100 thoughts on “Rupert Sheldrake – The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK”

  1. Why was this talk banned? I don't think it's because of the content but rather because it's deathly boring. I'll look for other talks by him to see if this is just a one-off.

  2. science is not a "believe system"! "is a tree a tree? am i human?" is not a believe system! it's a "being convinced system".

  3. I stopped watching TED after this debacle. Sheldrake is the best scientist to come out of Cambridge in my opinion.

  4. This is brilliant. Nevertheless, I'm quite confused by Sheldrake's faith in Anglican Christianity which has also been deeply affected by the materialist project.

  5. YES…. I was fooled by my philosophy professor for saying this… BUT… Is good to know… IM NOT ALONE.

  6. Using science to debunk science. What a great talk. After all, science was created to challenge and question reality.

  7. How about some actual opinion against it then: Speed of light different during 1928-1945? Well, the first conventional computer was invented in 1946, I suppose when you have invented the first computer you would use it to eliminate the human error from maybe the most important constant in science?

    G not constant? Well since the earth was not perfectly spherical to start with G has been an average from the beginning. The amount of mass under you will affect the amount of gravity on you, that's kind of how gravity works. the rotation of the earth also exerts a centrifugal force back onto the objects on the earth which just complicates the matter further.

    Feeling watched? Kids often feel watched by a monster in the closet. I suppose their jackets are doing the watching? or were there evil lurking in every child's closets that disappear when they grow up? Try staying in a dark room with some creepy photographs, or a bunch of scary wax models, you'd probably feel watched as well. Do they have souls? Do they even "look"?

    By the way, he called himself a scientist, then PLEASE ACTUALLY DO SOME EXPERIMENTS! Give us some data or some past experiments or just something that supports his experiment, and maybe write a paper (you know, like what every scientist that have ever existed in human history did). Because proof is what the so-called scientific community have, and surprisingly, proving a theory involves having, perhaps, PROOF (wow! mind blown!). Maybe he can try again when he had some of that, that might be what he needed to not be called straw man.

  8. Global warming is a hoax, also the belief that oil is running out is delusional, the powers that be use the drug dealers oldest trick, tell people they are running low so that the customers are grateful for the small amount, it’s sad

  9. Sheldrake makes interesting assertions then backs them up with nothing. He will make a claim like saying that if you teach a rat a new trick then rats all over the world learn that trick much faster. Then he says there is evidence showing this may be true. That's not science. If there is evidence then it's a done deal. Science will not ignore it. Do the research. Show the evidence. Don't just say that there is some evidence that it may be true and complain about the scientific community ignoring possible evidence. He is supposed to be a research scientist. Do the research. Show us the effect. That's how science works.

  10. there is one possibility and only one that i can think of that can prove that there is anything natural about how life begin on earth and that is if animals was born complete from trees or plants. you see flowers need insects to reproduce. many animals have camuflage that looks like seeds and plants. the strangest thing is that its somthing called pheromones allow a insect to reproduce by fusing the insect offspring with itself like its half insect half plant. i don't know how the process really works, but think perhaps that animals may have mated with plant like organism or trees or been born from trees or plants as a form of symbiosis. it seem like the origin of life may have been a symbiosis process of plant life that created the insects, reptiles and mammals based on the plants ability to allow the fusing or fertilizing of insect offspring with itself. this means that life forms would not really evolve at first, at least not by selection alone. i think there is possible that the restriciton enzymes may be controlled directly be plant pheromones and that there is some gaia like symbiosis that created life. you may think if the insects and animals are made from plants, what made the plant. the plants could have been created from crystals. crystals grows by absorbing water and minerals. some produce toxins that may have had a similar function like pheromones but to more simpler crystals forms. now you may wonder, what created the crystals. here is where the unknown magic comes in. the crystals are created from a geometry hidden in the very fabric of the atom. all the information to create all the crystals in the world comes from within the atoms like a hidden world we knows nothing about. here is an alternative to explaing how it could happend. in cymatics we can create a resonance of diffeent animals ans shapes like atoms and animals. these resonance patterns could be what created everything by a shift in vibration from one state to another. we know that atoms constitute electric charge like electrons. it may be that these electrons behave like cymatic resonance by a frequency that create nodes and anti nodes like standing waves giving the very fabric a chance to form those geometries that create atoms. this would explain how these forms can exist that created life. a subset of these pattern must relate to the creation of conciousness and may itself be conscious and direct the process of the creation of atoms in some unknown way. i think its from a unknown world of resonance that everything may all exist as one and the same. in theory your taught chould technically be able to alter reality itself from this principle alone in some way by the very interaction in your brain itself interacting inside a unknown world of resonance, one we can not see and touch but can be compared to that of cymatic resonance patterns of somthing we can see.

