text:
So I'm sure many of you have heard the rumors flying around the internet. Sega has filed a patent under the name "Sega Ring Edge" that covers both arcade and home console patents. Problem is, if you dig any further you start getting conflicted stories:
Some sites are saying Sega plans on releasing a new home-console to compete against the PS3, XBox 360, & Wii. Those same sites are suggesting a cheaper console like the Wii. They are also pointing out the fact that everytime Sega has developed a new major arcade system, they have used the tech to also release a home console.
However, many other sites are saying that Sega only plans on releasing this technology for arcade. This makes little sense to me personally, because arcades are all but dead, the home console market is where the money is at. But these sites are saying that the reasoning behind only releasing it for arcades is because Sega has another project on the horizon: A virtual console of sorts where you will be able to download high-end flash games to your TV. These sites claim that Sega plans on scaling back production of games for other platforms and eventually only supporting their virtual console.
So, what do you guys think about all this? Do you guys want to see a new Sega home console, or this mystical virtual console? What do you think Sega will do?


text:
SEAS Students
The Gonzaga University School of Engineering & Applied Science (SEAS) produces broadly educated engineers and computer scientists ready to contribute innovative solutions for a better world. Our students receive an excellent technical education as well as instruction in philosophy, ethics, and critical thinking.
Only part of a student's education takes place in the classroom. Many first and second year engineering and computer science students apply to live in Goller Hall, a special interest living and learning community for SEAS students that offers weekly tutoring and monthly dinners with presentations by faculty, community partners, and industry professionals.
The opportunities for engineering and computer science students are endless! Please review the links at left to learn more about the SEAS experience.
502 E. Boone Avenue
Spokane, WA 99258-0026
Phone: (509) 313-3523
Fax: (509) 313-5871
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This is a
wrestling message board for all of us to post our
thoughts,news,etc on the sport of wrestling.
If you abuse the privilege of posting here, you will be
banned. Please be respectful of others.
This is the RETRO Message Board - Gayle 6/24/2008, 11:08 am
Thanks for posting!


text:
Melba Inc. filed as a Articles of Incorporation in the State of California on Friday, April 7, 1978 and is approximately thirty-seven years old, according to public records filed with California Secretary of State. The filing is currently active as of the last data refresh which occured on Sunday, June 22, 2014.
Teri Johnson serves as the President and has interests in other corporate entities including Flanders Investment, LLC located in Danville, CA .
The registered agent for the company is Kristin A. Pace. Also known as a statutory or resident agent, the registered agent is responsible for receiving legal notifications regarding court summons, lawsuits, and other legal actions involving the corporate entity.
Key roles for Melba Inc.
Teri Ann Johnson
|Filing Type:
|Articles of Incorporation
|State ID:
|Date Filed:
|Friday, April 7, 1978
|Registered Agent
|Kristin A. Pace
Comprehensive Insight Plus Report
|Learn More
|The D&B Comprehensive Insight Plus Report for Melba Inc. combines D&B's proprietary statistical scoring with business, payment and financial information all in one report.
US Company Profile Report
|Learn More
|The D&B U.S. Company Profile contains basic information such as address and telephone number, executive names and titles, line of business and SIC codes, D-U-N-S Numbers, organization status, and year and location of incorporation for Melba Inc..


text:
McDavid Elbow Sleeve with 4-Way Elastic
Item # 41347826
|Eligible for Free Shipping, No Minimum! (see promotion details)
|Members of The League get 5% back when you spend $100! (see promotion details)
Product Details
This McDavid® sleeve will help you find soothing relief from golfer's or tennis elbow. Its 4-way stretch fabric breathes and allows natural movement for all-day comfort; bilateral gel buttresses deliver strategic compression to the areas that need it most. The sleeve does not contain neoprene and can be used on either the left or right side.
- Model: 5130
- 65% polyester, 25% rubber, 10% nylon
- Provides relief from arthritis, bursitis and tendonitis; helps manage olecranon bursitis
- Bilateral gel buttresses deliver strategic compression
- Breathable, 4-way stretch fabric for an ideal fit plus increased compression
- Fits left or right elbow
- Great for people with neoprene allergies
- Includes one sleeve
- Level 2 advanced protection
- Made in Taiwan
Sizing (Elbow Circumference)
- Small: 8" to 9.5"
- Medium: 9.5" to 11"
- Large: 11" to 12"
- X-Large: 12" to 14"


text:
"Elegance, Flexibility, Awesomeness." These are the words that instantly come to mind when trying describe this amazing WordPress theme. This is the theme that's going to get you or your client's site up and running in no time. With all of the possible combinations of layout options, you're sure to end up with a unique, elegant website that you can be proud of. Nothing has been held back with this one. It has all the professional touches you'd require in a WordPress theme along all the personal ones. It's professional. It's personal It's the best. This is Mondeo.
- WordPress version 3.1 and above.
- PHP version 5 and above.
- GD library compiled with its version of PHP.
- Mod_security must be disabled.
- Cache – folder used by timthumb to resize images. Note if the images are not showing please set this folder permission to 777.
- mondeo / framework / plugins / timthumb.php Note if the images are not showing please set this folder permission to 755.
Two Header LayoutThis theme support two header layouts, you can choose one of them to display.
Custom Home ContentThis theme support a custom homepage content editer. You can design your homepage with shortcodes and html. It's very easy to customize the page layout and content.
Home page: http://mondeo.themedownloaded.com/
Home page 1: http://mondeo.themedownloaded.com/skin-one/
Home page 2: http://mondeo.themedownloaded.com/skin-two/
Home page 3: http://mondeo.themedownloaded.com/skin-three/
Home page 4: http://mondeo.themedownloaded.com/skin-four/
Home page 5: http://mondeo.themedownloaded.com/skin-five/
Home page 6: http://mondeo.themedownloaded.com/skin-six/
Footer Layout: 2 column/ 3 column /4 columnIt support three footer widgets area: 2, 3, 4 column.
1). Set the footer widgets area layout.
2). Drop the widgets to "Footer Widgets Area 1#-4#"
SEO Code Building(Search Engine Optimization) has been made a priority when designing the Mondeo theme. In the code hierarchy, the main content block is placed before the sidebar regardless of the sidebar position, so it is crawled first by search engines. Another very powerful SEO feature has been implemented regarding Heading (h1, h2, h3,...) tags in that on the Home page the 'h1' tag is assigned to the site name and the rest of pages/posts/archives etc., the main Title has been assigned an 'h1' tag.
All In One SEOYou can set the meta keywords, meta description and custom the title for your Homepage, Page, Single, Category… etc.
150+ ShortcodeDesigning and organizing your posts has never been easier. With our large collection of shortcodes you can create beautiful and complex layouts with ease, greatly improving the functionality and variety of your content.
- Validated as HTML5 And CSS3.
- Theme Option Panel
- HomePage Custom Content Editer.
- SEO Plugin Overview:You can set homepage, single post, page, category, taxonomy's meta of keywords, description, title tags.
- 4 PostTypes: Slider, Portfolio, News, Gallery.
- 3 WP 3 .0 Menus: Ready for you, multilevel drop-down ready.
- Primary Menu
- Portfolio Terms Menu
- Gallery Terms Menu
- 150+ Shortcodes: Basic, Buttons, Images, Video, Icon List, Message Boxes, Column and divider, Tabs and Toggles, Pricing Table, Blog Posts, Portfolio Posts,Slider Show
- 5 Skins+15 Background + Custom Font Style
- 2 Header Layouts + 3 Footer Widget area Layouts
- 4 Slideshows:
- Piecemaker 3D slider.
- Accordion slider.
- Cycle slider.
