past to produce enduring consensus.  These are forms that surround the performance of experiments in the broadest sense of that word, the sense in which a baby performs an experiment when s/he drop is spoonful of Gerber’s applesause on the floor.  Scientists, like all humans, try to assuage doubt.  Non-scientific methods for assuaging doubt include dogmatism, enforcement of authority, and the contemplation of reason.  Scientific methods for assuaging doubt are experimental.  In the broad sense of the word, meta-analysis, if appropriately performed,  is a statistical experimental procedure by which we assess whether a conclusion follows from the data that have been said to support it.  Unless a skeptic believes that the meta-analysis is improperly done, he should see such meta-analytical results as sufficient for him to doubt his conviction that no psi phenomena exist. That doubt will be painful (as all doubt is painful) and will lead the scientist to spring into action.  That would be the occasion, on a pragmatist account, for further experimentation.  Can we, for instance, do amplification of the signal by including more senders?  Etc. 

 

On pragmatist account, to call something physical is just to say that one entity has the power to alter another.  So, it seems to me that, by definition, the discovery that a conscious thought has the power to bring itself into being in a distant mind is just to say that conscious though has joined the family of physical causes.  Off the lab we go to discover more about it.  So, I don’t really think the discover of psi means the liberation of humans from science.  There is a triumphalism lurking here that I don’t understand. 

 

Nick

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rich Murray
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:53 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

 

Hello --

 

or Hell No ?

 

Hell Low?

 

I am pleased to see a candid consensus that there is simply nothing that is woo , so little motive to examine evidence, as one post pointed out:

 

from Ron Newman <[hidden email]>	5:31 PM (1 hour ago)
to Friday

So far in this thread I hear opinions mixed with some desire to examine evidence, but no discussion of the evidence itself.  We are ourselves  demonstrating one of the points made in the original blog post that spawned this thread - that it's about culture and assumptions, not science.

 

I don't have time to read the links to further discussion and experimental data given in that post, but would enjoy hearing on this list from those that do.

 

 

OK, from my viewpoint, as a moderately competent experiencer-teacher of woo, there is only woo...

 

i.e. woo is a reef on the island continent of mysticism, which in turn is about conscious awareness --

 

the testimony being that personal experience can display changes of state, or phase changes, similar to the transition from 2D to 3D vision, or black/white to shades of grey to full spectrum of color -- those who share this necessarily mainly share with others of like mind, in a variety of subcultures within the far larger number of those who rarely or never have these shifts, temporarily to permanently -- so woo for many is "the first step of a journey of a thousand miles" -- it is enticing to read and hear about myriad accounts of every variety and flavor of woo, but necessarily it is fundamental that any program of investigation of the reality status of altered, improved state of awareness can only be comprehended and chosen by persistent personal choice to investigate as direct personal experience...

 

this is accelerating worldwide exponentially, so now woo is socially mobilizing in ways never before possible, so now there are inevitably, new kinds of interactions among woo and non-woo groups --

 

so, accordingly, I sent this to friam last night:

 

comrades in awareness,  I like everything this old guy Fred Davis in South Carolina writes, so I got his brand new book for $ 4 on Kindle cloud reader and read half of it just now with relish -- very fresh open cheerful dialogue that really illuminates awareness fast -- new level of effective uncommon sense sharing, just the way he talks to clients via Skype since 2010...  within the fellowship of service,  Rich

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jerry Katz <[hidden email]>
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM
Subject: [NDhighlights] #4881 - Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - Editor: Jerry Katz
To: [hidden email], iam <[hidden email]>, NDS <[hidden email]>, NDH <[hidden email]>

#4881 - Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - Editor: Jerry Katz

 

The Nonduality Highlights http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights/

 

 

 

THE BOOK OF UNDOING 
Direct Pointing to Nondual Awareness

 

by Fred Davis

 

 

Chapter One
A Look at the Book and the Process
  
This book has arisen from Direct Pointing sessions that I've had with clients around the world.  These deceptively simple inquiries and dialogues work.  Men and women who have studied Nonduality for decades, both in and out of structured traditions, without experiencing even the first authentic glimpse of themselves have come to recognize their true nature during these talks.  Some of them have been glimpses, and others remain ongoing.  Still others, who were confounded by oscillation when we began to talk, have moved from there into stable Nondual awareness.  And of course there are a few people who've reported no change at all; such is the way of it.

