His morphic resonance has now been proven by Micheal Levin.

If people keep being more interested in being right than the truth, then it’s just a religion

@@shedtalksnow Levin himself has doubts, but yeah...fascinating stuff. Curt Jaimungal and Lex Friedman have both long podcasts with him. Mindblowing.

Mark, I think your heart and intention are in the right place. But there is to much substantiated evidence that proves Dr. Sheldrake to be misguided and on a non-sensical path. The fabrication of a problem, and attempting to solve it does not the answer viable, or even the endeavor to conclusion worth while. This man is a charlatan.

Atleast 2 that i know of

The power of a well placed word How about folks misnaming and just lying about what is seen

Science is not to be trusted.

The "science" fanboy club uses the idea - THEIR idea of "science" - as a baseball bat to induce compliance and unquestioning worship of their obscurancy.

great comment I see a lot of censored comments here, where are they

While valid, your point isn’t a less important than you may realize. Consider…those people you refer to that allow a simple phrase to shut down their questions and curiosity were more than likely not going to ever look into the matter deeply to begin with. I always give a one word reply to nonsense refutations of this caliber: elaborate. This typically gets to the nuances that subjects are best studied and discussed from and identifies the waste of time from the lovely fringes of the political spectrum and so on. 2+2 is 5. Really? Please elaborate. Blacks cannot be racist because they have no power. I’ll need some elaboration for your claim. Note the lack of snark this approach requires? Sincerity is a very undervalued aspect of these discussions. People get to hide behind ‘trolling’ or sarcasm instead of giving any support.

and for the dummies who dont get it he is critiquing the institution not the method.

one serious comment for god sake

Science quickly devolves into dogma. It's actually harder to overturn, because the belief in scientific dogma is often deeply ingrained. It makes it impossible to make the shift from a geo-centric universe, to sun centred universe....etc. etc. It makes it impossible to make the shift from Newton to Einstein.

​@@tensevo Imo the best way to show this is with a simple line of logical questioning. Do you agree with the claim that everything can be empirically proven ? If one answers yes they are illogical and dont actually believe in empiricism as that claim has never been empirically proven and thus the claim is self defeating. If you answer no you can still use empirical data and not get caught in the illogical trap of making self defeating claims. Can you guess which one the followers of scientism (science as a worldview) usually answer with ? That is their dogma on full display.

@@laszlokiss483 just point to the contradictions with modern Science, and where predictions break down. If we had the Science settled, we would be able to predict everything down to the complex interactions between people.

But if they can turn it into a religion or belief system, they can bring it down to their level and poke holes in all the strawmen, and make their own belief system seem more credible and reasonable xD.

Science is a substitute deity for atheists; one which is presumed to have no consciousness. But Diet Coke is still Coke despite the absence of sugar.

​@@reignman30Well science never claims to be true, it just observes things. If you "believe" science to be true akin to a religion, what you *actually* believe is the changing nature of collective knowledge that is aimed toward truth. What is true today may not be true tommorow. You must therefore be comfortable with picking up and dropping new philosophies as progress is made which in many respects is a good thing. One fact remains that science can be proven wrong and religion cannot. This fact is what seperates the two, science can progress toward empirical truth while religion cant. If you believe in science it is a fundamentally different kind of belief than religious belief. Karl Popper's papers on the subject are worth looking into if you havnt already as they form the basis for how science seperated itself from other institutions in the mid 20th century.

@@gavinferguson2938 Perfectly described. No one could have said it better.

science can never prove anything, that's not its purpose. it also does not accurately represent our collective knowledge or experiences. it was never meant to be a repository for collective knowledge. there are so many things that we have knowledge of that we do not have scientific knowledge of. we often have knowledge of how we feel, but we lack scientific knowledge about it.

You should rather ask "what if not"

Right

Then of course, people will respond with the common, automatic criticism of hypotheticals. Another way they discredit science and further research.

Yes it's called "making a hypothesis" and science knows that very well.

You ask "What if" with the motivation to prove your what if statement false. If you cannot find a way to prove it false, you throw it out. If you have found a way to prove it false, but it succeeds at proving itself true, then you have a successful hypothetical.

And they tell you it's elementary without understanding the higher theory when posted with a question.

Yes, you are quite right. I say that as somebody who long ago worked very hard indeed to gain a science PhD - the second-best step I ever took. [I studied a ruined ecosystem and how it might be helped - a noble cause, addressed with careful science whose results led me where they wanted to take me] My first-best step was to feel the overwhelming burden of sin, and beg for cleansing by the Creator, the Saviour and the Comforter. They responded with an abundance of mercy, love and truth, and I am changed...

Psuedoscience is also a weapon used to fight change and solutions by fearful and stubborn conspiracy theorists. When you googe "what I want to hear" don't be surprised if you get it.

Exactly. Show me a person who self righteously says, "I trust the science," and I'll show you a retarded asshole. I remember learning the scientific method in elementary school, and trust isn't a component. And yet, you hear these "scientific" folks treat people conducting experiments that test alternative theories as sacrilegious or somehow "unscientific" while they get all of their "info" from the largest producers of propaganda in human history (corporate media).

All belief systems run into this issue. They begin organically as a means to explore some new space, and eventually they become culturally dominant, and with that, they represent a way for individuals to have and express various forms of political power and influence. This is true of spiritual belief systems, and science is no different. Any culturally dominant system will become corrupted by people who want leverage over the culture it is dominant within. Just like the message of unconditional love from Christianity became a tool to oppress and murder non-christian people, the intention of neutral, objective investigation of nature becomes a set of rigid, unquestionable axioms which prevent and discourage inquiry outside of their limits. Why? Lab grants. Prestige. Funding. Reputation. The careers of hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists are hitched to many of these axioms, and the axioms will be vigorously defended for the sake of these people's careers and reputations.

I understand your point. While I do consider the morphic idea to be fringe, I believe Dr. Sheldrake’s request to release the measurements we hold as constants is entirely fair. The resistance to doing so says something, whether it’s acknowledged out loud or not.

yep, after mentioning Dogma #4 I was like - this guy is full of BS and is trying to capitalize on other's ignorance. Pathetic video

Written like a true peer reviewer 😂. But seriously well said. I would also like to point out how he generalises our lack of understanding about consciousness as a reason to not only suggest some wild (unbased) theories him self but to also as evidence that other science should not be trusted. 2 of his dogma was based on this and so 20% the reason to not trust science as a whole?

Thank you for comment, you explained it perfectly. This man is speaking of science as one big entity, like everyone agree on things that are in fact still researched...

Bias is your comment, and all morons after you. Video is pushing to self thinking, but yours comment stands against whole video despite your pseudo kind tone. Best review of this video for me is that video was banned from TEDx. Best review you can get. You must be some kind of pseudo jew or someone who is paid by them. No respect.

Agreed. And I'm not even a fan of McKenna.

No one scientist says that the big bang theory is a given or that it occurred because a miracle happened. They just observe the universe and give the most accurate theory to explain what they observe

Every time and probably cancel themselves out don't they

Who says you can’t question something? Religious pastors??