- Roundabout Slider
- 9 widgets+12 widgets area: Feature Services, Ads 125, Contact Form, Flickr, Mostview, Random, RecentPost, Socialmedia, Tweets.
- 70+ Google fonts:
- Full Wordpress 3.1 Support.
- 13 Unique Page Templates: Gallery Page, Services, What we do, FAQ, Testimonials, Clients, About US, Sitemap, Contact …ect.
- Lightbox Support image, video, doc
- Automatic Image resizing for all thumbnails
- Integrated with MailChimp Email system.
- jQuery Enhancement:
- slideshow with Accordion plugin.
- slideshow with Nivo plugin.
- animated thumbnails and lightbox.
- Working AJAX /PHP contact form with validation.
- Image loader and fade in or out.
- Dropdown Menu, improved with jQuery.
- Galleriffic improved with jQuery.
- Customization Tips
- Custom site logo width image or text.
- Custom site Favicon.
- Footer copyright custom.
- Custom CSS, Scripts.
- Translate ready: Default language is en_US. Included en_US.po and en_US.mo.
- Browser compatibility: IE7,IE8,IE9, Firefox 3, 3.6,4.0, Chrome 4-8, Safari, Opera.
- Extensive documentation.


text:
OpenID Login
Not a member? Register Forgot Password?
GamerDNA Login
Not a member yet? Register.
Winter!: Prepare for holiday gaming!
Game Night!: This weekend! https://www.facebook.com/events/317792721696252/
New Releases: What upcoming games are you looking forward to?
Answer this question....: Eyup or Nope?
So Gamers...: how is it going?
Fercberk...: Ask us a question or two on our Facebook Page! http://www.facebook.com/gamerDNA
Need Help?: Ask us a question or two on our Facebook Page!
Facebook!: Gamers! Check out our Facebook page!
Youtube!!!: Check out our Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/smg1170?feature=mhee
Gamers......: meh
Closing in:
The story mode, was aweful, but the battle system was better then the first.
Game Traits applied to Dragon Ball Z: Budokai 2 (PS2) by Vegeta
Member actions:
A terrible game, I only rented this game, because my girlfriend liked Zombies and was willing to...
It isn't anything special, but what is good about it, is that you can play it and immediately stop...
Considering the lack of co-op games, I suppose it was only a matter of time until I played this...
Not as good as the first one, as this game is far too linear for my taste, but it does introduce...
I wasn't a huge fan of the Batman Forever theme, I mean I was glad Robin was in there for Co-Op,...
The number of games that have the "FPS" trait on gamerDNA.
gamerDNA®, Contents are Copyright 2006–2015 PLAYXPERT LLC and Live Gamer Inc. gamerDNA and the gamerDNA Logo are trademark and property of Live Gamer Inc.


text:
LilMaibe wrote:But with all the things you listed, they had the readers thinking about what was implied.
Agree with it or not, but I think it would have lost a lot if things would have gotten an explicit explanation. Take L&L for example.
Would the text have really been better/just as good if instead of what it says about the closet it would have been said outright what's there?
It had been said in another thread, but one of the things that somehow made Discworld Discworld was that Sir Terry left to the readers imagination what didn't need an explanation.
LilMaibe wrote:There is a change in style, several plotthreads are left hanging (correct me if I am wrong, people, but it is never explained WHY the cook is so aggressive towards garlic, isn't it?) and the ending comes pretty much out of nowhere.
and thanks to tony for reminding me about the Via Cloaca.
"In Ankh-Morpork even the shit has a street to itself," said Detritus, awe and wonder in his voice. "Truly, this is a land of opportunity."


text:
Product Description
- Technology
The Switch™ lens system is an incredibly simple patented 1/4 turn Switch™ buckle which makes the hassle of changing lenses a thing of the past. Simply turn the locking tabs to unlock your lens frame. Pop out your old lens and drop in a new one.
Tiger Teeth buckles allow you to adjust your Invision woven rubber strap for a custom fit. Tiger teeth are designed to bite down and secure the strap during rigorous competition.
The anatomically correct Axis™ mask system offers the best in comfort for all facial contours.. The Axis™ is tested at twice the current impact ASTM and CE standards. Dye's proprietary dual stage foam combines open and closed cell foam technology. Dual stage foam is specifically designed to "sheet" sweat and moisture away from your face, providing an undeniably resilient boundary between your eyes and perspiration.
Using patented technology the Axis™ precise blade angling and proven venting configuration, heat and moisture dissipates quickly. Scream Multi-Directional Venting makes communication with teammates effortlessly by carrying your voice farther.


text:
- Emily McManus
- New York, NY
- United States
Editor, TED.com, TED
This conversation is closed.
Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk: Detailing the issues
There's been a lot of heat today about Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx Talk. And in the spirit of radical openness, I'd like to bring the community into our process.
While TED does not vet speakers at independent TEDx events, a TEDx talk can be removed from the TEDx archive if the ideas contained in it are wrong to the point of being unscientific, and that includes misrepresenting the scientific process itself.
Sheldrake is on that line, to some commenters around Twitter and the web. His talk describes a vision of science made up of hard, unexamined constants. It's a philosophical talk that raises general questions about how we view science, and what role we expect it to play.
When my team and I debate whether to take action on a TEDx talk, we think deeply about the implications of our decision -- and aim to provide the TEDx host with as clear-cut and unbiased a view as possible.
You are invited, if you like, to weigh in today and tomorrow with your thoughts on this talk. We'll be gathering the commentary into a couple of categories for discussion:
1. Philosophy. Is the basis of his argument sound -- does science really operate the way Sheldrake suggests it does? Are his conclusions drawn from factual premises?
2. Factual error. (As an example, Sheldrake says that governments do not fund research into complementary medicine. Here are the US figures on NIH investment in complementary and alternative medicine 2009-2010: http://nccam.nih.gov/about/budget/institute-center.htm )
As a note: Please know that whether or not you have time or energy to contribute here, the talk is also under review by the TED team. We're not requiring your volunteer labor -- but we truly welcome your input. And we're grateful to those who've written about this talk in other forums, including but not limited to Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Kylie Sturgess and some thoughtful Redditors.
Frank Matera
Mar 9 2013: Whilst we are at it... why don't all the proclaimers here that are saying Sheldrake's video should be removed, put their money and reputation where their mouth is.
- +37
Why don't you prove him wrong. Replicate his dog telepathy experiments for a start... and see if there is any validity to the claim. Others have done this like Alex Tsakiris and were impressed enough that they applied for James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge because they thought they could show a valid effect.
Of course it is no surprise that Randi ran 1000 miles the other way when the claim came in and tried to ridicule and ignore it... making up excuses as to why he ignored the application.
So instead of ridiculing without investigating why don't you do something about it and prove Sheldrake wrong.
Jerry Coyne
Mar 7 2013: I have posted a long critique of Sheldrake's talk at my website. The talk is intensely anti-science, decrying materialism, touting ludicrous and unevidenced ideas like "morphic resonance"—a universal consciousness for which there's not a shred of scientific support, and other woo-ey notions like ESP (no evidence for that, either). If you're looking for specific factual errors, check out Sheldrake's erroneous statement about changes in the measured speed of light. As I show on my post, he's just flat wrong:
- +35
It is am embarrassment to TEDx that your forum gives public credibility to a man whose mission is to show that the basic methodologies of science—materialism and freedom from unevidenced woo-ish explanations--should be discarded in favor of some nebulous spiritual agenda. What's next: talks on the value of homeopathy and astrology. Judging by the approbation of Sheldrake's audience, they take what he says seriously, and therefore having him as a "science" speaker is really damaging public science education.
