Hi Marcel, thanks. Yes, the AGA e-Journal also mentioned that video last Saturday.
I felt a little funny about his name-dropping --
he first claimed his formula F = T ∇ S_τ "is probably the closest equivalent to E = mc² for intelligence",
and ended by quoting Feynman and made his own "equivalent statement".
He also seemed to be reading from the teleprompter for the entire speech
(nothing particularly wrong with that -- many other TED speakers have done the same --
but it's one area he could improve if he wants to.)

Also, for a TED talk, a bit unusual to see the amount of negative posts in the Comments section.

TED isn't as good as it used to be...

I lost all faith in TED when it was revealed that they were banning talks on certain subjects which spoke out against the unethical behavior of their corporate sponsors. It is not longer a forum for the free exchange of ideas, but the mouthpiece for corporate control.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Hogwash.
The fact that you don't bite the hand that feeds you, even if the hand is dirty, does not mean that you are a "mouthpiece for corporate control."
Its a very juvenile approach, and I am sure there is an actual logical fallacy somewhere in there as well.

Having said that, I agree that TED is not quite what it used to be. Still, there is a lot of value in a lot of what they do.

PS>
If bashing TED is fashionable now, I apologize. I did not know.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Not that I know of. But anything which, by policy, only presents one side of any discussion is subject to doubt.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Well, TED have expanded a lot and with all these TEDx offshoot conferences so it's hardly surprising the top-quality talks have been diluted with a load of lesser ones.

It's not one side of all discussions though and doesn't impinge on discussions unrelated to the sponsors no?


Though I do think TED has gone downhill a lot over time.

I listened to a TED talk my wife was watching to learn some statistics. The lecturer was a statistician but his field was something related to intelligence. Awfully smarmy, and sort of pseudo intellectual, was my impression for someone that was giving a lecture on high school statistics, like correlations. Though, I don't doubt that they do know their audience.

I completely agree with the above. And I notice you tuned down from "mouthpiece of corporate control" to "subject to doubt." Much more reasonable, I think.

What I disagree with is how do you draw this conclusion wrt TED. The fact that one subject is off-limits does not mean that everything else should automatically be in doubt.

For example, when I talk to some of my religiously fanatical friends, I refrain from voicing my highly non-religious views because I do not want to offend them (especially when they serve me dinner.) I do not see how from this you could conclude that everything else I say is "subject to doubt" or even a "mouthpiece" for some manipulative agenda.

Having said that, I agree that TED went down the tubes somewhat, but I think this was not avoidable in the long run. Everything eventually gets corrupted, and my feeling is that TED is by far not yet done sliding.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Here is the link I am referring to:
http://www.naturalnews.com/042112_TED_c ... _GMO.html#

The article starts out



Emphasis added by me. You can click on the link to read it all.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Would you say its fair to call TED talks nothing more than marketing and advertising? I think it really does raise a red flag, when you no longer have at least plausible academic freedom, under the auspice of providing an academic service. And I don't see how corporate sponsors breathing down your neck could be any better than the King of England or the Pope, in those regards. No don't teach legitimate statistics people might be able to figure out the problems with our trials. Don't teach critical thinking, they might figure out vitamins prevent illness.

An organisation that dismisses drugs, surgery and vaccines seems rather more than "subject to doubt".

Edit: and now that I read most of the article and referenced TED letter I was going to say basically what Bantari already has below.

Thanks for publishing that. Interesting read. And very ironic that the writer of this article accuses TED of things (being dead, banning certain topics, etc.) based on a conclusion taken from a source (the letter) which says nothing of the sort. Reminds me of the talks we have with MagicWand about global warming and all the spin and fact-twisting presented on this topic by the right-wing machine.

Question: did you even read the letter to TED and TED's response, the one the article you give is apparently based on? As a matter of fact, TED clearly stated that they do *no* ban topics, and there seems to be nothing in the letter which says they do. We can believe them or not, of course, but you cannot cite such thing as "proof" that TED bans issues. From my read, what the letter is all about is that certain pieces of "bad science" have occasionally appeared on TED - and which TED claims are now removed. The letter to TED is meant to spark discussion about good and bad science, not accuse TED of banning subjects, from what the author says herself.

To use such material to conclude that "TED is dead" or "thoroughly hijacked by corporate junk science" is very bad science, I would say. And to claim that it "openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine, or even the subject of how food can help prevent behavioral disorders in children" when the very letter you quote gives examples of articles on TED discussing just that - this is simply aiming at the lowest common denominator and at people who are to lazy to read or think and just follow the first thing they see.

So, all in all, while it was an interesting read, I consider this article to be absolutely worthless in terms of any factual information presented with any kind of integrity. It is clearly a gripe by somebody reaching out to draw certain conclusions out of facts that actually contradict it - and then hoping people will fall for it.

Pretty disappointing. Not sure why you brought it up.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Bantari,
When the sponsors of TED get to decide that anything going against them is bad science then we really have a problem. What is wrong with presenting all views and letting people decide for themselves? Oh, I forget: thinking people are dangerous to those in control.

leichtloeslich,
The wiki entry is just a joke, trying to claim that numerous things are conspiracy theories just because they don't tow the official line. The official line is designed to control people so obviously they cannot let anyone question what they say.

Uberdude:
"An organisation that dismisses drugs, surgery and vaccines seems rather more than "subject to doubt"."
They are not dismissed as much as seriously questioned. I refuse any drugs or vaccines unless absolutely essential, and have had none of either in many, many years. I've needed neither and have not got sick. Living a healthy lifestyle minimizes the need for them. Sure, I may have got a little lucky, but then you make your own luck, don't you.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Maybe one of Bill Gate's colleagues, friends or relatives will pipe up, and explain his philanthropy more thoroughly, however the problem with corporate structures in instances like these is precisely that there are little profits to be gained by administering vaccines, so there are little incentive to promote such knowledge however valid the science is.

DrStraw, the site itself says they aren't just questioned but "strongly criticize[d]". I changed the verb for variety, I shouldn't have. As part of your fortunate good health you don't have and can't get smallpox, a horrible disease the eradication of which through vaccination I'd call one of (evil mainstream) medicine's great achievements.

An alternate view.

I did say unless absolutely essential. I am only 95% Luddite. But flu shots and similar for humans, and most shots for pets, are more dangerous then beneficial.

Also, that web site happened to be the one I found when I did a search. There are probably others, although it is the one I originally got the story from. I read it regularly and he makes way more sense than most people.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Its really hard to take any commentary seriously where they refute a mathematical argument with a couple of handwavey sentences. "Oh, everyone knows a pole doesn't balance on a cart, so this is wrong"

It seems like these author's articles are always like that, they attack mathematically heavy work with words only - as if it will somehow prove the math wrong. Its very strange.