This isn't the first backlash I've seen against TED. I don't think it's perfect, but as a platform for spreading ideas I think it works remarkably well.
Most of the criticism I've seen of it stems from TED's own biases concerning who they ask to speak (and who they don't). Some of this is rectified by regional TED conferences (TEDx, I believe it's called?), many of which are run by entirely different controlling bodies, and whose guest speakers have often been outside the norm for the main TED conference. I do recognize the bias is present - they've taken videos off their site of decidedly spiritual and anti-science speakers and caused controversy in doing so - but it doesn't rankle me personally.
I defy anyone to go to their site and not find half a dozen videos within 5 minutes that peak your interest in some way, or that lack some interesting concept, idea, or research that you hadn't encountered. Maybe the research stuff is dumbed down due to time restrictions. But the bevy of topics means that many presentations are richly and interestingly covered.
But I like picking fights with ON. We agree on enough that the differences are interesting. Why the hate?
...
Semi-related, on the video on the last page, I do think there's something to be said for the ambiguity and provisional nature of facts that a scientific worldview breeds. This is seen as a point of attack for many theists, but is a strength of a non-religious worldview, because it doesn't fill gaps with unproven absolutes but seeks to understand reality through knowable means.
Originally posted by Digi
But I like picking fights with ON. We agree on enough that the differences are interesting. Why the hate?
I find they are designed far more for entertainment purposes rather than information. The talks themselves appear more as platitudes that make the audience feel informed without ever challenging their progressive-liberal values.
For instance, the talk that was posted, I got a few minutes in to the part where he was talking about how boring his classes were, and all I could think was "so the point of your talk is that you are a bad teacher?" Whether students are interested or embrace the material is one thing, communicating the beauty and mystery of science is hardly a difficult task (I do speak from experience). I sympathize with the fact that students often just want a list of facts to regurgitate on a test, but if the instructor themselves isn't inspired by the lectures they are giving...
I've honestly only seen 2 ever that I would seriously recommend: the first, and best, is a talk given by a doctor about why obesity, rather than the cause of insulin resistance, may be a result of it, meaning our entire conception of obesity and type 2 diabetes may be wrong and our assertion that obese people are in control of their health is hugely overstated, the other would be a comparison that was done between the Chinese and American political systems with a MASSIVE bias toward the Chinese system. The former struck me, not simply because of how important of a discovery that would be, but because the doctor himself described his flippant attitude toward a woman whose foot he had to amputate, to the point where he was brought to tears onstage, the latter appealed to me almost exclusively because it is a bias so rarely seen. Both of them present views that would challenge the people in the audience, something I rarely can say about TED talks. Even the much lauded talk by Amanda Palmer wasn't challenging in that way (I'd call it ham-fisted, but I don't want the internet to murder me).
Sure, I can go on the site and browse through things that I find interesting, but in almost every case, the more I know about a subject, the less interesting I find them when I actually watch. Anything they do about mental health I've found to be worthless and pandering, at best.
To be frank, if the only issue was that they were biased and only presented certain views, sure, I could get over that. For me, I find the views they do present to be, idk... the intellectual equivalent of Halmark cards? something like that. It is entertainment first and foremost, just giving the people who pay to be there what they want, which is an inflated sense of "knowing" without actually having to be involved. Its like the anathema of real knowing or knowledge.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I find they are designed far more for entertainment purposes rather than information. The talks themselves appear more as platitudes that make the audience feel informed without ever challenging their progressive-liberal values.For instance, the talk that was posted, I got a few minutes in to the part where he was talking about how boring his classes were, and all I could think was "so the point of your talk is that you are a bad teacher?" Whether students are interested or embrace the material is one thing, communicating the beauty and mystery of science is hardly a difficult task (I do speak from experience). I sympathize with the fact that students often just want a list of facts to regurgitate on a test, but if the instructor themselves isn't inspired by the lectures they are giving...
I've honestly only seen 2 ever that I would seriously recommend: the first, and best, is a talk given by a doctor about why obesity, rather than the cause of insulin resistance, may be a result of it, meaning our entire conception of obesity and type 2 diabetes may be wrong and our assertion that obese people are in control of their health is hugely overstated, the other would be a comparison that was done between the Chinese and American political systems with a MASSIVE bias toward the Chinese system. The former struck me, not simply because of how important of a discovery that would be, but because the doctor himself described his flippant attitude toward a woman whose foot he had to amputate, to the point where he was brought to tears onstage, the latter appealed to me almost exclusively because it is a bias so rarely seen. Both of them present views that would challenge the people in the audience, something I rarely can say about TED talks. Even the much lauded talk by Amanda Palmer wasn't challenging in that way (I'd call it ham-fisted, but I don't want the internet to murder me).
Sure, I can go on the site and browse through things that I find interesting, but in almost every case, the more I know about a subject, the less interesting I find them when I actually watch. Anything they do about mental health I've found to be worthless and pandering, at best.
To be frank, if the only issue was that they were biased and only presented certain views, sure, I could get over that. For me, I find the views they do present to be, idk... the intellectual equivalent of Halmark cards? something like that. It is entertainment first and foremost, just giving the people who pay to be there what they want, which is an inflated sense of "knowing" without actually having to be involved. Its like the anathema of real knowing or knowledge.