  11. I love it.. I believe that the current materialistic view of the world and humanity is a delusion. Even though I am a logical person, I have always felt there is something more to it all, something that at our current understanding and knowledge of the universe, is just out of reach. We need to question dogmas and start asking the impossible questions again. BUT, we also need to remove all kind of religious believes, which gives us biased questions about our world. What current quantum theory tells us is that two particles can communicate instantly from different places anywhere in the universe, a mind boggling concept that has actually been scientifically proven. I just hope a new open minded generation can dethrone all the close minded old farts in the scientific community and start a new era of understanding of everything.

  12. Gosh, now if only he would provide some evidence for his hypotheses!!!! Until then he is just a silly one.

  13. The statement that Science is non dogmatic, is dogmatic. And fortunately, this dogma is not an statement unfalsifiable. When I hear Richard Dawkins discussing how he has to tell himself that life was not constructed when he witnesses remarkably complex and wonderful structure of life in all its elements, I can’t fathom his resistance to what his eyes are telling him. His faith has overcome his senses, and that is frankly a disgrace to himself and his colleagues. Science is meant to break conventional understanding, evolve it, not perform confirmation bias. Sadly, I believe science will continue to be held back by disciples taking the name of Science in vain, and only rogues will truly launch our understanding forward.

    “Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer….” Richard Dawkins, from The Blind Watchman.

    “The hypothesis that can explain bat navigation is a good candidate for explaining anything in the world of life.” Richard Dawkins, from The Blind Watchman

    “By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” Richard Dawkins, found on BrainyQuote.com

    “The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.” Richard Dawkins, found on BrainyQuote.com

    “One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all.” Richard Dawkins, Viruses of the Mind

    What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?” Richard Dawkins, in "Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist"

    “Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.” Richard Dawkins, BrainyQuote.com

    Why can’t he see his cognitive dissonance? The man should apply the book “Viruses of the Mind” to his own self.

  14. I enjoyed this talk. I have come to similar conclusions myself. I am glad Sheldrake had the words to express it.

  15. It's like in history.
    The first civilization was Sumeria… knock knock, who's there? Göbekli tepe

  16. Well, i made it to 7 minutes in before i had to stop, tolerating ignorant misrepresentations that because we have no evidence that that things are not a certain way is an assertion that it is only the existing way is one thing… But repeated misrepresentations through lies or ignorance about something as well known as the big bang being everything coming into existence from nothing… nope, the stupid brakes come on exactly there.
    Completely the predictable mindset of someone who has likely begun with a preconception of god and has tried to work backwards in order to support this conclusion by attempting to undermine science which he clearly doesn't understand.

  17. Very impressive. Wether he is right or not, it is certainly valuable to listen and think about it. Every serious scientist will be grateful to question his Dogmas, because we all have some.

  18. Thumbs up running at least 10 to 1 over the thumbs down. Interesting.
    In my own experience I have noticed how often strict empiricists are the most impoverished thinkers.