You can question anything, but Sheldrake makes a lot of ridiculous claims and can then not deliver on the evidence. He is a pseudoscience hack.

@@zz-nc5kx The federal government, mass media, society as a whole...

Some people cannot handle that one of their core beliefs is wrong and will defend it because admitting it was wrong makes them look foolish. It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.

What, not even if someone gave a Ted talk that celebrated the imagined benefits that victims of paedophilia might experience? No, I'm not equating the above hypothetic talk with questioning aspects of science, I'm questioning whether there should be zero limits on Ted talks as you suggest.

It was REMOVED not Banned.

@@cineminds7903 does that mean it was removed from the Ted platform? If so, doesn't that constitute a banning?

This was TEDx talk. Which makes it more interesting that it was removed since they allow all kinds of wacky stuff there.

Perhaps what should be banned are TED Talks, since TED Talk controllers are so fond of banning.

ironically the issue is "scientists" tend to question everyone's paradigm except their own where they grossly over-assume the thoroughness of their understanding.

@@tylerhall95 ironically, that doesn't tend to be a thing that happens.

@@timeshark8727I can’t tell which thing you are referring to

@tylerhall95 ... how many options about what it could be are there in your post?

​@@tylerhall95 Oh well comparing is major part of the scientific process. You see, it's not a problem but strenght to have different perspectives and theories. By comparing we can see which one is more useful. The perspectives that do not match testing and experience are left to die. Now if you happen to believe an outdated idea like stone can be turned into gold well a scientist will still laugh at you until you show him that it is possible. And he will not deny it. But often you will not be able to turn stone into gold aka show that they are wrong because unlike you it's there job to find out things that are in there domain of expertise. That high level fighting is dropped when most of them agree. Like most scientist agree with General Relaticity. But even though Newtones theory was wrong it is still useful. And Earth is flat is a good assumption when building a house but not when sending a rocket to the moon. Also a scientist that doesn't question his own paradigm is NOT a scientist but rest assured they do, because else science would not evolve and they'll get mocked as Einstein himself got dunked for refuting Quantum mechanics and he did change his mind later on.

Congrats you're not dogmatic!

Dude this guys mind is so open it fell out lmao, he presented no evidence, no testable theories of his own, he said animals could fucking SENSE when people are watching them, no dawg they can smell your unwashed ass from a mile away. He doesnt understand science, the ACTUAL scientific process, observation theory hypothesis experimentaion observe again blah blah blah. He doesn't actually like science because he likes SHROOMS AND DMT!!!

Fuck "considering new perspectives". The people who drank the Kool Aid in Jonestown were just "considering new perspectives". Is the Kool-aid tasty?

"Fuck your kool-aid! mine tastes better!"@@thatonekerbal

​@thatonekerbal if you wanna call motivations behind the Jonestown Massacre a "new perspective," you can also say that it was not a perspective that the victims who drank the kool-aid out of desperation of their children dying or those who had the poison forced down their throats were truly "considering." But hey, you sure made an interesting argument for closed-mindedness.

The talk does go way into non-scientific stuff, but even if it didn't, it probably would have been banned anyway. The biggest scientific dogma I can think of is that science is mankind's duty. Real science never makes that claim, but many in the scientific community believe and promote that. I agree with them. But it's still dogma. Science tells you HOW things function, but it can't tell you what path you SHOULD follow. Religion and philosophy do that. So if you believe science is mankind's duty, you're pushing something that's either a religion or a philosophy.

@@theboombody how does it go into “non-scientific stuff”? Because he poses unproven theories? That’s part of the scientific method, scientists do that all the time, in every field. Asking questions and formulating hypothesis is the basis of scientific inquiry. Claiming something is “non-scientific” without specifically disproving the statements is in itself non-scientific. It often shows the existence of dogma, in this case probably the belief the current model is both mathematically accurate and a true description of reality. So when another scientist poses claims that radically alter the model or views reality in a different way than the model, it’s automatically inferred as being false or non-scientific.

@@CoenBijpost matter not inherently being consiouse is reasonable, not a dogma. science is observation, we have not observed what would give stars or matter intelligence, thus for now, those things can not think. what has been observed is that things have different properties when combined, we have consiousness because we have observed that to be the case, and we defined consiousness that way. there is a lot of ways his talk was not very scientific, and falling closer to belief in a greater meaning, belief in not just physical, but also spiritual properties of things. basically he condoned assuming an explanation for something, even if that explaination lacked ground in the physical world. which that would hold back science because it would prevent finding material and observable explanations for somethings people believe they already know an otherly explanation for.

@@CoenBijpost Well, there is nothing wrong with proposing another model or phrasing a new hypothesis: just that you must provide sufficient evidence. For example, if someone were to propose an alternative to Darwinian evolution with no palpable evidence, he would obviously be scorned. That is a sound and logical inference.

There is a direct link between spirituality and quantum physics. “Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the Universe.” -Theoretical quantum physicist Amit Goswami

@GIGABIGOT What do you mean by "forgetting biology"?

​@GIGABIGOT Being skeptical is fantastic, it is the base of science from Galileo's times. But you must have studied and comprehend the subject you're discussing. You can't just say "I don't think so" if you know very little about the subject you're talking about because you should prove others wrong with facts, not just by saying "no".

Exactly. Simple logic isn't DOGMA

When a person or group actively ostracize or persecute those who question their assumptions (or beliefs), that's one of the clearest signs that they have become dogmatic. Academic scientists should celebrate those who ask valid questions that challenge the truthfulness of their theories. Rather than ostracize such persons, they should instead be working hard to answer those challenging questions, or be prepared to admit that there is the possibility that they may be wrong. It should be this simple: Scientists come up with a theory . . . Valid questions that challenge the theory are asked . . . They (scientists) either satisfactorily answer those questions or admit the possibility that their theory may be wrong. But instead what we see is: Scientists come up with a theory . . . They reach a consensus accepting this theory as fact . . . Valid questions that challenge the theory are asked . . . They refuse to answer those questions, and instead go on a smear campaign to discredit and ostracize whoever dared to question their theories. Does that not sound very much like what a dogmatic cult would do ??

@@kaluidika5534 I don't know where you got the fact that scientists don't answer questions. If you ask a question to any scientist they will try to answer. Instead, if you don't really want to ask questions but only want to defend your ideas (like flat-earthers) you probably won't change your opinion even if proven otherwise, so most scientists just don't want to use their time answering.

He can't. Its a powerful figure of speech.

its completeb bs. There are no examples.

Right??? Imagine claiming that animals possess a collective unconcious and citing literally no sources.

Like anyone he certainly has some really questionable ideas himself. Just don't assume that all of his ideas are wrong. He did present an argument and some statistics that according to him exist and were talked about. (And I have heard similar things from other people.)

He talked about his evidence when he went on the Joe Rogan podcast a while back.