Gail .
Mar 7 2013: You said, "universal consciousness for which there's not a shred of scientific support". You are not correct. Evidence does exist. You have to look at BOTH QM and studies into the nature of consciousness.
- +7
Nathan Teegarden
Mar 7 2013: QM provides zero evidence for a universal consciousness. Someone has deceived you about QM.
- +13
Ben Goertzel
Mar 9 2013: BTW, I certainly do not agree with all of Sheldrake's hypotheses and intuitions. I think some of the data he's gathered -- e.g. on email and telephone telepathy -- is really interesting, though. And I think his morphic field idea is inspirational and worth careful consideration, though the way he's formulated it is not sufficiently precise for my taste.
- +33
All in all, I think Sheldrake has done enough actual empirical data gathering to support his out-of-the-mainstream ideas, that his perspective should be respected and heard. I really do NOT think he has fraudulently doctored-up all the data he's presented in his various papers....
Some of the conclusions he has drawn from his data may not be correct ... and some of his analyses of the nature of mainstream science may be a bit exaggerated. But yet, I can see why he feels as he does, given the hostile reception the scientific community has given to the actual empirical results he has been collecting and presentig over the years...
And, obviously, this assault on his TEDx video exemplifies the sort of hostility he's experienced, which has guided his view of the contemporary scientific community...
Steve Stark
Mar 8 2013: Let us be clear what Sheldrake's talk was and was not about. It was not about morphic resonance or psychic functioning; it was not about dogs who know their owners were coming home; it was not about the sense of being stared at; it was not about whether the speed of light has actually changed; nor was it even a collection of amusing anecdotes about Terence McKenna (although such things did come up and Sheldrake could, no doubt, have talked at length about any or all of them). What his talk was actually about was certain philosophical views which many hold, and which many think are connected with science in a way that Sheldrake, and many academic philosophers of the top rank, do not. That is, his talk was about certain metaphysical views which have become associated with science and which, according to Sheldrake, and many others in academia, are actually metaphysical views which are not only unconnected with science but are actively constraining science (the drive to deny/do away with, rather than explain, consciousness, for example). That the philosophical views Sheldrake was criticizing are loudly espoused by many (with little or no formal academic training in philosophy), and that such criticism gets those people hot under the collar, is no reason to censor such critical views. Indeed, the shrill tone of the uninformed and often off-topic criticisms by those in favour of censorship shows exactly why Sheldrake's ideas are very much ideas worth spreading.
- +27
Zachary Ford
Mar 8 2013: This is a good comment ^^^ I was going to say something along the same lines but you summed it up nicely.Mar 8 2013: That is a fantastic comment indeed. This is the heart of the matter.Mar 8 2013: Amazing, you were able to walk through the mine fields and get to the other side with great insight. I am curious Steve, did you read over any of the previous comments?Mar 8 2013: I wish it was the Closing Statement from TED !
- +3
Thanks !Mar 8 2013: Steve, even if we grant your interpretation, there is the problem that
a. any other metaphysical view must accommodate the evidence of the physical universe; and
b. there is no obligation by scientists to consider metaphysics in their work till it has been demonstrated by philosophers that there are benefits to some alternative view.
As far as I can tell, then, Sheldrake still fails to make anything useful of his claims.
Mar 8 2013: "b. there is no obligation by scientists to consider metaphysics in their work"
Filippo, I absolutely agree that empirical scientists should not allow metaphysics to interfere with their work. That's the crux of this issue, really: many (not all) scientists seem to be working from metaphysical assumptions of nomology, Platonism, materialism and naive realism, assumptions that contradict experimental evidence and valid mathematical reasoning and affect their work (for example in standardizing constants).
Mar 8 2013: And yet this doesn't preclude their involvement, per part (a) of the problem I highlighted. In particular, since any valid metaphysical view must accommodate the evidence we have about the physical universe, and scientists are expert in accumulating evidence of phenomena in the physical universe, then they need to be participants in the enterprise of metaphysics.
Ed Schulte
Mar 8 2013: Thanks Steve
- +2
As far as I am concerned TED can do what TED wants ,.and their actio(s) will define who they are
..but your summary was spot on ..cut quoting......
" That is, his talk was about certain metaphysical views which have become associated with science and which, according to Sheldrake, and many others in academia, are actually metaphysical views which are not only unconnected with science but are actively constraining science ............That the philosophical views Sheldrake was criticizing are loudly espoused by many (with little or no formal academic training in philosophy), .................. is no reason to censor such critical views. Indeed, the shrill tone of the uninformed
and often off-topic criticisms by those in favour of censorship shows exactly why Sheldrake's ideas are very much ideas worth spreading. "
And I will add Plontinus' conclusion "Like can only apprehend Like"
Katie McClymont
Mar 9 2013: TED staff Cory Warshaw writes : 'Also the psychic phenomena is hypothesis that cannot be falsified, as one can always say we simply aren't able to measure it'
- +25
Before TED staff make the mistake of censoring Sheldrake. I suggest all TED staff get up to speed by watching a google talk video by Dr Dean Radin 'Science and the taboo of psi'
In addition Sheldrake has conducted 'Sense of Being Stared at' studies. The results have been replicated by others. Combined together in the literature there were 65 studies, 34,097 sessions. A meta-analysis has produced odds against chance of 85000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1 (Source: Dr Dean Radin's book Entangled Minds)
'' A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ' - Max Planck
Assuming of course the new generation actually gets to hear it. What decision will TED make?
Frank Matera
Mar 9 2013: Yes Katie I read that statement by Cory Warshaw and shook my head. That's a big red light right there that we have normally intelligent people making comments on something based on little but their own personal beliefs.
- +10
There is an ASSUMPTION that because a lot of people in the science community don't know about these studies that they must not exist. It is seriously worrying stuff.
Also that talk by Dean Radin about the taboo of PSI within science should be watched by every single student in every university in the country. He shows not only evidence for PSI in that talk... but evidence that there is a massive taboo within Science to even discuss it. Some of the comments in this forum just prove it even further.
Dark Star
Mar 7 2013: 2. Factual error "The Science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle".
- +23
2. Factual error [science alleges] "there is no consciousness in animals"
2. Factual error: science assumes all laws are fixed (no, only the fundamental, fixed laws are fixed and science isn't 100% certain which ones those are)
2. Factual error: [science alleges] matter and energy sprang into existence at the moment of the Big Bang
2. Factual error: "governments only fund research into mechanistic medicine"
1. Philosophical error: suggests laws could be habits - this is, at best, his hypothesis, no evidence is provided for the assumptions underlying this argument.
2. Factual error: genes only produce proteins [and so can't account for morphology], the morphological impact of the position *and* timing of expression of genes (especially the HOX complex) is well established in causing morphological changes.
2. Factual error: changes in the value of speed of light (discussed elsewhere)
2. Factual error: that scientists don't look for systematic changes in the 'constants', numerous studies have been undertaken - two of many: http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v59/i4/e043516 http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/66/11/R04
1. Philosophical error: misrepresents the relationship between the speed of light and the definition of the meter - speed of light measurements had progressed to the point where the measurement was limited by the definition of the meter itself and so the meter was redefined to be "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
Sheldrake dishonestly makes this sound like scientists are trying to pull a fast one but the issue is that you must have a reliable definition of length to measure speed. This definitional change in no way limits our ability to study the speed of light, it merely shifts it into a distance measurement.
Ed Schulte
Mar 7 2013: OK "Dark Star"
- +2
Since you don't seem to want to live up to your Name
Factual True 1) The prison guards become the prisoner ...every time!!
Factual True 2) There is nothing you know now that wont change when you know more.
