A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science

There should be nothing controversial about telling people to be on their toes when somebody without a relevant degree tries to tell you something fantastic.

Experience can teach you certain things, even if not 100% politically correct. What they're doing is simply passing on their experience to other TEDx organizers.

Yeah, that set off my WTF alarm too. I don't think it's news to TED admins that the line between physics and engineering is messy (I worked on quantum devices but (surprise!) engineering degrees paid substantially more in the 80s so my PhD is engineering.)

I'm gonna guess there's a backstory and they got burned hard.

For non-trivial things? Yes, generally. Why not?

I mean, why do guys with phds in earth science or geology have to get lumped in with nuts like Neal Adams and his expanding Earth bullshit? Why would Tedx weigh them as the same?

I'm so sick of this "My bullshit is just as good as your facts" Fox News mentality. There should be discrimination and vetting and standards. The world simply has too many opportunistic and money hungry crackpots. These guys can go start their own little events.

The problem with branding yourself as a rebel outlet is that only a very, very small percentage of rebels know what they're doing. Climate change was once a rebel position, but the science backs it up, so we can rely on a basic form of meritocracy in academia to help unpopular ideas along. We don't need comic book artists going to conventions and yelling about "the establishment holding down expanding earth theory" and then trying to get a talking gig next to a real scientist who gives a shit about the science.

This also applies to guys speaking outside their fields too. Okay your phd is in engineering but you want to give a speech on how global warming is fake? Yeah, no thanks.

What it says is, "If a scientist truly wishes to make an advance..., they'll make an effort to engage with other scholars." In other words, anyone holding a nonstandard degree who is serious will engage other scholars who do have standard degrees.

Having a nonstandard degree is a red flag. Having engaged scholars who have a standard degree reduces that red flag, while the opposite supports it.

Turing wasn't a biologist, but when he had ideas about biology he published them in Biology journals and so it would be perfectly appropriate to have had him give a Ted talk on Biology, for instance.

This is less true in fields like programming where a lot of self-educated people still work happily. But in fields like physics that demand years of intense study just to grasp the field properly, then yeah, whether or not you have the relevant degree is a pretty good signifier of whether or not you're peddling bullshit.

I agree, but that's true of scientists also, many of whom have a very narrow specialty in modern times and may not be qualified to speak outside their field of expertise. Example Nobel Prizewinner William Shockley and his now-infamous lectures on the topic of race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Statements_abo...

BTW I agree with you that one can make too much of a person's degree, especially when compared to actually understanding the topic to be discussed.

Second, this is not a scientific forum. It's an educational one. It is not particularly obligated to give equal airing to any ideas. The ones in the "bacteria cause cancer" area can make for very interesting talks, especially if the presenter passes the test mentioned in the article (secure enough to acknowledge doubts), but if they choose to close the door on those so they can avoid crystal healing, that's a fine and valid choice.

When Galileo made his discoveries he didn't start handing out pamphlets in the city square, he worked to persuade other astronomers first.

It isn't as if scientific discourse is off limits to non-professionals. Many journals are free, and you can probably get most at a good public library. But if you find journals to be too hard to read, then you don't know enough about the field to usefully have an opinion on heterodox viewpoints in it.

I can understand why an organisation like TED would prefer to err on the side of false positives over true negatives when it comes to their bullshit detector.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-...

> We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we are critics of its commercial application and regulation to date. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production.

> However, its applications in agriculture so far have fallen short of expectations, and in some cases have caused serious problems. Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture and food system with broad societal benefits, the technology has been employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry PR campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland.

these are the real reasons GMO is better off being opposed, as long as companies like Monsanto are in charge of it.

The issue with botched skepticism among TEDx organizers appears to be so severe that the guidelines to skepticism given, no matter how crude, are entirely justified.

Also, Shapin is not a very respected historian. Social history of truth is more fiction promoting an agenda than history. I wouldn't cite him if I were you or only with caution.

The only possible way he triggers any of these red flags is a degree in sociology rather than psychology. These are red flags calling for more scrutiny, not strict conditions. And indeed, it seems like Flynn does deserve more scrutiny. He's clearly a legitimate scientist doing important work, but this is despite the red flag of being someone from a different field offering up theories that go against previously established science. He shares several of the quickly observable features of a crank.

How do we know he isn't a crank? Because he's published in the leading journals and other scientists who meet the "not a crank" test have said that his work is worthwhile.

In short, this is not a false alarm by the "red flags". This is a correct alarm.

Furthermore, "Engage with other scholars" certainly does includes publishing in peer-reviewed journals; why wouldn't it? And beyond that, some of those publications are co-authored.

> Start with some basic web research. You should be able to understand at least the big issues in every field you present onstage. Wikipedia is your first stop to gain a basic background.

(emphasis mine) you might be expecting too much of the TEDx organizers. If they're referring these people to Wikipedia to evaluate the speakers credentials, probably reading off the degree name is closer to their capabilities than evaluating the scope and prominence of their research.

There is "bad science" done by earnest people, just like there is "bad music" created by earnest musicians. Properly labeling it as "bad" indicates that with work it can become "good" through better education about the scientific method, labeling it as "psudeo" dismisses the work outright and thus discourages folks who might actually have something from learning how to test whether or not they really do.

http://www.reddit.com/r/tedtalks/comments/1443ke/the_ted_nam...

It looks like the issue was with the speakers at a specific event, not just a specific talk.

> Conventional medicine failed to help him, but an introduction to nutrition and alternative health care completely changed the quality of his life and health forever. A homeopathic doctor, Lindsey opened Home Nutrition Clinic in Santa Monica, California in 1985.

> "Everything that so-called "fringe psuedoscientists" complain about in regards to the arrogant elitism"

Either you are not very familiar with the claims many psuedoscientists make about that, or you are using a very loose definition of "everything".

There is no conspiracy to silence anybody. TED is just advocating very basic common sense and skepticism.

It's not bad science unless the "questioning" isn't accompanied by evidence. Science is not steered by authority, but by evidence.

If you have authority but no evidence, scientists won't listen to you. Example Nobel Prizewinner Linus Pauling's claims about vitamin C and the common cold.

If you have evidence but no authority, scientists will listen to you. Example Albert Einstein, who as a lowly patent clerk overthrew much of the physics of his day -- but only after evidence and observation began to support his theories.

In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/