  19. Scientists are adamantly arrogant, up to the point where they will blatantly deny something because their education deemed it otherwise impossible. For example: has anyone noticed the seasons shifting over the last seven years? Winter starts later, spring starts later, and gets shorter, and summer gets hotter? It's not a fluke, people. It's simple observation. But they will always believe that there are 4 seasons and their respective dates will never change.

  20. Defining science as a belief system which wholly embraces these 10 dogmas, as he calls them, illustrates his complete lack of understanding the terms he's using.

    I think that there certainly is a large and growing segment of people, who identify as being part of the scientific community, who have abandoned the fundamental tenants of the scientific process in order to satisfy the wants and orders of their primary source of funding: governments and, more specifically, politicians. Across all of human history (including present day), "beliefs that must not be questioned" have always been enforced by religious organizations, governments, or both.

    The scientific process itself has no dogmas, and scientists devoted to practicing science keep none. Science, definitionally, is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. That is an all-encompassing definition of science; any departure in practice from that definition is, by definition, not itself science.

    Additionally, he says, "and there's evidence of…" a lot, and presents zero. The nature of evidence; the very reason it's necessary, is that in science we do not take things on faith, so to say, "Oh there's evidence," but failing to present any is the same as the Pope justifying the crusades by simply stating, "Because it is God's will." If there's evidence, give an example. ANY example.

    I am an absolute proponent of free speech and free exchange of ideas, but I don't blame TED at all for removing this trash. Even in the very worst talks I've seen, they at least attempt to present evidentiary proof; ofttimes they're wrong, but being wrong is perfectly fine. Being a mystic (i.e. "Accept what I say because I say it is so") is not.

    This guy's made a career as a research scientist? If this talk is any indication of how he conducted that career, then it's clear why I've never heard of him.

  21. Old video but there is a reason why this is garbage and not useful in any talk beyond an insane asylum. The guy is an idiot with zero understanding of science or the scientific process and lies about basic philosophy. Holy shit what a train wreck. and idiots fall for it as if it's mesmerizing

  22. But they can't control people if we take off these restrictions called Dogma's which inhibit / restrict open minded, creative thinking, because then people would actually begin to think and use their brains instead of blindly following rules and doing what they are told and believing what they are taught to believe… Humans would thus be free to come and go as they please and create an Amazing society for all… can't have that! Yes, that was sarcasm but the truth is in there! 💕

  23. The first time I saw this guy was on a video of dialogue that he was having with j Krishnamurthy…his questions were amazing…

  24. I bet women towards the end are like, "Of course we can feel someone who is behind us or at a distance staring at us.." What women don't realize is that men can't feel this… unless he's a very tuned in male which in the modern world is rare…. https://MikeKollin.com

  25. When one knows just a little about science, and then additionally have some guesses or assumptions to misapply the science they have read about, and have possibly also misunderstood in the first place, and then claim "dogmatic assumptions' in scientific discoveries, and wishes to tell the world of their 'belief'. I suppose a presentation like this will often be the result.

  26. I used to believe in pure science, and I was agnostic, and believed more in cosmology than I believed in a God, but now I find myself being interested in the supernatural, it's like my mind is telling me that I'm missing something.

    Now, I believe that it is not the supernatural and philosophy that failed to catch up to science, but it is science that still hasn't evolved to explain the supernatural.

    Tesla said that the time we consider the supernatural in our scientific pursuits, we will know more in a decade than what we knew in all the centuries before up to the present. I wonder if that is true.

    Science should not be treated as cold-and-hard proven facts and solely relied on for our source of beliefs, because to do so would lead to cognitive dissonance everytime a new discovery is established. Science is ever-evolving. Instead, we should treat it as what it was, a method of inquiry regarding worldly phenomena. In this sense, we change alongside new discoveries.

    If we truly believe that there is the supernatural that science still hasn't been able to explain, we should be careful not to denounce science, instead let us participate in it. To test our beliefs is the only way we truly learn.