Mar 7 2013: I don't get the first "fact" but the second one seems an obvious fail. I don't think water will ever be anything else than H2O (to give just one example).
Ben Goertzel
Mar 9 2013: Barry,
- +20
I will stand by my characterization of PZ Myers as a zealot. He is part of a group of narrowly "humanist" pundits who make a habit of aggressively attacking anything not allowed by their rather constricted and unimaginative world-view.
As to whether Sheldrake's largely philosophical talk belongs in the Science section on TED's website, that's a question regarding TED's internal cataloguing criteria. But moving the video to a different section would be different than removing it...
Questioning the conceptual and methodological foundations of science is not unscientific, it's just "philosophy of science" rather than science per se. Think about a classic like PaulFeyerabend's "Against Method." Feyerabend was edgy, and he radically questioned many assumptions that scientists typically make, just like Sheldrake does. He was way more confrontational than Sheldrake. If Feyerabend were alive today, would he be banned from Ted, due to deviating from some sort of Popperian/naive-reductionist consensus?? I hope not !!
Regarding replication of Sheldrake's work there has been some, see e.g. (just one example)
which is a replication of his work on telephone telepathy. Replication of psi results is a subtle matter, and I'm not going to give a dissertation on it in this comment.
The fact that his work has not been widely replicated, nor published in the top science journals, is not evidence of its invalidity. Nature and Science, for instance, have current policies against publishing psi research, regardless of the apparent quality of the work or results. TED should not, IMO, be afraid of posting unpopular, radical ideas that buck current trends. Unpopularity does not imply incorrectness ;p
Mar 9 2013: Ben, when Sheldrake said that the standard measurement of light was wrong, was he making a philosophical point or a scientific one? When he said that consciousness definitely existed outside the body was he making a physical or metaphysical claim? There will always be huge value in individuals who come along and challenge an existing paradigm. It's just helpful that they have the evidence before they make their assertions.
Ben Goertzel
Mar 8 2013: Hmmm.... This is kinda frustrating. Anti-Sheldrake zealots are basically trolling TED ;-/
- +19
A number of different issues seem to be wrapped up here. (BTW, for those who care, I am a math PhD who has published a number of scientific papers in various disciplines, including some empirical papers in genomics.)
For instance:
1) Would Sheldrake's research on morphic fields and psi be acceptable in a TEDx talk? [PERSONAL OPINION: I don't see why not. TED does not exist to impose a world-view, it exists to promote exchange of cool ideas. Why TED would want to rule out the occasional psi-related talk I don't know. But this is of course, TED's own decision as a private organization.]
2) Are Sheldrake's philosophical musings appropriate for a TEDx talk, or somehow so inappropriate they should be removed from the site after the fact? [NOTE: His TEDx talk was not really directly about his morphic field or psi research, it was about philosophy of science & metaphysics...]
3) Does Sheldrake's research about morphic fields and psi somehow disqualify him from giving a TEDx talk about the philosophy of science & metaphysics? [PERSONAL OPINION: I really don't think it should thus disqualify him...]
4) Is Sheldrake's work on morphic fields and psi data-driven and scientific? [CLEAR ANSWER: If you actually look at his corpus of work, it appears very data driven. He reports results from many experiments. He appears to follow scientific methodology pretty sensibly.]
5) Are Sheldrake's hypotheses about morphic fields and psi correct? [Not really relevant]
A couple more comments...
I have seen plenty of TEDx talks deviating further from mainstream science than Sheldrake's. Obviously it is not the content of his talk that is getting folks hot under the collar. It's his reputation, it's who he is....
I will be disappointed if TED removes Sheldrake's talk because of the complaining of narrow-minded anti-psi zealots. But I will not be shocked...
- Ben Goertzel
Mar 8 2013: Yours is a respected voice in the field of AGI.
TED would do well to consider you thoughts/
Ed Schulte
Mar 8 2013: Ben
- +1
Much appreciated reading your comments here this morning.
I have no idea why the TED administration would even consider coming to this/their public conversation page and asking the "why all the fuss" question. If publications such as Scientific American have featured Sheldrake I would expect TED ....an organization choosing to promote the sharing of "Ideas" ( no where do they claim to be a 'rational science only' form) ....would and should welcome Sheldrake and others with open arms!!!
It could be that TED is testing the waters of consciousness to see what the reaction(s) and if so I DO trust that they wont be basing it on their public "conversation" forum here .....where far to many come with the attitude that because they can hold an opinion they can also own TED outright.
I have suggested to TED that they post a sign on the door here
"All opinion is vanity"..
and I thank the late Dr David R. Hawkins for that line.
Be Well Be PresentMar 8 2013: Ben, given the observation you make in your 2nd point, doesn't this make irrelevant the points you make in 1, 3 and 4?
And as far as point 2 goes, Sheldrake's presentation didn't just challenge 10 foundational propositions about science, he said they were wrong. This isn't a philosophical point it is a scientific claim. It has already been pointed out several times on this thread by people who are qualified to do so, that he is flat out wrong on the science regarding these accusations. He has failed to publish his ideas in appropriate peer reviewed journals and, to my search on pubmed, I have failed to find a single citation where his "research" has been subjected to testing and replication which is the very first step on the road to his research gathering credibility. One would have thought a little more humility from him would have been appropriate.
Had TED decided to lodge his presentation in the "quirky but mildly interesting" (iow "crank") section then I doubt anyone would have noticed or cared. But they put it in the science section where they have published standards about what should be included and what should not. Correcting this error, it would seem, is part of TED's purpose in opening this up for debate.
It's also disappointing to see you refer to "anti-Sheldrake zealots" when the debate is clearly about substance. Unless you were being unduly defensive at the outset of your post it is perfectly possible to have a sensible conversation and disagreement about this without resorting to derogatory labels to those who take a counter view. After all, isn't this how science advances?
Ben Kadel
Mar 8 2013: I am a trained research scientist and have to say that I think he is spot on in the basic assessment. He makes a clear distinction between the scientific method (which he promotes) and a belief system that I call scientism and he calls the science delusion (which limits the effectiveness of the scientific method). He is calling out a very dangerous tendency in current discussions.
- +18
While we may rightly question some of his hypotheses, that in no way makes his argument "unscientific." In fact, it is the very essence of science. The nature of science is to propose new theories and explanations that do a better job of explaining the gap between existing theories and data. These educated guesses then serve as the basis for experiments that can test previously accepted assumptions and/or provide a more refined context in which the theory applies. Relativity doesn't invalidate Newtonian physics, it merely contains it to the realm of relatively large scales. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't disprove evolution, it just refines our understanding on its mechanisms.
To tell you the truth, the thing that I find most shocking is not the presentation - which would make sense in most "scientific method 101" courses - but the reaction by some that it is pseudo-science. I would say the reaction itself proves his point more convincingly than his actual presentation.
As to the "factual error" around government funding, it is such a minor and inconsequential point that it's hardly worth mentioning. At worst, he could be criticized for poorly chosen phrasing, but not for the essential correctness of the idea.
In short, I have seen far less scientific presentations with greater factual inaccuracy than this live long and popular lives on TED . The desire by some to censor this talk is the best argument I can think of for keeping it and actually promoting it more broadly
Fritzie -
Mar 9 2013: As your field of research is Sociology, do you have an illustrative example from that field?Mar 7 2013: We must allow for questioning also the most established truths, but that does not mean that everybody doing so, should be given free space and full attention. There must be some kind of sense and quality in the arguments and not just a claim that some existing theories or models are wrong. Rupert Sheldrake claims there is evidence.without giving any refrences, Natural science is far from the set of beliefs he initially accuses it to be. The success of science comes from the requrement on reproducability and verifiability. He may believe in "collective memory" of species and x-tals, in "mind outside brain" etc., but as long as there is no empirical evidence, it is just his un-informed belief. He is making a big issue of different measured values of the speed of light (variation of less than 0,01% before lasers and atomic clocks) and of G (gravity). It is difficult to believe that he is really doing his very best to understand the reasons for the different measured values. And why spend efforts on this materialistic aspect, when claiming science is just about beliefs?