Lol … you’re a “STEM graduate”? Do you mean you have a degree in science, technology, engineering, or math? It’s not a single degree. And which class was it in particular? Anyone who has a degree in any of these disciplines knows that the instructors don’t sit students down on their first day and say, “so, first lesson: never take a fact at face value”, and then everyone says “ohh”, as if that’s the kind of training they paid for. Each class is highly specialized to an specific aspect to a given discipline. Not to mention that university programs teach little true critical thinking, certainly not on the first year. You’re clearly in middle/high school, or you’re someone who aspires to be in this type of program. I hope the best for your future.

@@derek.seaborn - i graduated in 2000 actually. Biological Sciences. In the days before wokeness was a thing.

​@@derek.seaborn lol, how can you complicate OP's comment like that? OP made a perfectly fine generalized comment - he is not saying a teacher taught him that on the first day LITERALLY - ffs. Either your reading comprehension is at elementary level and therefore can't differentiate generalizations, or good luck stressing out your life if you constantly complicate simple things.

My thing is “facts” are somewhat based on consensus

@@khanyosontange4634 - not really. Scientific consensus or dissent doesn't alter the facts. When the scientific consensus was that space was filled with luminiferous ether it didn't make it a fact, it just meant the consensus was completely wrong. Similarly, being on the outside of the consensus doesn't automatically make you right either. Science is a process and scientists are just humans within that process. Science is only good when the scientists are free to question dogmas and thus shift the consensus to follow where the facts are taking them, and the facts come from the evidence not the conclusions of the scientists. A scientific conclusion is just an interpretation of the available evidence in pursuit of the facts. It may be correct or it may be scientific wishful thinking. That's why it's important to publish the raw data and the methodology by which it was gathered as well as the conclusions so that other scientists can attempt to replicate the same findings for themselves. If they can then the data is validated and they can work towards a consensus on the conclusions drawn from that data, after which they can draw new hypotheses from their conclusions and test those to validate the consensus. If at any point in this process it's impossible to replicate an experiment then all conclusions drawn from that experiment are called into question and the consensus *should* follow the data and change. Scientists are only human, though, and this doesn't always happen. Even the scientific consensus can be perverted by dogma, ideology and pigheadedness. But dogma doesn't alter facts. The facts remain the same even if everyone refuses to look at them.

Are you not on board because you question what you have been taught/know might in fact be wrong or ever evolving?

yep its clearly bullshit but hes doing the right thing by asking

@@Socksks Can you elaborate on why it is bullshit?

His whole point is that we're not questioning. Even your sentence shows this, it starts with no, it ain't so, and the rest is a warm fuzzy feeling footnote.

​@@JohnnyBravo-sb8hq thank you.

Realizing each individual has uncommon ground via differences is what science without dogmas focuses on to find patterns if & when they emerge. I've run into plenty of scientists that never question what they've been told. That's not science. That's ignorance.

that is ego getting in the way, pride and arrogance are ugly things but we all have to deal with it and refashion it to humiliyt and modesty. too much knowledge pretending to be science can make people become arrogant and proud. I would think the more you know the more you realize how much you dont know and that the more you seek answers the more questions pop up then answers would humble one.

Widespread Right hemisphere function atrophication among individuals. Or: The apprentice believing in his being competent to run the entire shop !

​@@siyaindagulag. Think about this way: the distribution of right- and left-hemisphere prefering people may stood the same over time, its just not 50%-50%, rather being about 80%-20% or anything in that area, gradually linked to the prefered sidedness, wich is also spread out from nearly both sides being used pretty evenly to complete one-sidedness (->authism etc...) But since population is growing and/or the everage person is getting older, wich may also effect conservativity... it may just "seem" like its the way you see it^^ Or it may really changes, but that is maybe not really a problem. The only problem is, that most people don´t know it´s implications, especially in science... I usually see it this way: there are 2 types of thinking and therefore also 2 types of science! - One that goes into the broad from a set of axioms or dogmas, by combining what is actually known, and creation new thechnology, predictions, ect. this way - but without going into depht at all; cause it´s the standard Question-Answere principle wich is also most usefull in daily life - and most of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology etc falls into that category... (typical left-side-prefered, 2-dimmensional, rational linear thinking) whereby most of this would not even be possible without taking current assumptions, Axioms as a fixed Basis! You can´t literally question everything everytime, when your goal is to simply create things efficiently. Simply stated - you don´t need to know, how your Car, PC or Smartphone is actually funktioning in most detail to be able to work with them and create new things with them, as long as they work for what you need them. - Second One that goes upwards the stream, by finding the question to given answers by trying out different directions into the unknown... and re-evaluating the existing basis, constantly questioning everything, rather it be new theories or commonly agreed on ones in the process. (right-side-prefered, 3-dimmensional holografic thinking) Whereby you don´t need that many people doing the second, even if it has the biggest impact on the applications of knowledge after all. So as conclusion, the really BIG PROBLEM arises with the fact, that nobody in science (and other fields) seems to be aware of this concept, after all... It rather seems like there is a wave-like shift between both sides over time, wich affects everything from science, mass-psychology and (global) economy to literally all aspects of humanity. Maybe one day we will be able to smooth out this fluctiations and their various effects by commonly accepting that there are different peole with different ways of (prefered) thinking, while also understanding our own with it´s uses and flaws. Maybe this is the #1 thing we should focus to implement and set as the basis of our schoolsystems worldwide, to create a beautiful future of humanity as a whole.

@@Neooowin Yes. I've read your reply and am glad you made it to the school system. Training is as much responsible, perhaps even more so, than say personal proclivity in practical application of thought. I mostly agree, our society (or at least the economic system) has ushered in the 80%; trouble being ,the mode has eked it's way into the social, i.e. interpersonal aspect, giving rise to the screaming mass of polarization observable on a daily basis. Logical , analytic deduction, strangely enough is a right-hemispheres function , whereas the inductive , knowledge based tools we ,like it or not, use most often are the black & white "sledgehammer" of left-hemisphere dominance. Our very humanity ,I reckon , will be better served by getting that balance returned. How? I don't know but I'm off to read more McGilchrist.... Cheers.

@@time3735 Rick Astley? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

They're protecting a perceived monopoly, perhaps? Few people who've invested pelf, time, and effort into acquiring a current education are going to sit idly by as some Johnny-come-lately threatens their feed-bowl.

no?

"I get why it was banned" so you get that the powers that be are trying to indoctrinate people by controlling speech and therefore thought?

There was no reason to ban it.

Jeffy Eppy

Stop being so racist to science people, you bigot.

Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥

I think it would be better said “the problem with following the science is that science follows the money”.

Another dogma is that we need animal products to be healthy and happy. The truth is that animal products are incredibly cruel (Dominion (2018)) and bad for health: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets (2016)

Well the speaker has a phd in biochemistry so I'd bet he knows the science. Therefore as you said its good that people question dogmas.