    EDIT: To think that we have gotten a long way to the reality of the world with the help of science is completely delusional, to think so would be engaging in a form of cognitive bias called "The End of History". We may have come a long way, but there is more we have yet to discover. To know that we may still not know as much, it is frightening, but also exciting, and humbling. As Maslow said, awe should not be sacrificed for analysis, instead they should work hand-in-hand in our scientific endeavours. And if we still do not know as much, isn't it good to think that we may be able to participate in or spectate the grand discoveries we'll get to see in the future? I'd like to think so.

  27. The argument about scientific constants is interesting. Pseudoscientific, yes, but nonetheless interesting. There is such a thing as errors in experiments and statistics, so the scientists may be right, but what if he's also right? Worth a thought.

  28. Thank you Rupert Sheldrake. Your ideas are a liberation to us all. They may or may not all be necessarily correct, but i suspect many of them are. More importantly you are a model of open mindedness, reminding us how crucial it is to question the assumptions that underlie the current paradigm and dominant world view. It is remarkable that so many in the so called 'scientific' community have felt so threatened by your willingness to scrutinise the beliefs, the dogmas, that form the foundation of established orthodoxy. Ironic that so many 'scientists' should be so reluctant to consider new ideas, isn't that after all meant to be the very heart of scientific enquiry. And a special thank you also to TEDx for banning this talk, highlighting this suspicion of new ideas in such a graphic manner, your act of trying to censor free thought has in fact made this talk ever so more appealing and i dare say far more popular.

  29. Please post your findings about morphic resonanse, the hypothesis sounds far fetched. Then again I follow the scientific dogma, so what do i know?

  30. "The Scientism Delusion" is a more accurate expression for this issue, and Ian Hutchinson did a great job in a talk he gave.

  31. So what fallacies, lies and tricks does Rupert use to dupe the willing. Is he a thoroughbred sociopath or a one trick p(h)ony?
    – He definitely has some range as a con so this isn't a complete list. I'm paraphrasing for the sake of brevity in my quotation marks.

    1. Make your lie big, the bigger the lie the more likely people are going to believe it. "CONSTANTS aren't constant!" "Science is dogmatic!"
    2. Never admit or acknowledge mistakes. (You'll never hear him say, "I was wrong!" despite being prolific. Unlike real scientists and science communicators.)
    3. Charming, confident, dispassionate but agitated, self amused, content when people swallow his BS! – Check, check, check! Queue your next TED talk 'How to spot a liar!'
    4. Invent a problem that you pretend to solve (Dogmatism), cure a disease that doesn't exist. This one is a bit of quack classic.
    5. Explain stuff that is irrefutable in principle, leave out stuff that is easily disproved. – "I'll name 10 Dogmas, but I only have time to discuss a few".
    6. Name dropping and anecdotes. Pretend to have disagreements and debates with scientists and philosophers, as opposed to being shunned and ridiculed.
    7. Lie outright. I think he wants serious critics to go away at this point, signalling this isn't for you!
    "Genes are grossly overrated, they only account for the sequence not the shape of proteins" – FALSE
    8. Use unfalsifiable claims and remain slippery. When you get an answer, change your question. – What if constants change? No. – What if constants change and then change back? – No. What if constants change, when nobody is looking? – We'd notice, Rupert. Go home!
    Falsifiability. Is a powerful Idea an actual philosophical contribution to science, which are exceedingly rare! Look it up. "If claims cannot be verified, meaningful claims need to be at least falsifiable in principle." We cannot disprove, that constants don't change. We can't disprove a 'negative'.
    9. Tell people what they want to hear. Confirm their biases. "Alternate medicine works! You can feel somebody's gaze! Miracles happen! You can extend your mind and touch the stars."
    10. Use vague language. "I suggest, I propose, I developed a hypothesis. – Translation: I pulled it out of my ___ .
    11. Appeal to a higher cause. "Question Everything", "Improve science" , "Make Science Great Again?!"