 

I will be using the term "awakening," but we should be clear that this is simply languaging to speak about a topic that is extremely difficult -- impossible, actually -- to communicate.  Silence is really the best medium for this message, but a blank book is unlikely to be very helpful, so we'll plow on ahead using the best words that we can find.  The core of all Nondual teachings is the experiential discovery of our shared true nature.  We could further say that just beyond the core of Nonduality lies an incredibly sharp and skillful vocabulary, which grows sharper daily as more and more teachers  emerge, and the teachers we have grow in experience.

 

Every teacher represents a unique set of hard and soft conditioning (nature and nurture), and thus each views the singular landscape in a slightly or radically different way.  So too will their experience, understandings, and presentations be distinct.  While this can cause some element of confusion, particularly early on, it also births a wonderfully diverse set of approaches.  We need all we can get, because it is the languaging of the teacher that is most widely and easily communicated, and therefore most apt to lead us from that place just beyond the heart, and into the heart itself.

 

It is the peculiar nature of Nondual teachings that we can only hear who and what we can hear.  We could fill a stadium with awake beings, yet you or I might only be able to really resonate with a few of them.  This doesn't mean the rest of these folks are wrong or deluded, it simply means they're someone else's teachers.  If we are sincere in our own approach to the teachings, we may be sure that we will find a teacher or teaching that we will resonate with perfectly.  We can't fail to; that's just how it works.

 

This teaching, my teaching, so to speak, starts from a position that is not new, yet which remains fairly radical.  I presume that clients don't need to wake up, because they are always already awake. 

 

Awakeness is not something you experience, it's what you are.  By the same token, I presume that there's no need for you to come out of oscillation and into stability, because you are always already still.  Stillness is not something you experience, once again it's what you are.  Having understood the absolute truth of these things, we then embrace the relative nature of them.  In other words, knowing all of this, I then go about the business of waking people up, or pulling them out of oscillation!  It's just one of many paradoxes we'll encounter.  If you've no stomach for paradox, you won't stay with Nonduality very long.

 

within the fellowship of service,  Rich

 

 

 

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Bruce Sherwood]

Feynman had a nice comment on this, Nick. He suggests that faith healers don't take their faith seriously.

Retrieved from http://faculty.randolphcollege.edu/tmichalik/feynman.htm

"There is an infinite amount of crazy stuff, which, put another way, is that the environment is actively, intensely unscientific. There is talk of telepathy still, although it's dying out. There is faith-healing galore, all over. There is a whole religion of faith-healing. There's a miracle at Lourdes where healing goes on. Now, it might be true that astrology is right. It might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of Lourdes. But if it is true, it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve it. If it is true, then maybe we can find out if the stars do influence life; that we could make the system more powerful by investigating statistically, scientifically judging the evidence objectively, more carefully. If the healing process works at Lourdes, the question is how far from the site of the miracle can the person, who is ill, stand? Have they in fact made a mistake and the back row is really not working? Or is it working so well that there is plenty of room for more people to be arranged near the place of the miracle? Or is it possible, as it is with the saints which have recently been created in the United States - there is a saint who cured leukemia apparently indirectly - that ribbons that are touched to the sheet of the sick person (the ribbon having previously touched some relic of the saint) increase the cure of leukemia - the question is, is it gradually being diluted? You may laugh, but if you believe in the truth of the healing, then you are responsible to investigate it, to improve its efficiency and to make it satisfactory instead of cheating. For example, it may turn out that after a hundred touches it doesn't work anymore. Now it's also possible that the results of this investigation have other consequences, namely, that nothing is there."

FROM: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", by Richard P. Feynman, Helix Books, 1999, pgs. 106-107.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Owen Densmore]

Rich: you never got back to me on Taize .. are you aware of the movement?

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Rich Murray-2]

Owen,

I lost track of your question -- just used Google -- I like it! ... the natural resurgence of inner experience in a world religion that is capable, deep, complex, and subtle enough to evolve radically and swiftly to meet the remarkable, unavoidable opportunities of these decades:

http://www.taize.fr/en_article15337.html

We encounter him in the very poor. Jesus had a special love for them.

“What you do for one of the very least of my brothers and sisters, you do for me” (Matthew 25:40), we would like to confirm the truth of these words of Christ for our gathering in 2015.

We can encounter him when we look to the witnesses who rely on him.