@@waffle.23 I didn't get the impression that he was saying these things in bad faith, but a lot of people use this line of reasoning to spread their stupidity, or even worse, exploit the gullible. This is why TED unlisted his talk.

there are tons of bogus PhDs, being a scientist does not make you a smart person. plus he is attacking the claims of physics, which is seemingly well outside his area of expertise ​@@waffle.23

​@@milandavid7223Or it's just that his points actually do have some merit but it's just that people like you always dismiss them as "bad faith" all because there are some legitimate questions to be had

@@PeruvianPotato Yes, his points have merit, but unless the things he's talking about can be repeatedly and unambigously demonstrated it's neither here nor there as far as the scientific method is concerned. Maybe one day we will have the tools to investigate consciousness but until then this is all just speculation.

My opinion, it is just the other way around. They have nothing at all without Thought. Dont know what Thoughts are, where they originate, what they are made of, and even less master this indispensible Tool. As in silencing the inner dialogue an exploring that silence. Eyes open, hours on end. There is sooo much to discover. They got away with their sloppyness till now, but since qm and geeneral relativity theories are incompatible, And the "observer" question arises, it is high time they learn to "observe" because of that they also have no clue.

@@gammaraygemHave you hit your head recently, or?🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤡

the word that stuck out the most is "appears" like they aren't even sure why they had to take it down but the guy that pays my bosses check told them to kind of vibe... idk lol

It's probably also lost on them that by censoring this talk they basically prove his point about "Science as belief system" > "Science as method of inquiry".

Very dogmatic of them .

That anything liberal is morally correct. And thay they being scientists, most of which come from rich or upper middle class families know better than poor uneducated people.

​@@QVUTDN High school teacher: You are going to learn this in College. Professor: I *assume* that this is already taught in your high school years so I'm not going to teach you this. Me:🙂

Lol hope your classmates also recognize thatty.

Nonsense.

​@@QVUTDN objective morality is based in wellness and anything that goes against that can very well be considered bad. Science can most definitely determine something to be bad or even relatively bad. If you went around stabbing people, that would be objectively morally bad because it goes against their wellness.

Out of ALL existing subjects, the ONE subject that institution-science HATES the MOST is called Para-Psychology (yes, they HATE it even MORE than they hate the Christian-Religion, believe it or not), and, you can see just how irrational those Materialists become by reading the eight-minute article titled : «How The Skeptics Lost Their Minds Over a Precognition Experiment»

@@aeiuscercle5010 Yes that's what I've observed as well. Mainstream science seems to look at the paranormal with disdain and give it no recognition. In many cases materialistic approaches cannot solve the problem. Whether that's due to a lack in our knowledge, or a truly paranormal occurrence, I do not know, but I would think it was worth pursuing. Skeptics are sometimes so skeptical to the point where the paranormal explanation begins to sound more plausible lol.

You should check out a study called ‘The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential’. I found it interesting because the researcher took the modern scientific method and used it to measure non-materialistic things in yhe brain. It’s been a long while since I read it and can’t recall very well the results but I guarantee you’ll find it interesting

Tbf, science comes from the Age of Enlightenment and the Enlightenment is all about measurable and thus, materialism. Though the dogma about constants is definitely NOT true to science since the change in constants is measurable and it should be analyzed if it is measurable. Shows the direction science was going in the 70s…. Like a lot of things rational thought exited in the 70s. Just look at the finance sector. MMT is an absolute farce.

I've looked into various mysteries over the years, studying the data, eliminating impossible conclusions and leaning toward the likely ones. I've delved into the idea of Atlantis as a real historical place and what destroyed it/neolithic (and possibly pre-neolithic trans-oceanic trading civilization,) presidential assassinations, the anthropogenic global warming hoax, mainstream media brainwashing/social engineering that is pushing us toward totalitarianism (as Aldus Huxley and others warned us about) and the influence that central banking/big business have over politics/war/human thinking. I have data from scientists, US presidents and various figures of influence as well as people who were hungry for truth over dogmatically-accepted narrative. Let me know if any subject piques your interest and I'll send you links.

A bit like how the USA will adopt the metric system eventually?

This rather crude idea was more finely defined by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Great breakthroughs ("paradigm changes") are often made by relative outsiders or newcomers to a field, and those wedded to the old paradigms often fall by the wayside, though how that happens is a function of the social and political conditions of the time.

sometimes, that's what evolution takes.

Planck also said, after studying Atoms for decades, that "there is no Matter as such" - today he would be cancelled!!

When the world discovers that they will die from taking the 'You know what', it'll be too late.

My thoughts exactly.

Yeah but he explained that measurements around the world were lining up during that drop off phase, inaccurate measurements doesn't explain this.

@@Gabe7Gal obviously because everyone was literally using the same tech and methodology that was widely accepted at that particular time? if say, we are both measuring a temperature of a certain object using a mercury thermometer in the 1920s, regardless of what brand of mercury thermometer we are using, as long as both brands are manufactured with cutting edge tech at the time, the accuracy of the temp reading we will obtain will always be limited by the expansion of the mercury inside the thermometers due to transfer of thermal energy from the said object we were measuring

​@jaredoperana1842 well now you're saying the equipment and methodology was faulty not lacking accuracy

@@1upads if we compare them to future experiments, then yes, we can consider them faulty in a sense that they were limited. A quick research on the history of measuring the speed of light will show you that improvements were made BY employing very different methods of measurement, mainly due to technological advances. I mean, it's not like we are using the same method used in 1880 but suddenly we are getting different results.

No doubt this was cancelled, is filled with misinformation and misrepresentation of scientific concept or ideas, such as the fact that matter is not conscious, therefore science want to disprove that we are conscious " that's just re- taking an idea and representing in a stupid and incorrect way, to make it sound less true

And the scientists that want to ban particular attitudes and ideas that don't fit in with what is considered to be " scientific " are the Inquisition tribunal of our age !!

Yeah that's the same thing as people watching incest porn because it's considered bad in society and people like taboo and incest porn

that's why it was meantioned in the title. It is one of the ways to sell content, regardless of it's quality and ban existence

It might also be "banned" for being proved to be really bad and misinformative.

Which is what any and every good scientist needs to be doing...

The passage of time was long thought to be a constant. Now we know it's not.

The older I get, and the more I learn and gain knowledge, the more I realize that the less I really know!

I agree with some of what he said vis a vis consciousness, but his knowledge of "variable constants" is badly wrong. This is an old and well-known topic in physics, and it has been explored and pretty much shot to pieces, in my opinion. I just saw a paper recently bringing it up again, so it won't die. That said, this biologist doesn't get that the speed of light isn't about light. It's about causality itself and fundamental laws that keep the universe from flying apart. Change c and you change the strength of electromagnetic interactions (fine structure constant). That has NEVER been observed. If it changed, basic chemical reactions would change and his frogs wouldn't work.

Nobody has all the answers.

I'm not familiar with Hegel. Do you think he would object to any of the points raised in this video?

Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥

Another dogma is that we need animal products to be healthy and happy. The truth is that animal products are incredibly cruel (Dominion (2018)) and bad for health: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets (2016)

@@VeganSemihCyprus33 animal meat is amazing The real dogma is about vaccines

Humanity has never once, in its entire history, ever, in any culture or subset of culture, survived more than one generation without eating meat. Calling meat product unhealthy is like saying your heart beating is unhealthy because eventually it will run itself to death. Calling meat product cruel is to ignore its necessity in nature, despite vegetarians and vegans professing to love it. How can you insist you love something, while vehemently rejecting an entire half of it just because it’s unpleasant to you?