  32. A favorite story of mine, from studying physics… Back at the turn of the century, when the 3 'fundamental particles', the electron, the proton, and the neutron, were being discovered, Rutherford's opinion was that the neutron was simply a proton and electron 'bound together in some way'. Later physicists claimed this was incompatible with quantum physics. But, then later still, it was discovered that a neutron (particularly when not confined within the nucleus of an atom) decays….into a proton and an electron (and a neutrino).

  33. Belief stagnates enquiry but Science does not . It is evident from the continuous scientific enquiry puting forth the variances of constants. Whereas belief stagnates the enquiry. On many an instant we have seen even certain beliefs crumbling with the authentic scientific revelations.

  34. What he's saying: 1) Results of scientific method are not results, but dogmas instead. 2) (briefly mentioned) Anything he doesn't understand (like the Big Bang theory) is a miracle. 3) You can say any gibberish and add "there's evidence of it" and it would be enough to make your argument convincing. Apparently, he's right about the last point. First point has a little bit of merit to it as well, because there's a dogma component in every established knowledge, but some things he mentioned are direct results of scientific inquiry. E.g. the "purpose-based evolution" was actually the first evolutionary theory, before Darwin's.

  35. It's banned because you're not allowed to question the God Science. Doing so opens the door to question anything, and their priests do not tolerate blasphemy. They truly font like having it pointed out that their core beliefs are entirely faith based, not scientific. Big Bang, Evolution, planetary accretion – these require faith. The math on it raises interesting questions…

  36. Max Planck improved upon after a hundred years. Good for you Rupert Sheldrake. Great scientific breakthroughs are coming. The coming God given economic / political / spiritual Jubilee will set free scientific advancement at "stuck in the mud" UNIVERSITIES. I wish I was younger to see it thirty years from now, despite the asinine wars that will try to stop such advancement of human knowledge of HIS, the Creator's universe.

  37. I like his way of thinking. I'm all pro science, but it's also important to remind people that science isn't constant or concrete, and the more we learn it, the more we realize that we truly don't understand anything. Thinking that science is concrete is actually harmful to the basis of scientific inquiry itself, which is always evolving, always asking questions and always experimenting.

  38. Scientists have stopped observing nature and have become arbiters of reality. They are just as bad as the Catholic clergy which they once fought against.

  39. Same old garbage arguing against things he falsely claims Science says. This man straw mans so much he could feed a herd of cattle for a month. No wonder TED talks banned him.

  40. So much is repressed, even huge Scientists thoughts, Plank said we had no right to assume the laws always existed and will. GREAT !

    "Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

    " It was not by any accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls."
    — Max Planck

  41. Banned only in his own words. The talk was moved to the TED blog, open for viewing. The reasons quite well explained.

  42. We need to keep an open mind and continue to question everything. The scientific method is about what we can prove over and again as a truth. That needs to stay a constant, however, our reality about our environment, where, and how we exist, is not so important as how we interact with each other. The Bible teaches us about ourselves and our flaws. Civilized society is based on understanding these flaws. We ignore these lessons at our peril.

  43. Great work guys. Look forward to your next major release and hope you will consider the following…. Love her or hate her… you have to admit Greta Thunberg has us looking for solutions and maybe that's not such a bad thing considering the latest announcements from both the SAFIRE and Thunderbolts Projects in new Clean Energy Technology discoveries made via plasma induced nuclear remediation.