Let us go, alone or with a few others, to meet and speak with a woman or a man whose life was changed by an encounter with Christ.

Or let us read together the life of a witness to the faith: Francis of Assisi, Josephine Bakhita, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Oscar Romero, Alexander Men, and many others.

They were all very different from one another, each one with their unique gifts. We should not try to copy them but to see how their trust in Christ transformed them.

They had their faults. But they all spoke to God in prayer, even if some of them experienced inner nights. Friendship with Christ made them free, and in this way what was best in them was able to flourish.

---

Third Proposal - Look for ways of relying on God

---

Believing in God, trusting in him, means relying on him. Having faith does not mean being able to explain everything or having an easier life, but finding stability and a starting point.

It means not being dependent on our successes or failures, and thus ultimately on ourselves, but on Another who loves us.

Nobody can live without something to rely on and so, in this sense, everyone believes something. Jesus invites us to rely on God, as he did and because he did. He teaches us to pray “Our Father in heaven.”

Silent worship nourishes reflection and understanding. But more importantly, it places us before and within the mystery of God.

Developing “Sabbath” moments, times when we stop and do nothing, offering our time to open a nearby church for a couple of hours a week, praying with others, joining the local Church each week to recall the death and resurrection of Christ...all this allows God to find a place in our daily lives.

In every human being there is an inner life, where light and shadows, joys and fears, trust and doubt mingle. Amazing breakthroughs can take place there.

When we know we are loved or when we love, when we experience bonds of friendship, or when the beauty of creation or human creativity touches us, it strikes us that life is indeed beautiful. These moments can take us by surprise; they may arise even in a period of suffering, like a light that comes from elsewhere.

In them we can see, in simplicity, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

In our day, when many experience broken relationships and unexpected changes in their lives, the relationship with Christ can provide continuity and meaning.

Faith does not cause our inner contradictions to vanish, but the Holy Spirit disposes us to live a life of joy and love.

---

Fourth Proposal - Be open without fear to the future and to others

---

The conviction of faith does not close us up in ourselves. Trust in Christ opens us to trust in the future and to trust in others. It encourages us to face the problems of our time and of our own lives with courage.

Faith is like an anchor that gives us a firm attachment in the future of God, in the risen Christ with whom it binds us inseparably. The Gospel offers no room for speculation about life after death, but it holds out to us the hope that we will see Christ, who is already our life.

Faith leads us not to be afraid of the future or of others any longer.

The trusting of faith is not naive. It is aware of the evil that is present in humanity, and even in our own hearts. But it does not forget that Christ came for all.

Trust in God brings to birth in us a new way of looking at others, at the world, and at the future—a way of looking that involves gratitude and hope, and attentiveness to beauty.

Trust in God frees us to be creative.

And then we can sing with Saint Gregory of the fourth century: “You who are beyond all things, what mind can grasp you? All beings celebrate you. The desire of all reaches out to you.”

Four Proposals 2013

pdf format

Last updated: 18 February 2013

So, I flexibly fully agree with the above, while unable to appreciate unity as a "person" on any level -- in fact, I have no ability to appreciate anyone as a "person" -- "person" for me is a lovely poetic metaphor -- "I" indeed love these powerful, lyric, profound poetic hints -- I understand as experience what the code refers to -- allowing breakthroughs is a skill that can be readily discovered and shared via subjective inner exploration -- a key tenet of A Course In Miracles, which I have worked with since August 1977, half my life...so, this is the science of inner evolution, not sappy pap... fully verifiable as direct experience...

as for communication, Zen says:  two burglars who happen to meet at night in a rich neighborhood recognize each other instantly...  

"In every human being there is an inner life, where light and shadows, joys and fears, trust and doubt mingle. Amazing breakthroughs can take place there.

When we know we are loved or when we love, when we experience bonds of friendship, or when the beauty of creation or human creativity touches us, it strikes us that life is indeed beautiful. These moments can take us by surprise; they may arise even in a period of suffering, like a light that comes from elsewhere.

In them we can see, in simplicity, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives."

http://www.universalspiritcenter.org/community-gatherings/taize-experience/

Taize Experience 7 p.m.

with Rev. Sarah Hans and DevaVani

Taize at Universal Spirit Center is a healing experience for the greater San Diego community offering a place of love, connection and rest.  Through music, silence, inspired readings and prayer, Taize participants deepen in knowing the Truth of their own Divinity.