@@amihere383 And that's not even taking into consideration that the average vegan/vegetarian needs supplements which are, themselves, primarily extracted from animals - and often with a lesser exchange rate than just eating the animal. Meaning, there's a good chance more cows died to make a vegan's protein pill than to generate the same amount of protein from eating steak.

I wish I had that artistic talent.

Amen!

This comment is a lovely oasis of appreciation, like flowers brought in a classroom after a heated debate. Debates are good, but joyous wise progress to a better world ( after the disagreements) are even better.

„actully“ … really?

I believe there are programs that can make sketch animations, semi automated, to video/text.

Why, did Rupert Sheldrake join the gaggle of pseudoscientists in covid denial too?

yep every thing change with COVID.we say ,you do.

lmao my comment pointing out that Rupert is a covid denialist was deleted. Free speech etc

my sentiment exactly ... thinking of the psychological talks that have been totally discredited (wonder if those were ever removed?)

I know🤣

Amongst us

Had to say "Amongts" to avoid the trap.

Humongus

Mongoose

bot commenting haha

They are becoming the mechanicus, quick, hide the toasters!

Which kind of science scholar you previously were that you believed this kind of statement?

@@amedeoromagnolo6108 do you mean a true statement? your comment is impressively unimpressive.

@@amedeoromagnolo6108 I used to be bonded under a statuary board and after being subjected to a grilling session involving my choice of modules (I took engineering modules). I realised that they are looking for a high GPA and not aptitude for research and scientific inquiry. I just left the programme while paying damages.

@@carpaccio45 I will start by saying that I don't have a clear understanding of what a statuary board is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I perceived: you were taking some engineering classes, the commission didn't like the scores you got and went against you (which I don't support, for the record), and you decided that the whole scientific community of hundreds of thousands of researcher from thousands of institutes around the world behaves the same. With all the due respect, being a science scholar means you have been a researcher and been involved in academia, which doesn't seem the case. I'm not trying to insult here. I'm just showing my skepticism on whether your accusations could should be limited to the commission you are talking about or not, and from what I am seeing I'm not sure you have met plenty of scientists to make a general statement.

That's the first thing I thought of too. "Trust the science"? That's not how science works. It's constantly tested and challenged. The charges of heresy for not trusting the "facts" reminds me of what Galileo must have gone through.

For sure, covid was scary. I despise all the normies for letting it slide, they stripped me of my rights because I didnt want to take a shot that I dont need and that hurt alot of people. I cant believe we didnt lynch some politicians over this

Absolutely! The covid farce is still playing out, excess mortality sky-rocketing the world over, blood clots on levels not seen by mortitions or pathologists, heart attacks on the increase etc All while governments refuse to investigate Median age of covid death is 84.7 years of age, chance of death for those under 60 is 0.03% and when you rank causes of death, covid is way down at number 34, that's well before influenza at number 22, falling at number 10, and still governments refuse to even look at the excess mortality rates! The scientific method isn't being applied, it's being auperceeded by dogma

The only thing that you need to have a solid grasp on to understand the current state of science is a deep understanding of political corruption.

Why wouldn't once trust science? Its by-product, technology, is what drives our lives.

The Big Bang is just theory and only works a fraction of a second after it has begun

You're correct. And I think that's the reason why Ted Talkx took the video down. Because it is indeed pseudo science.

underrated comment

Wow! Thought provoking

The heart of what he is saying isn't just wrong, it's really, badly wrong. He should have spoken to a physicist, not a metrologist who specializes in measuring. First, the speed of light is badly named for historical reasons. It is the speed which massless particles interact in a vacuum. I much prefer the term "the speed of causality" because causality itself (one thing causes another) runs at that speed. Light is just one thing that runs at that speed. This idea of variable constants is an old one, and it has never been disproved, but it's had more than a few nails driven into the coffin. The speed of light is part of the fine structure constant (the strength of electromagnetic force), and no one has EVER measured changes in it. The speed of light appears in many, many equations (relativity, photon energy, Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, ...). Change it, and the universe falls apart. Yes, something called Lorentz invariance allows c to be changed if everything it depends on changes, but that also says such a change wouldn't be noticeable.

Agreed

Yeah, the last half of the talk started to lose me too. But it is an idea that is worth investigation - I just wish we could physically investigate it. The only dumb question, the only dumb idea, is the unspoken one. So even if our person here turns out to be wrong about his telepathic theories, his initial ideas about questioning the constants and investigating further than the current boundaries still has value.

Stopped watching at the halfway point when I noticed the build up of strawmen. The speaker would state a universally accepted (but far from unquestioned) concept, and then tag on an extra bit ready for the takedown based on that extra bit. Such as stating Einstein's matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only reformed and then pivoting to the big bang theory a theory (of Christian origin) that states the expansion of the universe, based on observational data. But then tags on the moments before the big bang (that isn't part of the theory) claiming that science believes all matter popped into existence. Then there is the fallacy of composition, if matter isn't conscious, then things made of matter shouldn't be conscious. Evolution has no purpose of direction. Technically true, but missing the second half of the concept. A living world that very much gives a direction and purpose (survival of the fittest). Everything you inherit is material. Again technically true, but misses the living world that we all live in and the effects that will have on us. My brother inherited my father's near superhuman strength, but was raised in a loving family so didn't develop my father's sociopathy. And so on and on.

@@pensandshakers Yeah, we should also take into account that things like "Medicine is Magic" was questioned as "is medicine not magical?" then became "I think there's a way to manipulate literal atoms and molecules to influence the health and behaviour of humans" and here we are

@@BlaxeFrost-X When you put it like that, there does seem to be some mysticism in every aspect of life. I mean, in ancient times, glass was considered magical because it was usually only created when lightning struck sand. The Egyptians all but revered it. I'm more of a fan of the hard sciences - biology, engineering, geology, etc - but the theoretical bounds of our understanding definitely sound fuzzier and fuzzier whenever I touch back with them. Just thinking of the current work with quantum and atomic computers makes me feel like we're trespassing a boundary of scientific knowledge. I guess it's true what they say: Magic is science not yet understood.

The video makes it sound odd, and is deceptive in the way its is presented. One only need to look superficially into the examples presented (eg the speed of light, the natural laws) to discover that he is bending the concepts to make them seem that way.

@@key-va Let says one thousand year ago, according to then standard you make a one metre rod as the reference and latter Science defined one metre using wavelength. Overtime, that rod can be measured as 0.99 and some time 1.01 and other time 1.02. Do you question the rod or the standard? Both agreed with the law yet contradict each other. It may be insignificant to most but in todays nano scale scientific advancement such trivial becomes important.