    Nobody seem's to be making the connection regarding Solar Flares & CME's… and even worse the IPCC's models still count this against humans instead of blaming the source… which is the Sun @DmOA

    The irony is the sun also holds the answer to the problem… just watch The Safire Project 2019 update video. We can now transmutate light into metals & remediate spent nuclear fuel in the same process… The sooner Bill Nye and Greta realize this the better… This is actually a solution for them to Rally behind

    Regarding Green New Deal Solutions: For three years the SAFIRE Project team has been holding back so as not to overstate what has been happening in the SAFIRE lab. The SAFIRE Project is now able to make a number of definitive statements supported by concrete evidence, statements about: energy production; transmutation/creation of elements; remediation of radioactive materials;

    The SAFIRE Project is now able to make a number of definitive statements supported by concrete evidence, statements about: energy production; transmutation/creation of elements; remediation of radioactive materials;

    Clean Energy that can remediate nuclear waste may be closer than we realize. @Gf8E

    @ – @ – @

  44. How to build 10 different strawmen directed at the scientific community and spending time trying to disprove them….
    The BANNED in the title suggesting some knowlege the power that be would like to forbid…
    Waste of time, sorry.

  45. This man and his delusions single-handedly led a father of 3 children to become insane so he was forced into a mental hospital where he finally committed suicide. His name was Lennart Bladh and he posted videos on YT as well.

  46. The hassle is that the scientists,atheists..treat science as a God. I am not against science cos right now I am communicating
    with all of you through the advancement in scientific technology.Like Rupert had experimented with Morphic Resonance I am reminded of a similar case where Lawrence had worked towards rehabilitation & protecting of the African elephants. The wild elephants too recognised and reciprocated. When he was not in the Lodge and had been out of the country and when he came a day late because he missed his flight. The elephants knew and they all came to visit him the day he was back home. Wee if it’s not ESP what’s it? Cannot day it’s a coincidence. There are many instances where people interacting with animals have reported these unexplainable experiences.In my personal life too there are countless incidents where these magical perceptions by the animals have presently surprised me.

  47. Science is a method that has the goal to give us a better understanding of the world and to make predictions. It's constantly being corrected and that is it's power. We can see the fruits of science in fields like medicine, engineering, technology and other, this being a result of years and generations of scientists.

    I am strongly for testing and being open-minded about things, but science is based on observations, evidence. I haven't studied this man's work, but as history teaches us, the truth will rise in the end. If he is onto something, people will follow, but he needs evidence for what he is saying.
    I studied Artificial Intelligence and when I understood how neural networks work I can say that the brain can account for thoughts, images, personality and I would even go as far as to say consciousness.
    If the constants are not constant, we should review our understanding and to find a better model. This is what we have done since the beginning(Einsteins Theory of Relativity took the place of Newtons Theory, but now we find out that even the Theory of Relativity is not universal, and we seek a better model).

    One thing that puts me, an ex-christian, on guard is the fact that oftentimes people try to discredit science to justify their beliefs that couldn't be justified with evidence.
    Many Christians, despite all the things the bible has got wrong, cherrypick this man's words to have an excuse to dismiss what doesn't suit them in science.

    Untie your ego, admit if you are wrong, and propose a better explanation for all the facts that you have at the moment. That is how we, standing on the shoulders of previous generation, can evolve.

  48. What a waste of time. Scientific knowledge survives as long as it makes good explanations for observations. If one wants to cuss big bang, one should start to present a better explanation for the universe, one that for instance also explains the background cosmic radiation. Small talk is not an alternative to scientific knowledge, its only small talk. If you want to show that telekinesis is possible, please show us at least one case that is not a bust. Laughing of the impossibility is not an argument.

  49. Very interesting, but there are some dangers involving contradictions, that is, in making a science of what is the antithesis of science and should remain so. Not that you are proposing any such outcome. I alway believed in consciousness and God, but I became conscious as a child of an attempt to capture God as the property of a church or religion, and usually, a specific one. Analyzing, defining, quantifying, measuring are limitations, although they can be useful in some respects and are perfectly legitimate in those respects.But it would be a horrible world and life if we attempted and purported to understand psychic phenomenon in terms of science, except in the broadest sense. (Regarding analysis, as it is used in psychiatry it is bound to fail because it attempts to break down the psyche or personality into composite parts in a fruitless search for literal causes (events, thoughts) that reproduce themselves endlessly: if you look for trouble, you will surely find it. Synthesis should be much more productive).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *