The Weiler Psi

Parapsychology Journalism: The People, The Theory, The Science, The Skeptics

The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending


TED talks is actually pretty cool.  Although I’ve been talking nonstop about the TED censorship for the past couple of weeks, I don’t hold a grudge against that organization.  Truth is, they’ve been pretty good to me.  They’ve helped me increase my site views by 500% over this past month and pushed my blog into the top 5% of internet blogs in general, by views.  What’s not to like?  They have picked sides in a growing controversy, which has galvanized the pro-psi camp in ways that have never been seen before.  Indeed, a lot is happening that has never been seen before and I’m delighted to be in the middle of it.  My battle was never with TED, it’s with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.

Which brings me to my point.  The loud and clear message that has been sent is that there IS a major scientific controversy brewing and institutions, from TED to all of academia and the media need to stop taking sides.  They need to step out of the way and let the controversy play itself out or suffer huge PR damage as a consequence.  The new thing that is happening is that change isn’t coming from within the hallowed, starched halls of academia and within the confines of scientific conferences, but from the outside.  The ideas that skeptics so quickly dismiss are gaining mass acceptance and are starting to redefine the power structure.  From what I can see, this is very confusing to everyone on the skeptical side of the debate.

(For those not familiar with the debate, it can be oversimplified thusly:  On the one side we have materialists/reductionists/skeptics who see the universe as a lifeless machine that can be understood by figuring out its mechanics.  On the other side we have Biocentrists, for lack of a better term, who see consciousness and life as being fundamental to the universe.  In other words, they see the universe as a giant thought.  You generally won’t hear much about the second theory, but the evidence is much better than most people realize.  Mainstream science does not acknowledge this which is pretty much why there’s a big controversy.)

Science, after all, is decided by scientists, right?  What gives the ordinary rabble the right to intrude on discussions about the fundamental nature of the universe?  This needs to be decided by people with advanced degrees who have studied these matters their whole adult lives.  Surely only they have the requisite knowledge to decide?  That certainly holds true for most areas of science; the public is more than willing to just accept what they are told.  What makes the psi debate so different?  What the heck is happening?

In a word, this particular area of science is being crowdsourced.  While people obviously aren’t out conducting experiments en mass and publishing them in scientific journals, they are able to substantially verify scientific claims such as “there is no evidence for psychic phenomena.”  If this phrase is uttered by a scientist and turns up in a mainstream news article it is a relatively simple matter to browse the comment section to find more substantial sources of information.  Often these days, links with real scientific information will be shared by a knowledgeable person effectively demonstrating that the statement was false.  This scenario has gotten pretty common.

It’s precisely this kind of thing that has sent TED reeling these past couple of weeks.  Just a few short years ago, this problem with Sheldrake and Hancock would have been easily managed.  Drop the speakers, ignore the few protest emails and proceed as if nothing had happened.  It would have been over before most of the public even knew what was happening.  What happened a few weeks ago however, is something that will play out more and more in the future.    The two videos were taken down for the usual skeptical reason of being unscientific.  People who were well informed about this topic showed up for the debate, but it also started to draw attention largely due to the fact that word spread about what had happened.  Someone mentioned it on the parapsychology forum I hang out on and I blogged about it.  I sent a link to parapsychologist Dean Radin, he posted a link on his blog, it got picked up by The Daily Grail and took off from there.

Now, all eyes were on TED and they were forced to back down from their original position due not only to the outcry, but also the obviously well informed logic behind it.  Anyone who saw that comment thread objectively could see the weakness of skeptical arguments, the irritating nature of paternalistic drive-by comments by TED staff and, well, everything.  This is the new reality; everyone gets to share and see what everyone else is sharing.

One outcome of this is that skeptics are being forced into the intellectual debates which expose the weakness of their arguments and more importantly, their arrogant attitudes.  One of the hardest things to convey to other people not familiar with the debate is the unreasonableness of skeptics, but in these comment threads it’s there for everyone to see.  TED and it’s skeptics have not recognized the impact of this yet and do not understand how much this is changing things.  This crowdsourcing is going to increasingly force intellectually honest discussions which will ultimately force change that companies and institutions like TED and its skeptics would rather not deal with.  They are operating according to an old paradigm in which they believe that they can make whatever decisions they please, irrespective of pesky comments.  That era though, is fast coming to a close.  The tail is wagging the dog.

Academia will surely be the last bastion to fall under the new order, but it ultimately answers to the public and if that public is well informed and communicating constantly with each other, as they now do, then fall it will.  The basic problem, -that they are ignoring important evidence- is exactly the sort of thing that will put a target on their back.  An energized public can award power and prestige to some while taking it away from others.  Universities aren’t blind, deaf and dumb.  If they start losing money and grants because their skeptics are putting people off, they’ll do something about it.  I’m fairly sure that’s what it would take.