@@Growthunlimited The rod can only be as long as the rod is, it cannot be 0.99 of its own length.. You say the rod is 1 meter, then you use some other definition of what a meter is to actually measure the rod. I think this the same oddity that is pointed out in the video with regards to constants, but in fact it is not fair. A meter (or the length of which) is not a constant in the same sense that pi, or the speed of light is. -edited because typos :)

@@key-va Apparantly you're not Engineering trained or you don't understand what I meant. If the reference point is the wavelength of light, it is possible that the same rod can get different wavelength reading, that is what the video tried to explain.

Sure, to most of us, "morphic resonance" sounds like pseudoscience. But maybe we have to think about these things in a different way. Suppose I told you that I was taught one set of supposedly concrete facts in school, and then after I graduated, everyone started saying the exact opposite and acted like they had no knowledge of anything that was taught in school. Well this happened to me! It is almost as if I was thrown into an alternate universe after I graduated from high school! Maybe morphic resonance is pseudoscience, but the truth is that most of the so called science used by other people to justify the things they do to us, is also pseudoscience, but perhaps even more sinister! Another possibility is that morphic resonance actually is real. It seems the more we think we can tell real science from pseudoscience, the more they will manipulate everything against us!

Chemical gradients is NOT an enough explanation to distuinguished body parts, as even in ideal conditions, development can still be made possible. Heck, if you would argue on that lines, there are pregnant rats that still bore normal young in Zero Gravity, when chemicals are more equally distributed , and concluding either something else, or a combination of factors, some of which not yet known, to explain differentiation. Also, the change in 'G' in gravity isn't as constant as you think, as it changes independently to the rate of universe expansion, hence why Dark Matter (which is STILL unproven BTW) was invented to explain it. Then again, Quantum Mechanics breaks apart ALL of the known ways to acquire scientific knowledge as we know it, as all we have are numbers and data, and we have to interpret all that, which precludes everything to a bias.

​@@skybattler2624Thank you! There's a reason this was dismissed as pseudoscience. He's not saying anything new, he just wants to profit with it

Did you just call him "babes?" Freak

"Science relies on reproducible experimental observation" and also predictability. These 2 tenets of science can't be applied on many facts: Big Bang, black holes, origin of lifeforms, weather, behavior, psychology, etc, etc, etc. Desperate materialists even rely only (!) on falsifiability...

​@@edus9636yes they can. You just don't see how, demonstrating your scientific illiteracy plainly. Do some research, and try again.

@@CovenoftheOpenMind Oh, they just don't see how to reproduce the Big Bang? Or to forecast 100% the weather of next week or month? And I'm illiterate? Lol

Evidence is not needed to justify questioning things. Science questions things without evidence regularly, if it's actual science and not state propaganda. The evidence is revealed after the questioning takes place.

@@CovenoftheOpenMind reproduce the big bang then genius 😅

Exactly what i thought, it's poetic

Less eyes though

They took it from their platform because it's full of lies and misinformation and they didn't want to have their name associated with a hack disguised as a scientist. Half of his claims about scientific dogma aren't even true. He claims he is a martyr for exposing blindspots that in reality are known and actively studied by scientists and then he interjects his own crackpot theories after he has your attention. You guys are all falling for his manipulation by saying "Well if TED banned him then it must be true! It's a conspiracy!" that is exactly what he wants, because nobody would listen to him otherwise. Any time someone has to trick you into thinking you are getting secret information that scientists don't want you to have they are preying on your insecurities. It makes you feel important and smarter than scientists who have dedicated their lives to research, and it makes you feel better about the person who is "enlightening" you with this information. This is classic brainwashing that you can find in any cult or religion, it's manipulation 101.

If you write under it its not banned. ;)

Exactly

That’s a cop out, you know somethings and you extrapolate from them

@@zrakonthekrakon494 make sure you know why you know, and avoid logical errors, but the first part is critical i posted the previous comment because the person in the video seem to condemn "falling short" on anwsers (been a while since i watched tho). My point is that it's critical to not keep extrapolating out of your ass if you excuse me.

@@wontcreepthat last sentence 😂

"Believe in science" is something out of WHO and Fauci's playbook. Scientists don't usually :believe in science", but use scientific methods. And those are sometimes questionable or arbitrary in some fields. For example in psychological experiments p value is kinda arbitrary and just an experienced guess. However double blind tests is a scientific method that should in theory mitigate all possible interference. But nobody blindly belief someone who claims they've done a correct study when no other group couldn't replicate it. It might stick for some time while others try to replicate it. It might stick longer if there's no incentive to replicate or it's very costly or unethical, but eventually that usually backfire. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment for example or Hendrik Schön scandal

A really snarky response would be to tell him that the Dunning-Kruger effect also exists lmao

No, we *know* a lot about quantum mechanics. We just don't understand it well enough. Quantum physics, at the end of the day, is such a science that despite having all the data and results, you can't quote come to grips about the why all of it happens.

That's great

@@tejas4567 Yeah, my experience with teachers was that they pretended that we knew a lot more than we do. What we don't know absolutely dwarfs what we know.

I must disagree with him, we know much. The real tragedy is that many scientist have little knowledge in the field of philosophy (which is funny because science is a philosophy, it was created by philosophers whom devised a method to find natural law not much different than the concept of a logic system) as such when we see what would support certain views on reality they simply pretend that quantum mechanics don't have meaning to our reality. To put it bluntly, many scientist are cowards and afraid of the truth their eyes can perceive.

They shouldn't have banned it, but only because of Streisand effect.

hopefully once this talk gets more publicized, everyone will start questioning about the basis of science itself, im excited if it does

MIT has been so disappointing the past few years. I was ignorant of what a staunch Pharma Partner the place is. I hope it still has people who can think outside The Narrative.

Noam Chomsky said question everything. I immediately started questioning things about science that never made sense and in reading volumes of material on a quest for knowledge I found multitudes of contradictions in “facts” relating to scientific information which gave me pause. It led me to creative thinking and very healthy skepticism.😎

@@fairyprincess911 Sadly, poor ol' Noam apparently abandoned skepticism in 2020, to the point where in 2021 he called for the unclean to be isolated from the rest of society.

Lol 😂

This comment explains why people believe that humankind never got to land on the moon

​@@franzj4040the comment doesn't need to say anything because you have already committed the sin the video is talking about, trusting blindly in something. I could say your comment "this comment explains why people believe that humankind never got to land on the moon" back to you and it would also apply to you, possibly even better. Trusting in alternate media blindly as the wider population does about normal media is not a good thing.

“The PBS of KZfaq”

TED talks are still very good and educational. You could just watch and take what speaks to you, like most everything else.

@@manic217 No, he is not. Watch it again, especially the part having to do with Gravitational constants and the speed of Light, and get back to us about what he got so wrong.

Me too. They have an agenda and everything about Ted has clearly been exposed. People need to open their eyes to this --> kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pa6XaLZ7vriscWQ.html

@@manic217 Genuinely insane to see so many people eating this up. Anti-intellectualism is all this video supports and I absolutely see why this video was suppressed. Just spreading blatant misinformation from the malformed perspective of this author. Some points he brings up are intersecting, like constants evolving. But to believe it's within our lifetimes is absurd and honestly just funny.