- +3
I think his talk should be removed. Not because of his points, but because of the total lack of arguments and evidence. If you challenge the established accumulated scientific knowledge, you must have something supporting your challenge.
Joe Martin
Mar 8 2013: My personal thanks for what role you've played as TEDx Organizer in having the courage to invite Dr. Sheldrake to appear on TEDx Talks. Likewise, your decision to allow listeners to comment on your desire to remove his talk is much appreciated.
- +6
Concerning lack of evidence for his claims, though, it's difficult, I'm sure, to make a full case for ANY claim in eighteen minutes. However, virtually everything covered in the talk is also extensively covered in his book, "The Science Delusion", called "Science Set Free" in the US. He is a well-published scientist and academic. His views seem particularly well researched. He is graciously open to critique and, frankly, I've yet to see him leave any critique left unanswered. He has always responded to criticism articulately, effectively and scientifically.
I guess I've become a consumate fan of the man over the years and believe what separates him from other scientists is his refusal to let fear of controversy impede his expression and enjoyment of the pursuit of truth that is science.
Mar 8 2013: Joe Martin and others,
My initial comment was based only on my viewing Rupert Sheldrake's TEDxTalk, not on any knowledge or information about his background or about the controverses he has been involved in. Your comment made me look at his track record. Of course, it is impossible to get a complete and fair picture of his abilities just by means of 15 minutes Internet research. However, this quick research convinced me that the presentation in his TEDx Talk about the different measured and published values of the speed of light, was consciously misleading rather than fair. With his background in science, e.g. biochemistry, he must (or should) have known better.
Neither your comments nor his list of publications makes me change my opinion, that his TEDx Talk shold be removed, not because he accuses science to be bassed on a set of false, or at least questionable, dogmas, but because his bias and his use of misleading or false arguments.
You may look upon "his refusal to let fear of controversy impede his expression and enjoyment of the pursuit of truth that is science" as entertaining, but viewers expecting "ideas worth spreading" will be misled.
Joe Martin
Mar 8 2013: Bengt, I don't see Sheldrake's importance as being in his entertainment value. His importance is in his intelligence and his willingness to challenge scientific thinking in unique and innovative ways that precious few even attempt.
- +5
Yes, Sheldrake lets it rip. He doesn't mince words. Could he present himself in a fashion that would not raise the hackles of many of his fellow scientists as he seems to do now? I don't know. I don't know how one can candy coat his basic message, that something is fundamentally wrong with the way modern science is played out day to day, and expect the pill to go down any easier.
But a science that loses its ability to entertain deep self-critique, that stops enjoying ripping itself to shreds intellectually, has already lost something important.
I guess what I'm saying is, the proper scientific response to Sheldrake is to dialog, not reject. He's not anti-science. He cares deeply about science. He cares enough to challenge his fellow scientists at a fundamental level. How else can science ever hope to know itself at any fundamental level unless it opens itself to deep critique?
Barry Palmer
Mar 8 2013: Please consider the current state of the physical sciences.
- +14
The Theory of Relativity is the best we have for explaining large scale physics, and it is flawed. The "laws of nature" break down when applied to black holes and the theory is inadequate to explain some other phenomena.
Quantum Mechanics has no adequate explanation for the particle/wave duality. Noted physicists admit that the results of double-slit experiments remain a mystery. The math is amazingly accurately in its predictions, but the true nature of the subatomic world is still waiting to be discovered.
These and other areas of science that remain stubbornly resistant to the traditional approach to theory and research indicate that the traditional approach may be inadequate. In order to develop the Theory of Relativity, Einstein had to discard a lot of old thinking. The next advance in the physical sciences just might REQUIRE discarding ideas that are now considered as part of the foundation of physics. Sheldrake is trying to open minds to new approaches. His specifics are just examples that might or might not be correct, but his effort to break down the boundaries of the box imposed by the "scientific worldview" (not science) is admirable and perhaps necessary.
Troy Tice
Mar 8 2013: Very true.
- +4
One could also add consciousness, which is probably the most baffling puzzle in all of science.
Still, I anticipate some commenters would say that just because these mysteries exist does not necessarily mean that psi does, for example. I would have to agree. The existence of psi or other anomalies must rely on its own evidence. It just so happens that that evidence is stronger than most would suspect or admit.Mar 8 2013: This is the shell game of pseudoscientists, Gish gallop a lot of misunderstandings or errors about science, which will take pages to correct with references and all.
In short this time: Relativity applies to black holes, there is no "duality" in QM but you can observe quantum relativistic fields which is _the whole point_ physically speaking, Einstein didn't discard but introduced new physics (special relativistic mechanic out of classical relativistic mechanic), et cetera.
Sheldrake is trying a) to scam people out of money for his talks and books without having to do any work in science and b) to close minds against the amazing progress of science. We _know_ there are no more mystical forces ("morphic fields") as the Standard Model (SM) of particles can predict values with 11 decimals. This is because the vacuum has the amazing property that everything that is not forbidden by physic law is happening - so since SM is correct up to 100's of GeV, way beyond chemical phenomena of ~eV, there are no more fields, no more forces to account for in daily life. (Of course the details remains to fill in in many cases. But the fundamentals are _understood_ now, with SM and standard cosmology (SC).)
This is something every literate person should try to grasp, even though the results are 40 (SM) and 10 (SC) years old. Indeed the last SM field, the Higgs field, was just observed last year.
Barry Palmer
Mar 8 2013: And of course you have the complete explanation for dark matter as well.
- +6
Douglas Kinney
Mar 9 2013: Ideas worth spreading?
- +12
Jerry Coyne is right on re Sheldrake.
It is an absurd waste of time to have poor thinkers like Rupert Sheldrake and Lynn Mctaggart at any TED functions. Why not have the Creationists, Flat Earthers, Geocentrists and so on have the stage as well?
Sheldrake has nothing to offer but poor science and questionable data to try and support absurd conclusions.
One would think the organizers of TED and TEDx would be more discriminating and offer "Ideas worth spreading", instead of pseudoscientific pap. I have no motivation to attend TEDx in Brussels again after Lynn McTaggart offered her tripe and now Sheldrake!
I saw a talk by Sheldrake at the European Skeptics meeting on Brussels a few years ago and learned quickly he has nothing of substance to offer. I could not believe TED gave him time to waste so many other peoples time.
His ideas should be examined in other venues where they can be examined and challenged. For his theories to be presented as "Ideas worth spreading" without refutation is an insult to ones intelligence. My respect for TED has been diminished greatly.
Toby Randel
Mar 9 2013: As a wise dude once said:
- +7
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your Opinion, man"
What you need are more facts and less outrage.
It seems a bit dangerous to me that ideas about science should be censored to fit in with the a certain worldview.
sandy stone
Mar 9 2013: There is no substance to your claims. No examples of poor methodology. Just a personal attack against those with a different point of view.
- +3
Frank Matera
Mar 9 2013: "poor thinkers" LOL. This is what we mean. So because someone thinks outside of materialistic science they are considered a "poor thinker" and bundled up in the same sentence as Flat Earthers? Really?
- +8
Let me guess all the Newtonian Scientists thought the same of anyone who dared suggest there may be more than they current know? They are just "poor thinkers". Burn the heretics and poor thinkers at the stake and sure as hell don't allow them to talk about it publically on Tedx!