I’ve been following the psi wars for a number of years and I can see two things:  First of all, this is not a debate over science, despite what skeptics claim.  The body of evidence supporting the marriage of consciousness and physics is simply enormous and utterly convincing by any sane scientific standard.  (and here) The science, in other words, is settled.  The TED controversy deeply underscores this point: TED has never clearly defined their reasons for censorship; they have never taken Rupert Sheldrake up on his offer to debate the TED science board; the reasons for axing TEDxWestHollywood have never been convincingly laid out;  Jerry Coyne, in his blog, (which unwittingly helped raise the profile of the censorship issue considerably) has never scientifically spelled out his objections either.  They all pretend as if it’s a problem with a solution so obviously in their favor that it doesn’t need discussion.  Thus, they never engage the evidence in any meaningful way.  The lack of meaningful discussion highlights a very significant point.  The controversy isn’t a scientific one; it’s a social one.

Second:  The internet has given the opposing side two tools it has never had before; we now have an easy way to find each other and we have a way to spread scientific information that skirts the normal walls that science builds around ideas it doesn’t like.  Typically, the mass media goes along with this wall and tends to avoid publishing controversial topics as truths because they are far too technical and it’s easier to trust mainstream scientists than to go out on a limb.  But the internet skirts around mass media as well.  A community has developed that spreads the information through an informal chain of blogs that together have the reach of lesser forms of mass media.  It’s hard to judge exactly, but I would guess, based on the interest that this topic has generated, that news of the axing of TEDxWestHollywood has probably reached 100,000 people with no mass media intervention.  (My blog post alone would account for about 12% of that traffic.)

This community contains parapsychology scientists and other people with advanced degrees; as well as a very large number of well read individuals, such as myself, who can see the evidence and decide for themselves.  These scientists, by the way, no longer need rely on academic and scientific institutions to forward their ideas and evidence and make rebuttals to obvious smears:  They can take to to the streets, so to speak.  It has taken several years for this community to form because much of the information has not been on line and people needed to get used to this new format of communicating.  People, such as myself, needed time to develop a portfolio of work and build a reputation, which is just now coming to good use.  As these blogs have developed, people needed to find them and set the groundwork for this loose connected network of like minded people.  There have always been far more of us, than skeptics, so the issue hasn’t been persuading people, but merely getting them together and getting them properly informed.

Now that the network is in place and this group has had time to settle in and grow in numbers, an attitude change has taken place.  With the scientific evidence on its side and a firm sense of being right, this group has gone increasingly on the offensive, pushing back at empty skeptical claims and denouncing obvious lies and half truths.  The message is fairly simple and straightforward:  “Don’t suppress this stuff.”  This is where we are now; pushing back.  The controversy, which is social, is getting a social solution and it’s starting to have a pronounced effect.

The effect has been to cause the skeptics to polarize the debate and send them into a furious campaign to put the genie back into the bottle.  There is no longer any pretense of being nice about it and in the near future it is this frenzied activity by the skeptics that will create the change more than anything we do.  The skeptics are to science, what the Tea party is to Republicans.  They’re on the same side, but their radicalized attitude, just as with the Tea Party, presents both a solid base of support and sends moderates running in the other direction.  You can see what has happened to TED as the skeptics have gained control.  Their heavy handed attitude is having an impact on the TED brand (it’s too soon to tell just how much), and they are so consumed with their small battles that they are losing sight of the war they are losing.

The parapsychological sciences  that are shunned by mainstream science have always been very popular with the public.  This huge gap has always existed and it has led to a sort of running 140 year battle between the mainstream sciences and parapsychology.  The skeptics in academia have always succeeded by simply shutting out both the scientists and the public interest, but they can’t do that anymore.  Their main tool, control over information, has been taken away from them.  As the TED drama has shown, they have no ability to fight on open ground.  It is just the beginning of an ideological clash that will spread all over the world and eventually force a change.

The wall that the skeptics have put up is like a shaky dam with a rapidly growing river behind it.  They will hold sway for awhile, and it will look as though they are succeeding because so little gets past them, but it is an illusion.  The broad network of people supporting an alternative view of the universe, backed by solid evidence, is still growing and getting increasingly aware of its power.  Everything will be fine in Camp Skeptic until it isn’t.  Once institutions realize that taking sides in the debate is harming them more than helping, then, change will come swiftly and the sciences will be fundamentally altered forever.