The most deceptive part is that he does nail some things right on the head, and then takes that and runs off with it like he owes someone money, spinning off into the realm of pseudoscience...

​@@edim108exactly what I thought. The questions he's asking aren't bad on their own, there definitely are many things in science that are assumed to be true even though we probably haven't provided the burden of evidence for them yet. But his alternative hypotheses have no supporting evidence at all, and yet he feels people should dogmatically accept them as better alternatives to our current theories. I can only hope he is blind to his hypocrisy, because to be this intentionally misleading would be very upsetting

@@edim108Idk you should maybe read some Einstein.

The ironic part is that there are already plenty of scientific works questioning all of those "dogmas": in particular, there are plenty of evidences that statements 6, 7, 8 and 10 may be inaccurate or incomplete. However, that is A LOT different than saying their opposite is true... For example, even saying that mechanistic medicine is not the only kind that works still does not disprove that it is still your best shot (pun intended) at getting better; you would also need a very accurate definition of "mechanistic medicine" and "work"

@@Beregorn88 Well that’s because you take the fundamental assumptions to be correct. For example. The one way speed of light is unknown and we only have the two way speed of light. But entire theories and conventions are built on these unproven concepts and there are many things these theories fail to explain and effectively what this person is saying is that maybe we should go back to the basics for a bit because we are quite short of the mark

Did he hurt your feelings?

Yes, this talk was very shallow in providing evidence to _prove_ his theories. To cast doubt on existing ones - sure, but to prove his ones, far from it. That’s the frustrating necessity and strength of the scientific method.

@@Liliarthanit’s more to say that there are possible holes in the current understandings that require deeper explanations and not laziness in ignoring the potential holes. The changes in gravity wouldn’t necessarily say that our current math is wrong but that they should account for other variables. And/Or maybe the constants are more “nearly constants”

"Morphogenic field theory" is BS. It's basically Shamanism Bullshit that is clearly nonsense

I think you’re forgetting the definition of the word “theory.” A theory that is scientifically proven is no longer a theory.

There is no absolute proof in science. A belief can be held for hundreds of years before being disproven. The idea that science is a magical absolute truth generating machine is I'm afraid, just dogmatic.

Very interesting talk but we can't just believe everything he says. I also would like to see the evidence that rats in other countries would learn the tricks faster

I'm an aerospace engineer and you better know that geostationary satellites have to constantly readjust because of exactly what he is talking about. BUT gravity and light are intertwined and they do change as our Solar System speeds at thousands of miles per second through the galaxy. Earth's surface has gravitational differences from place to place and they have precisely measured different lightspeeds because of gravity. I do not like the worldview of assumed Materialism either. Know Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria he put on scientific endeavor and was accepted as valid? Know what group had a tizzy fit because when he said "If a field of science explains everything it really explains nothing."?

Underlying argument of video is daft. Science may have some holes in it but that is not so that the science can be made better but to support some far worse ideas which have very little basis at all. X is not perfect so Y is right!

@@alanrobertson9790 The point of the video is not that "Y is right", the point is "X has flaws can we talk about it??". Fact is academy became the new church, and "science" the new religion.

@@alanrobertson9790 But I totally agree with not falling for the "X is not perfect so Y is right" trap.

Money is the key

@@TheACCmy yes who is funding these scientists and resesearchers, do their findings have to fit a narrative to get published and pushed onto the public

Transhumanism agenda.

"Most" is a huge overstatement.

Unfortunately, TED talks now only allow talks that support the party line

@@QVUTDN you mean cancer?

@@QVUTDN ah

May WE be that individual!

Could this be extrapolated even further? They are watching the event from different angles - and you are watching them from one perspective.

Actually it is the spreading of pseudo-science via the platform of the internet.

It is a beautiful thing.

@@dignan193 truly! 🤩🙌🏽🤩

If something cannot stand while being challenged, let it fall. The great awakening is here my friend

This. It proves they just ignore any paranormal case despite being semi-materialistic like a ghost turning solid having a few beers. To this being the reason why so much of our understanding should be much higher in 2023. Hell people can see shadow being while sober the same things that are common on a 250mg Benadryl trip.

All we know is censorship. We live in a world filled with lies. Even history is a fabricated one. Archeology and geology shows what they hide from the people. The ancient scriptures tell our world's cycles. The signs to look for. Earth, sun,stars and planets have a 12000 year where our sun nova and all the stars aswell. All planets have a pole reversal. All oceans on earth will be trown on land first east when the earth rotation around the center of universe stops and to west when rotation starts again in opposite direction. It's not a extinction event aslong your not facing the nova side. Last time it was China and Russia. This time Europe and Africa. USA has bin digging tunnels and bunkers since the 50th's...they know this since 1957!

Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥

Censorship lead me to distrust the covid vaccine. If someone is wrong disprove them, dont censor them in the name of $cience

Well, I don't want 5 year olds watching explicit pornography. It fucks them up mentally. Censorship definitelly has it's uses if we can all agree on moral grounds it is necessary. The problem is that some people are unilaterally pushing it for an all but explicit reason of corrupting morals for their own gain.

@@ThZuao nice point. Unfortunately the world is full of soft porn. The internet is even worse.

As a bio grad, oh god I hope you stay away from healthcare if you bought into this video

There’s all sorts of fantastic things you can get into when you finish your biology studies. I completed my Masters in the mid 80’s and choose a career in the environmental field. I’ve had a great career and have had all sorts of adventures and misadventures and still feel passion for my work. I also earn above average compensation. My point being is theirs all sorts of interesting and productive things you can apply your knowledge to and you’ll probably find your passion if you haven’t already done so. Im not convinced with this guy. Im all for thinking outside the box but he’s trying to redefine the the box. His opening premise is illogical. It’s a strawman. I don’t know many persons educated in the natural sciences who would agree with his opening thesis on what science believes. I have never believed that science “already understands the nature of reality’. His next comment is misrepresentation of science. He claims science is based on materialist Philosophy. That’s just not correct. Science is based on Natural Philosophy and there’s a big difference. The general belief of what science is, that it is what can be explained by natural causation. If what we are trying to understand can’t be explained by natural causes then it is something other than science. That doesn’t mean that science is always right. It just means it isn’t science so science can’t explain it. No big deal right? So what he has done here is changed the argument by changing the definition of science. I caught on to this old trick over the years debating creationists on evolutionary theory. In fact I’ve debated creationists who used identical arguments in attempts to refute evolutionary theory. To be honest this is a lot like the stuff that comes out of the Discovery institute.

@@Mottleydude1 If more people could grasp that science doesn't have all the answers, abd that the answers it provides are always changing, then we wouldn't have to have this debate between theists and atheists. Instead we see arguments that are driven purely by the desire to be right, in my opinion the least productive types of arguments. I'm other words, evo's and creationists tend to have a miopic perspective while defending their team. What if they aren't meant to replace each other after all?