Can't have people "Free thinking" now can we. Your science isn't a science at all, it is starting to sound more like a religious cult.
Katie McClymont
Mar 8 2013: Max Planck in 1931 wrote …. "We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
- +12
Max Planck, 'the father of quantum physics' who even has Planck's 'constant' named after him would have approved of Sheldrake's talk. Do TED also wish to delete Max Planck from history?
Rupert Sheldrake is superb in debates with his critics. Perhaps his political materialist critics like Coyne, Myers etc. need to step into a televised, one to one debate, rather than attempt to silence Sheldrake who has legitimate arguments they would have great difficulty countering.
Kate McClymont
Mar 8 2013: Exactly! This is what I've been saying. The doctrines he is calling into question are not rigorous scientific data. They are outdated philosophical assumptions that are contradicted by experimental findings in physics.Mar 8 2013: Katie, it is a little stretch for you to personally claim to know the mind of Max Planck and what he would think of Sheldrake. It's an amusing conjecture. However, science isn't settled by debate, it's settled by evidence, testing and replication. In some cases it might never be settled. These seem to be standards from which Sheldrake's supporters are attempting to excuse him.
Mar 8 2013: How else can you possibly interpret the words "We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future." - Max Planck
'New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher' - Max Planck
'I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness ' - Max Planck
'' A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ' - Max Planck
Mar 8 2013: I don't need to interpret the words, it is very clear what his opinion is. But I can completely falsify your second quote of Planck in a nanosecond, so does that make him wrong on everything, or does it more likely mean that the scientific method will prevail? You don't know what Planck's view of Sheldrake would be, although you presume to know. Regardless, appeals to authority, or your rather novel idea of resolving scientific dispute through debate, do nothing to actually resolve the science, and this is the heart of the issue here. Or maybe we should just get to vote on the science we agree with...which is pretty much the position of some commenters on this site who think TED is a free speech venue.Mar 7 2013: As a graduate student in computer science and artificial intelligence and as someone who frequently reads stuff in biological vision, Sheldrake seems to be inhabiting some scientific world I have never ever seen. Most of what he claims about the process of science is just decidedly untrue. A lot of what he calls "dogma" is just a working hypothesis in science that has served us well, and for which no real plausible alternatives exist. Consider for instance the "dogma" that "memories are stored in the brain". Contrary to what Sheldrake implies, we have several decades of computational models of how memories can in fact be stored in neurons (see perceptrons, multilayer perceptrons, Kohonen maps, associative memory, and a whole plethora of very recent and exciting works on artificial neural networks). Contrary to this, I have never seen a plausible alternative, except vague, undefined words in insubstantial talks (eg. "morphic resonance" or whatever). Simply coming up with a term that sounds good is not the same as coming up with a well-defined, testable hypothesis.
The part about natural constants is hilarious and should embarrass even high school science students. In his whole rant about how the constants might change, he never even considers the possibility that measurements have noise, and uncertainty improves as better techniques are discovered. He says the value of c decreased: by how much? Was it within the error bars?
In addition, the reason why these are constants is not because someone decreed them to be constants, but because there are theories that predict that these are constants. G is the proportionality constant in Newton's law of gravitation. To say that G is not constant is to question the validity of the law, a law which actually *predicted* the existence of Neptune before it was discovered. Not many laws can predict the existence of whole undiscovered planets. I would like Sheldrake to come up with an alternative that has similar predictive power.
Brad Hoehne
Mar 7 2013: It should be noted, in support of your statement, that error bars only cover the precision of data, not its accuracy. One can have very consistent data, but have systematic errors that compromise accuracy of the data. I can measure my room very precisely by repeated use of a worn-out/stretched-out tape measure. The data, if I have collected many measurements, would have very small error bars and but the accuracy would be off, my room would appear smaller than it really was.
- +2
Past methods for measuring the speed of light were both less precise (larger error bars) and had systematic problems (as all measurements do to some greater or lesser extent) which led to decreased accuracy. Sheldrake has interpreted the minimizing of systematic errors over time as real data. While there may be something there, there is no way to tell, as it is lost in the "noise."
Mar 7 2013: True, and I don't know how the accuracy has changed over the years. I mentioned precision because it seemed safe to assume that precision would have improved :).
edward long
Mar 7 2013: Why don't we take Rupert's 10 itemized issues one-at-a-time and, using the Rules of Logic, prove each one to be false? If he is 100% in error then, once corrected, they should read as follows: 1) The Universe is purely mechanical. There is no soul, or spirit in Man. 2) Consciousness has no relationship to material things and vice-versa. 3) Natural Laws and Physical Constants can never change. Once "they" define a Law/Constant it is impossible for it to change 4) The sum of matter/energy in the Universe can never change. 5) There is no purpose associated with the Universe. It may continue forever for no reason, or it may come to an end for no particular purpose. 6) Inherited characteristics are a result of material/chemical actions. 7) Recalling stored information from the sub-conscious mind to the conscious mind is a purely material/chemical function. 8) The act of conscious thought is solely dependent upon the brain. Like a beating heart outside the chest cavity a brain outside the skull could be conscious of its condition. 9) Thoughts cannot act through a distance because they are confined to the brain. 10) Biological ailments can only be corrected using medicine. A healing without medicine is simply a spontaneous cessation of the cause. Are those all justified true beliefs? If so, the result of the exercise is that we understand better what we claim to believe. Should everyone who disagrees and challenges us be silenced? I don't think so. Publish the Talk!
- +2
Mar 7 2013: Two things here, before we do that:
1) Logic is not what we want, or rather not the only thing we want. Logic is sufficient for math; for science we need something more: notions of evidence, and notions of uncertainty.
2) And before we do any arguing or debating, we need to convert any terms which we might loosely throw, into well defined, testable, hypothesis. By that I mean that I should take a statement like "The universe is mechanical" and decide what predictions such a statement makes that *can be subjected to an experiment, and so falsified*.
Which is why we need to be careful about statements like "The Universe is purely mechanical", or "Consciousness has no relationship to material things". What exactly does material mean here? Is the electromagnetic field material? Is a computer program material? What does mechanical here mean? What exactly does consciousness mean?etc.
Now, I personally would be happy to talk about the validity of tens or hundreds of theories, but only *once they are fully specified*. Notwithstanding Sheldrake's many factually incorrect statements, he is also woefully vague, using ill-defined terms that can have any number of meanings in lay usage. That, to me, is not scientific, and is particularly out of place in a talk about science, of all things. Present alternative views all you want, but at least do so in terms of words and terms that can be unambiguously understood by all scientists who come to the table.
In other words, people who disagree must not be silenced, but this does not automatically make every person who has not even made the effort of defining his views properly worthy of being listened to. Given the limited number of talks that TED has, I would much rather listen to someone I can learn something from, rather than just a flurry of senseless English words embedded in laughable inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
edward long
Mar 8 2013: Agreed sir, in fact that is my motive for item-by-item falsification of Mr. Sheldrake's talking points. I guess the problem here is that we are arguing about the value of the content of the talk when we should be talking about the refusal to publish the talk. I understand, but disagree with the syllogism that says: TED Talks are factual. Mr. Sheldrake's talk is not factual. Therefor it should not be a published TED Talk. The second premise is the problem. Determining the factual fidelity of the talk is way beyond the scope of this forum. Each of us must make that determination on our own. To abort a person's right to participate in the premier online discussion forum because they are less than perfect regarding Truth is not a good idea. If - I said IF- the post, or Talk, is crisp, candid, provocative and relevant then publish it!Mar 8 2013: Sheldrake's talk is definitely unsuitable for TED as it it not based on fact or logic. However, rejecting him from this forum does not silence him. After all he has published all these silly notions in a book already. The contents of the book would not be accepted by a serious scientific publication and I don't think TED should dirty it's hands with it either. The book will probably be read by more people than know TED exists.Mar 7 2013: Just to add, I am not saying we should outright reject contrary views. I am just saying that people talking on TED or TEDx should have done the effort of defining their views properly and collecting evidence for and against them.