Ok, I get that. And I thought that might be part of your stance on TED.
So, for example, there's the immensely popular "I F*cking Love Science!" Facebook group, and related articles/merchandise/etc. It's cool for the popularization of science as an idea, but objectively terrible at conveying any true understanding of the scientific process. It (rightly, imo) receives a lot of criticism for that.
And what you're talking about seems to be a less stark example of that same idea. I guess I tend to stay away from the ones that gloss over huge areas of investigation, and gravitate toward the quirkier ones that you wouldn't encounter elsewhere. Like, I just saw a great one on a researcher's journey through online dating, not as a researcher but as someone legitimately looking for love. And how she created "control" profiles to hone her own profile and maximize her appeal on the website. It was hilarious and fascinating, and had some useful overall themes about maximizing your potential using statistical analysis. But it was utterly unique, and that was part of the draw.
There are other examples. That one is just the most immediate in my mind. I suppose I think that Hallmark cards, as you put it (great analogy btw), aren't the worst thing in the world if it gets people interested in rational inquiry. I'm also less critical of "I F*cking Love..." from the earlier example, because even embarrassingly shallow promotion of positives ideals and ideas are still better than apathy or ignorance.
Originally posted by Digi
Ok, I get that. And I thought that might be part of your stance on TED.So, for example, there's the immensely popular "I F*cking Love Science!" Facebook group, and related articles/merchandise/etc. It's cool for the popularization of science as an idea, but objectively terrible at conveying any true understanding of the scientific process. It (rightly, imo) receives a lot of criticism for that.
And what you're talking about seems to be a less stark example of that same idea. I guess I tend to stay away from the ones that gloss over huge areas of investigation, and gravitate toward the quirkier ones that you wouldn't encounter elsewhere. Like, I just saw a great one on a researcher's journey through online dating, not as a researcher but as someone legitimately looking for love. And how she created "control" profiles to hone her own profile and maximize her appeal on the website. It was hilarious and fascinating, and had some useful overall themes about maximizing your potential using statistical analysis. But it was utterly unique, and that was part of the draw.
There are other examples. That one is just the most immediate in my mind. I suppose I think that Hallmark cards, as you put it (great analogy btw), aren't the worst thing in the world if it gets people interested in rational inquiry. I'm also less critical of "I F*cking Love..." from the earlier example, because even embarrassingly shallow promotion of positives ideals and ideas are still better than apathy or ignorance.
Like on most topics, I don't think our disagreement is of any major substance. I follow "I ****ing love science" on Facebook, and subscribe to I believe 2 TED channels on YouTube (TED proper and TEDed iirc). I think at the end of the day, I'm really just a hater, lol. I stand by my criticism, but if the point you are making is "Its better than what most things offer", sure, no argument at all.
With the dating site thing, I think my issue is that I would never watch something like that. I might enjoy it considerably more than other videos (your description sounds awesome in fact, I may try to find it), I'm just drawn to the talks that seem more erudite, and always disappointed when they jettison nuance for a quick laugh. Maybe I'm taking it too seriously (and that might be my own fault, considering I described them as entertainment and hold them to a totally different standard... that is a total inimalist move [re: hater of everything]...).
Originally posted by Oliver North
Like on most topics, I don't think our disagreement is of any major substance. I follow "I ****ing love science" on Facebook, and subscribe to I believe 2 TED channels on YouTube (TED proper and TEDed iirc). I think at the end of the day, I'm really just a hater, lol. I stand by my criticism, but if the point you are making is "Its better than what most things offer", sure, no argument at all.With the dating site thing, I think my issue is that I would never watch something like that. I might enjoy it considerably more than other videos (your description sounds awesome in fact, I may try to find it), I'm just drawn to the talks that seem more erudite, and always disappointed when they jettison nuance for a quick laugh. Maybe I'm taking it too seriously (and that might be my own fault, considering I described them as entertainment and hold them to a totally different standard... that is a total inimalist move [re: hater of everything]...).
Lol.
Also, http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_dating.html
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Is there a point to reposting the same stuff over and over again, or do you intend to debate? If I pulled this kind of crap anywhere else as you do here, the community would (rightfully) obliterate me.
You must be new here.
Check my threads, I've engaged in numerous conversations and discussions with people here.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=132#post14482589
Ph.D. Turns from Atheism to Christ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s91-ABJ49ho
Originally posted by Stealth MooseIt's all he does. He think repetition makes his point for him. He's not as bad as 'enin' though.
Is there a point to reposting the same stuff over and over again, or do you intend to debate? If I pulled this kind of crap anywhere else as you do here, the community would (rightfully) obliterate me.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You must be new here.Check my threads, I've engaged in numerous conversations and discussions with people here.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=132#post14482589
[B]Ph.D. Turns from Atheism to Christ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s91-ABJ49ho
Considering I've seen you post the same stuff in multiple threads here, how old my account appears to be is irrelevant. Any bot could repost the same agenda-driven stuff. I have yet to see you provide anything close to an argument without providing a link that says someone else thought for you. But that's okay, I can do that too:
Bonus points for you if you can guess the location in the Bible for that last image!
This Sunday, the Skeptic Society is hosting a lecture, or rather conversation, featuring Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins.
It can be viewed for free online at the following link:
http://www.skeptic.com/upcoming-lectures/