@@taylorsessions4143 They certainly are not meant to replace each other. In fact scientists have nothing to say about religious and supernatural beliefs other than they are not science. That does not mean scientists can’t have religious beliefs. It just means those belief systems are different and separate. The late biologist J. Elliot Gould said it best when he described science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria. As to your point, in the times I have debated creationists on evolutionary theory I have never once told my debate opponent they were wrong. I’ve simply pointed out to them their beliefs are not science because they break the fundamental rules of science. The main one being science cannot infer supernatural causation. An example of what I mean. I personally believe in theistic evolution. That God set the rules and laws of nature and lets nature take its course without interference. However understanding science I know that this is a personal religious belief and not a scientific belief of mine. Thus the two beliefs are not incompatible. Science is just a very self-limited belief system. It can only explain natural phenomena and even that knowledge is qualified by the fact that in science all knowledge is tentative. No matter how well a natural phenomenon is known by science there always a probability, even if it is remote, that science could be wrong. Now when you’re working on the frontiers of science the probability of being wrong is greatest due to lack of knowledge and when new facts and knowledge are gained then the hypothesis and theories those scientific conclusions are based on must be changed to account for those facts and if they cannot then those hypothesis and theories have been falsified and you get to start over again. Which is why science on the frontiers of knowledge is constantly changing as our knowledge expands and as we discover new facts. This is important as this is what makes science self correcting.

@@Mottleydude1 I love your comment, thank you for sharing

Hey Eugene, why don't you do one of your videos debunking Sheldrake's nonsense? Proper scientists shouldn't allow this sort of garbage to go unchallenged.

@@Andre_XX iIt was banned from TED 🙃

@@aum82 With good reason.

​@@Andre_XX That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. [Christoper Hitchens]

@@MartinKuras Yes, good one!

Thanks for raising this. While Dr Sheldrake raises many excellent points, I agree with TED's assertion that this "crossed the line in to pseudoscience".

Very well put. I was actually rather excited in the beginning of this presentation, the idea of "Science as a method of inquiry vs. science as a belief system". I thought there was tremendous potential there. But as the talk went on, the sheer volume of things he was just throwing to the wind... well, it became too much. Great comment.

I've left a comment here that is far too verbose, lacking in structure and waffles, trying to communicate the same thing. I agree with you all. There is a seam of metaphorical gold in a talk of scientific inquiry VS Science TM - the belief system. Unfortunately Dr Sheldrake raised it and then failed to mention it again, instead offering very weak alternatives. It's like he forgot a fundamental part of science. If you're going to replace laws, especially, you have to have a very well evidenced case for it's supplanting. The speed of light or Gravity not being completely constant, whilst interesting, doesn't warrant the replacement of, at this point, centuries of supporting data. At the very least he HAS to use this data and explain how it actually shows something else. What would you all say are examples of dogmatic thought in science being damaging?

Hard. Agree. I am a platonist. I think materialism is disprovable bs. This guy is crazy and makes every nonmaterialist sound crazy too.

Boom roasted. Good one Dr A

I can submit a report of misinformation on your comment, for a small fee, to bolster your credibility, should it be desired. (Dystopian jokes aside, I agree entirely.)

I found something important with universal proof and it is as if there is a genetic memory of the same events, to not go there, alike strife and fear that "the mechanism of denial" repels the initiate. It is astounding to witness. Around the world there is a commonality within mythology that clearly states that The Pleiades is the causation of World Ages that wasn't known until 1950 by science - that the most recent, slowest, and most dangerous meteor stream's radiant is just below the Pleiades. How would the ancients know about this space phenomena unless we barely lived through it? The descriptions are numerous and detailed, for example, the footage of the 2013 Superbolide with its two vortices have some startling similarities to the Two Chinese Dragons that chase a Bright Pearl with loud fireworks. The Younger Dryas Impacts Theory was real with lots of hard science proof and the whole planet as witnesses.

Depends on where you get banned. If its in China or Russia, hell yeah! America is a bit more ambiguous

@@jc8153 ...Debateable.

not really, i don’t agree on all of his points, but i don’t think it should be banned just because everyone doesn’t agree

I it's a crazy world. We are in right now. KZfaq censored all kinds of completely accurate stuff during the pandemic yet I still have to give them credit because they allow more stuff than any other major platform, I guess save from the new Twitter.

@@jasondashney KZfaq censored all kinds of accurate stuff??! What are you referring to? You make it sound as if censorship is always bad. That thought is dogmatic.

Banning patently incorrect info that is made to mislead is important. So many Americans just blindly believe in the freedom of speech and this saddens me how benighted most Americans are.

@@morninglift1253 Who then is the arbiter of truth? who decides what to ban? power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So many people blindly follow authority figures and it saddens me how ignorant to the lessons of history they are.

@@neowolf09 Your comment is a common response. The arbiters of truth are the same ones who decide what is murder or stealing. The same ones who decide whether something is considered intellectual property or public property. Legislators will create laws that state if someone intentionally promulgates incorrect information, they will get fined or go to jail. And, judges will decide if someone violates that law. Actually, they do have laws right now for this. It's called defamation. However, right now, defamation requires an element of maliciousness. Not only do they have to intentionally lie but the victim has to prove they did it maliciously. It's such a high bar that it's extremely difficult to sue someone for defamation and win. Fox News currently knowingly spreads false information and it's ripping apart this country. For example, they state that elections were rigged when they know it wasn't. Laws need to be put in place to stop news outlets from spreading lies and misleading info. The standard for defamation needs to change to remove the maliciousness requirement. When there is no basis for an assertion, journalists can't keep pumping out propaganda. Look at what is happening in Russia. This doesn't mean you can't criticize people. It doesn't mean you can't accidentally say things that are wrong. It means you can't state stuff that is knowingly false. It also includes stating stuff that calls for violence on a specific group which falls under hate speech. You can criticize groups for group traits but you can't make stuff up. You would think that this should be the mininum that a civilized society should adhere to. I'm surprised we are having this discussion.

Right?!?!?!? Now I really want to watch the presentation covering all 10.

Science is a method to find verifiable description. Religion is a method to form unverifiable speculations.

Loved the talk, and believed 2% of what he said.

There is a direct link between spirituality and quantum physics. “Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the Universe.” - Theoretical quantum physicist Amit Goswami

No. It's a definition not a explanation. Have a great day!

Science is a method.

I find more amazing the comments praising it while thinking themselves as so smart and open minded. Infinitely depressing idiotic irony.

@@enekaitzteixeira7010 so true

More importantly, this is not about his unproven theories. This is about the fact that science has essentially become a religion and no longer follows its own process. Definitions have been purposefully changed to ensure stability in the current model. At no point in history have new ideas been readily accepted without the innovator being ostracized or killed.

Exposing the industrial civilization and how it enslaved you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥🔥

@@eladesorviews6561 That's the point. Countless millions of dollars go into making science nonsense. Some of the top scientific journals have *admitted* that up to *50%* of published research findings are *falsified.* A hell of a thing to base your worldview on.

me too

yet that’s exactly what Sheldrake asked you to do: forget science and believe him

Didnt you know that + can change over time??