- +1
Mar 8 2013: I agree that a polemic is not the best way to make the points Mr. (Dr.?) Sheldrake attempts to make. But a poor choice of style is no reson for being banished.Mar 7 2013: "The part about natural constants is hilarious and should embarrass even high school science students. In his whole rant about how the constants might change, he never even considers the possibility that measurements have noise, and uncertainty improves as better techniques are discovered. He says the value of c decreased: by how much? Was it within the error bars? "
I think you may be missing the point. We can only dismiss variations from the expected figure as 'just noise' if we know in advance what the 'right' answer 'should' be. But how did we find out in the first place what these constants are? By experiment and measurement, which always contain noise. See the problem?
Mar 7 2013: Not really. You are looking at these things in isolation, which they are not. The speed of light is not the same as the current temperature in Berkeley.
The speed of light for instance is one part of a large coherent scientific theory: the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity has made many predictions, and has been tested numerous times, and so, provisionally, we accept it as largely correct.
Since this theory is accepted as largely correct, and this theory accords a special place to the speed of light as a constant, we accept, provisionally that the speed of light is a constant.
Now, given this, we see that measurements of speed of light vary. Which is more likely, that the theory is wrong, and so all of its myriad accurate predictions are completely wrong and all of astrophysics which relies on this must go out the window? Or that grad students tend to press stopwatch buttons a bit too soon?
There are two parts to science: experiment and theory, each with uncertainties, each with noise. Weighing all these uncertainties together is not easy. To say that something is possible is trivial, and everything is possible; the question is, which explanation is more likely?
Caveat: the last time I read about the speed of light was in high school. I literally am at best a high school student in physics.
Mar 7 2013: Thanks for your thoughtful reply Bharath.
I assure you I am not looking at constants in isolation. My apologies if my answer gave that impression. On the contrary, I was trying to give a simple example of the method of scientific inquiry.
We never observe "the speed of light". We observe measurement1, measurement2, measurement3, etc. Agreed?
What about the "large coherent scientific theory" that goes with it? Do we observe that directly? I don't see how we could (and no philosopher I ever read says we do).
Where does the "large coherent scientific theory" come from? From the same place all scientific theories do: the human imagination interpreting measurements/observations. Agreed?
There's a doctrine many (but not all) scientists believe: measurement1, measurement2, measurement3, etc. prove the existence of The Constant, and likewise, evidence1, evidence2, evidence3, prove the existence of The Law.
Is a testable scientific hypothesis or a philosophical assumption? Take a moment and consider that.
This is the 3rd dogma Sheldrake refers to. It's Platonism plain and simple.
I am not smart enough to see how we can believe the material universe is governed by pure, perfect laws and constants without positing an immaterial, cosmic layer to the cake. I'm not saying that the Platonic realm, scientific constants, scientific laws or the Invisible Pink Unicorn definitely don't exist - just that no one's ever seen them. And even if we do accept that there are these Laws, that doesn't solve our problem: where do these laws come from? Why do they exist? Where do they exist? How is it possible to have an material universe governed by immaterial laws?
So Sheldrake's offering a different explanation for why our observations are kinda sorta fairly consistent most of the time: universe is habitual, and the more something happens, the more it will continue to happen. This is the broader scope of the morphic resonance theory as I undertstand it.Mar 8 2013: Okay, I am sorry I didn't get that point; I get it now. To be frank, there is no way I could have got this from Sheldrake's talk.
My answer to your comment will have to be that I don't know. I don't know where these laws come from. And it is an assumption that such laws exist, and such constants exist.
But here's the thing. That assumption has helped us a long way. That assumption works. The things we predict about astrophysics come true to a large extent. The things we predict about physics and chemistry and biology come true to a large extent, enough for us to build machines and spaceships, treat diseases, understand a vast number of natural phenomena.
These assumptions are not dogma. It is certainly possible that these assumptions are wrong. Maybe a truer alternative exists. But given the success of what my current assumptions are, for me to think about a particular alternative, someone will have to 1) define the alternative precisely, and 2) show that the alternative not just explains all, or most, of what I have managed to explain till now, but more.
Sheldrake on the other hand simply handwaves at vague words that make no sense to me, to state it simply.
Mar 8 2013: "To be frank, there is no way I could have got this from Sheldrake's talk."
True. I did my best to represent my understanding of Sheldrake's theories, based on what I've read of his works, not just the talk. He uses the phrase "cosmic Darwinism" somewhere; the consistent patterns in universe's behavior evolved.
"But here's the thing. That assumption has helped us a long way. That assumption works. "
But alternatives like Copenhagnism or model agnosticism work equally well if not better.Mar 8 2013: "But alternatives like Copenhagnism or model agnosticism work equally well if not better."
I'll have to read up on that; thanks!
Jeffrey Johnson
Mar 7 2013: As they say, talk is cheap, and it's quite easy for Sheldrake to stand up and emit words from his mouth to the effect that science is based on dogmatism. Should it be so easy to discredit science in order to make room for alternative ideas? We are all used to respecting and valuing the ideas of fairness and democracy, and Sheldrake tries to exploit this by implying that science is a democracy of ideas that has gone astray by mindlessly embracing a set of dogmas that should be every bit as open to criticism as any other known religious dogma or orthodoxy jealously guarded and preserved by high priests with candles and incense burners.
- +11
But science is not a democracy, in that all opinions are not equally valid. Science uses consensus based not on opinion, but on reliable repeatable measurement that verifies the accuracy of ideas. Science converges on what natural reality dictates is real and true, not on what people think sounds best or most appeals to their hopes and wishful thinking. In fact any scientist could make his career and win a Nobel Prize by attacking the so-called dogmas and proving that they are wrong. So the idea that science is an orthodoxy defending its flanks from valid criticism is pure nonsense, and amounts to nothing but a rhetorical move to enable the propagation of a whole other set of dogmas and unverifiable speculations as somehow deserving to be placed on an equal footing with scientific knowledge. Only a fool would fall for this trick.
Sheldrake asserts that it is as likely that a star should be conscious as an unimaginably complex network of 100 billion nerves and trillions of connections, and that genes merely produce proteins, but "morphic resonance" does all the hard work of creating a baby giraffe in the womb. These are assertions without evidence. It is no coincidence that googling "morphic resonance" takes you to one place: a bio of Rupert Sheldrake. The only thing we can learn from Sheldrake is how to sell books to fools.
Bill hoffman
Mar 7 2013: This point deserves emphasis. Religious apologists often portray the scientific method as a belief system in order to erroneously equate insistence on evidence with appeals to spiritual authority. Science is not based on belief, but rather relies on a process that is demonstrably effective at producing accurate, testable, predictive models of the world. Sheldrake's assertions mostly fall into this particular logical non sequitur. Therefore scientific facts are, by their nature, probabilistic and not absolute dogma. Some facts, however, are more certain than others. A friend chided me for my skepticism regarding the possibility of superluminal neutrinos. "How can you be so sure? Nothing is impossible", he opined. I replied that I wasn't 100% certain, but that I'd bet him $1000 that a subliminal explanation would be forthcoming. I would have bet more, but I really wanted him to take the bet. Unfortunately, he declined the challenge.