Taize originated in the town of Taize in the Burgundy region of France.  In the early 1940’s, a group of young men came together to chant, meditate and pray, as well as provide a sanctuary for countless people seeking shelter and safety.  This community continues to gather today to worship and connect with the Divine, and its members are encouraged to live in the spirit of kindness, simplicity and reconciliation.

 

 Love Offering

 

TAIZE 2013
Begins anew on Friday, January 11 at 7 pm. Join Rev. Sarah Hans and DevaVani as we enter a liberating new evolutionary paradigm centered on feeling and intuition.  Travel in conscious company with us as we awaken to the energy and intelligence of living as the enlightened embodiment of a new earth.

 

RHYTHMS FOR A NEW EARTH

• Winter: Rhythms of Deepening - January 11, February 8 and March 1
• Spring: Rhythms of Seeding - April 5, May 3 and June 7
• Summer: Rhythms of Growing - July 5, August 2 and September 6
• Fall: Rhythms of Gathering - October 4, November 1 and December 6

Universal Spirit Center

3858 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92103

 

Rev. Kevin Bucy

Community Spiritual Leader

Office Hours:

Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm

Except Holidays

Phone: [phone]

info@...

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Rich: you never got back to me on Taize .. are you aware of the movement?

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Ron Newman]

I agree with Feynman.  Sort of, with a caveat to follow after a short digression.

What about the placebo effect, a standard reference for FDA approval of  medications?  There's no money in it (actually, there's a lot of money in it) but the effects - 30% efficacy I heard once - are impressive, without side effects.

A P Dijsterkuis is doing the Feynman thing with methods of decision-making and how the conscious - and unconscious - mind works.

The obstacle as I see it is cultural - a sense of glee and "see, we told you so" on the part of the woo faction which is singularly unattractive; and on the other hand a "harrumph...highly irregular" (spoken with an English accent) on the part of the materialists, which also smells of crusty religion.

To go beyond either, now that's a stretch.

Back to Feynman, I agree with him, and also see that he's following his own bent, a love for analysis, that not everyone will share.  Plus when you factor in Heisenberg and the observer's effect on the experiment, etc., at some point we just have to throw up our hands and shake our heads at our own humanity.

Ron

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Feynman had a nice comment on this, Nick. He suggests that faith healers don't take their faith seriously.

Retrieved from http://faculty.randolphcollege.edu/tmichalik/feynman.htm

"There is an infinite amount of crazy stuff, which, put another way, is that the environment is actively, intensely unscientific. There is talk of telepathy still, although it's dying out. There is faith-healing galore, all over. There is a whole religion of faith-healing. There's a miracle at Lourdes where healing goes on. Now, it might be true that astrology is right. It might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of Lourdes. But if it is true, it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve it. If it is true, then maybe we can find out if the stars do influence life; that we could make the system more powerful by investigating statistically, scientifically judging the evidence objectively, more carefully. If the healing process works at Lourdes, the question is how far from the site of the miracle can the person, who is ill, stand? Have they in fact made a mistake and the back row is really not working? Or is it working so well that there is plenty of room for more people to be arranged near the place of the miracle? Or is it possible, as it is with the saints which have recently been created in the United States - there is a saint who cured leukemia apparently indirectly - that ribbons that are touched to the sheet of the sick person (the ribbon having previously touched some relic of the saint) increase the cure of leukemia - the question is, is it gradually being diluted? You may laugh, but if you believe in the truth of the healing, then you are responsible to investigate it, to improve its efficiency and to make it satisfactory instead of cheating. For example, it may turn out that after a hundred touches it doesn't work anymore. Now it's also possible that the results of this investigation have other consequences, namely, that nothing is there."

FROM: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", by Richard P. Feynman, Helix Books, 1999, pgs. 106-107.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Barry MacKichan]

I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You can fool all of ….").

--Barry

On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's no money in it (actually, there's a lot of money in it) but the effects - 30% efficacy I heard once - are impressive, without side effects.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Ron Newman]

If the placebo is double blind I've heard the percentage shoots up.  But the fact remains that a mere thought, or belief, is affecting something.  If science were untainted that would be the basis for massive investigation. 

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Barry MacKichan <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You can fool all of ….").

--Barry

On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's no money in it (actually, there's a lot of money in it) but the effects - 30% efficacy I heard once - are impressive, without side effects.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com