- +3
Mar 7 2013: You don't believe in reality? I'll take your betMar 7 2013: Why create more dogmas? don't we have enough already
Bill hoffman
Mar 7 2013: This talk is nonsense and filled with factual and logical errors. These are numerous and have been delineated in detail in this comment log (e.g., Dark Star) and elsewhere on the net (Jerry Coyne). This talk should never have made it through the vetting process for TEDx. Since it did, however, I would label it as having been judged not to meet TED standards because it contains factual and logical errors. I suggest that the TED editors craft a consensus statement that summarize those errors and either attach it to the video of the talk or splice in frames that point out these errors. This makes viewing the talk and discussion educational and avoids actually censoring any of the content.
- +11
Ron Murphy
Mar 7 2013: The problem with TED keeping this talk up is the danger of having these ideas being thought of as mainstream, or as seriously useful critiques of the mainstream, by the less discerning, at a time when it's already difficult to advance the public understanding of science.
- +11
I hate censorship. Sheldrake is hopeless, but I'd rather not take up the "A book for burning" advice from John Maddox on one of Sheldrake's books.
On top of that, what are students supposed to practice their refutations and critical analysis on if we hide all the woo?
Perhaps a compromise: a separate TED site for "Discredited Ideas". Maybe a Youtube channel: "TED Bloopers".
Joe Sapp
Mar 7 2013: I wholeheartedly agree with this perspective: Sheldrake should never have been given such a privileged pulpit in the first place, but after the fact, removing the video would be TED's second mistake. In the internet age, removing offensive content is a surefire way to give it martyr status.
- +6
The best course of action for TED is to follow this discussion, reach the correct conclusion that Sheldrake does not meet their quality standards, and to preserve the video on their site but prominently and carefully annotate it to put it in its appropriate context: a mistake.
Removal will fuel the fire of Sheldrake's supporters and give the appearance of a cover-up or conspiracy. His supporters will crow loudly about the removal, and anyone who hears them won't be able to judge for themselves.Mar 7 2013: If Sheldrake's position had any reasonable evidence, then the video should certainly stay up. But there is no evidence. Should TED start posting videos by climate change denialists? How about religious fanatics? How about white supremacists? Phrenology? Astrology? Alchemy? Where would it end?
TED(x) is no place for students to be practicing. That should be done in the classroom, and there are plenty of other sources of flawed arguments to draw on. If TED were *only* for education, then I could see it. But to expose ideas like those of Sheldrake to uncritical thinkers just for the sake of providing a venue some a relatively small number of students - well, the downside is *much* greater than the upside.
I wouldn't burn Sheldrake's books, though. ...I would compost them.
If presentations like Sheldrake's were put in a "Bloopers" section (I would prefer the label "Woo" myself), then I suspect no one would want to propose such presentation, thus achieving the same end as just eliminating them from the outset.
Joe Sapp
Mar 7 2013: I agree in large part, but my point is the video HAS been posted and will probably never go away. It's TEDs video, and removing it doesn't remove the mistake, it makes it worse. I doubt it will effectively prevent others from seeing the video either, but it will probably reduce their chances of seeing it in the appropriate context.
- 0
Mar 7 2013: Hmm. Okay. Let's say someone manages to get a copy and put it in youtube or some other place without the kind of quality assurance of TED. It might spread Sheldrake's woo even further. Unfortunately, the internet is like that.
Ok. I stand corrected. It's a matter of the lesser of two evils but I think, based on this, that perhaps it's okay to leave the video, but with a *strong disclaimer* and a *careful rebuttal* as to its weaknesses. But this would make sense only IF, in the future, TED(x) was much more scrupulous in filtering out presentations full of patent lies.
Dark Star
Mar 7 2013: This has nothing to do with the censorship of ideas -- Sheldrake remains free to publish his books.
- +2
But it is irresponsible to promote this as science, under the TED banner, when it very plainly is not, because it conveys the wrong message.
Should children be taught that astrology and witchcraft and alchemy are all science? The great Newton himself wrote lengthy tomes on all of these subjects, why aren't they taught as science?
The answer is because it is clear now that these things are not science. They did not hold up.
How many millions of human centuries of thought and effort need to be wasted on such fancies before we can say "enough"?


text:
Jo from Little Women
From the "When I Read, I Dream" collection featuring dolls inspired by favorite children's literature. "Little Women," enjoyed by generations of children, is the story of four sisters with completely different personalities. Impulsive, vivacious Jo, has always been a favorite with little girls.
Captured here in every detail, Jo from Little Women is a new 8" doll with brown eyes and brown hair decorated with light blue satin bows. She wears an off-white dress blooming with light blue flowers and accented with a lace-trimmed light blue apron. Off-white tights and black shoes complete her ensemble.
Ages 8+
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
China Students
Experience a top 200-ranked university
Experience internship and research opportunities
Founded in 1910, Kent State University is ranked as one of the top 200 universities in the world, according to the Times Higher Education, and among the nation's top 77 public research universities by the Carnegie Foundation.
KSU's College of Education, Health, and Human Services offers 18 undergraduate programs, 24 graduate programs and 13 doctoral programs taught by internationally- recognized faculty.
KSU's China Center has a formal partnership between Kent State University and several Chinese universities. The partnerships allow undergraduate students to combine courses taken in China with those at KSU to complete a master's degree. Doctoral students have access to competitive research opportunities.
Our graduates go on to serve as leaders in a wide variety of fields, ranging from education, counseling, and health care to hospitality, recreation and sport.


text:
For Starkville Daily News
At the start of the 2011 fall semester, Mississippi State University students began the newest competition in the series of Advanced Vehicle Technology Competitions (AVTC) sponsored by General Motors (GM) and Department of Energy (DOE).
This three year challenge, EcoCar2, is the latest in DOE's series of AVTC's, and Mississippi State was among 15 universities selected to compete out many that applied.
As a headline sponsor GM donates many resources to each team, one of those being a GM employee dedicated to mentoring a specific university. Each GM mentor is assigned to help guide the teams through the competition by providing advice and assistance in locating other valuable resources within GM.
Mississippi State's GM mentor, Sarah Vano, visited Starkville for the first time.
"This has been a great opportunity for our mentor to meet with our students and gain valuable insight on our strengths as a team as well as the areas we will have to work harder in. It is also important for Sarah to see our facilities and have an understanding of the tools and resources that we will have available throughout the three years of the EcoCAR 2 competition", stated Lee Pratt, MSU EcoCAR 2 Outreach Coordinator.
During the visit, Vano presented the team with a $25,000 check from GM as "seed money" to help the team get started with developing their futuristic vehicle. Students have begun research that will aid them in making decisions about their vehicle design and how that funding will be used.
The team feels that Vano'Äôs knowledge will be extremely helpful through this process. Team leader Matt Doude said, 'ÄúSarah will be an invaluable resource to our team over the three years of this competition.¬Ý She has already begun to help our team with technical issues, and more importantly, she is recruiting our students for future jobs at GM.¬ÝMore and more MSU graduates are having the opportunity to start their careers in highly competitive positions in the hub of the auto industry in Detroit.'Äù
Throughout the remainder of this year the team will work to create their hybrid vehicle design and will then compete against the other participating teams in May of 2012 at Year One Finals.


text: This is one of the most amazing porn sites I have seen. It's new so don't discount it just because you have never heard of it. While it is hardcore it does some softer stuff because the focus is on the production value and what it terms erotica. sexerotica.us has some good samples you can check out to get an idea of what I am talking about. This is the kind of stuff you would find in an art studio. They probably should put one online in nyc or other major cities around the world. That would be a great marketing concept.