About these ads

36 comments on “The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

  1. Anthony McCarthy
    April 4, 2013

    I’ve been researching the “Skepticism” industry for a while now and it’s clear they’ve got some major funding behind them, from the James Randi “Educational” Foundation, “Big Think” and the remaining parts of the Paul Kurtz empire of alphabet soup entities, there is some major funding going on. From what I’ve seen a lot of it is from computer-internet jillionaires who like to think they’re the embodiment of high sciencyness. I think TED knows that they’ll be attacked with substantial resources by their competitors using those resources but they’re too cowardly to take them on so they ruin their stated purpose and kick down those who they figure aren’t as able to mount an attack. That kind of intellectual decadence is a product of the “Skepticism” industry which has always had the goal of shutting down science, glorying in closing down research and labs.

    “Skepticism” is in exactly the same position that scholastic philosophy was in the early days of science. PZ Myer’s “Courtier’s Reply” one of the favorite slogans of the atheistic face of the industry hold exactly the same position that Galileo complained of to Kepler:

    …. what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of all of this? Shall we laugh or shall we cry?

    http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2012/09/atheists-granted-indulgences-by-pz-myers.html

  2. James
    April 4, 2013

    Thanks for covering this controversy Craig, I really appreciate it. I too noticed these videos disappearing from TED, though they are still available as they have been posted by others.

    As has already been touched on, I think that that the privilege of knowledge and authority that certain scientific institutions has held an iron grip on for so long is now coming to be challenged by the global networks of thought emerging in the 21st century. Differing or dissenting views can no longer be suppressed, and the democracy of the information age is able to override institutional fascism. Thank god for that. Like in the Middle Ages where advanced sciences of Rome were locked in the towers by the Church and commoners not allowed to see it, modern science cannot suppress the wave of truth via experience that is now emerging.

    The internet has already decentralized the authority for knowledge and experience, allowing a broader and more diverse range to become available to every day people. In light of this, I don’t see how material reductionist dogma can survive for the long-term. It’s in modern science’s own interest to evolve, since, as Hancock pointed out, the “constants” themselves have always been in flux. We’re pretending things are concrete when they aren’t, which means science is mutable and WILL change.

    I just hope the TED controversy, as with others, has given a few more people that important glimpse into the war on information that is currently happening. Government and science are working hand in hand to make sure this world stays left-brained, problem solving, and in a state of one-track consumption. This is why altering of consciousness is not allowed, and anything that challenges the status quo gets censored.

    The discussion section in the TED controversy shows that despite what the mainstream portrays, people are not stupid. They are already questioning. The genie is out of the bottle, and no institution can stop it.

  3. Merle Lefkoff
    April 3, 2013

    So-called “expertise” is being redefined all the time. When elites lose exclusive access to content a long painful showdown is sure to follow, because they can be quite hostile when confronted with a potential loss of power. Clay Shirkey writes “Here Comes Everybody”, and he means it. And now we have the exponential growth of on-line courses which is an astonishing opportunity for democratization of knowledge. Thanks for articulating so clearly the TED controversy, Craig, and keep up the good blogging. Now that the President is putting a chunk of public money into brain research, we need to put pressure on the White House to spend that money in some new and interesting ways.

  4. Wanda Webster
    April 3, 2013

    Craig…loved what you had to say….perfect!

  5. Fran Theis
    April 3, 2013

    Here is the Mission Statement for the Society for Scientific Exploration:

    The primary goal of the international Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is to provide a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science. A secondary goal is to promote improved understanding of those factors that unnecessarily limit the scope of scientific inquiry, such as sociological constraints, restrictive world views, hidden theoretical assumptions, and the temptation to convert prevailing theory into prevailing dogma.

    Topics under investigation cover a wide spectrum. At one end are apparent anomalies in well established disciplines. At the other, we find paradoxical phenomena that belong to no established discipline and therefore may offer the greatest potential for scientific advance and the expansion of human knowledge.

    The Society encourages such investigations for several reasons that may appeal to different communities:

    To the research scientist, we commend the intellectual challenge of explaining away an apparent anomaly or seizing the new knowledge presented by a real one.
    To the student scientist, we point out that science does not begin with textbooks: it begins with the unknown and ends with textbooks.
    To the nonscientist, we acknowledge that deep public interest in some of these topics calls for unprejudiced evaluation based on objective research.
    To the policy-maker, we point out that today’s anomaly may become tomorrow’s technology.

      • Fran Theis
        April 3, 2013

        Nice post — particularly the detailed description of the Journal’s editorial vetting process. It seems to me that organizations such as SSE will be key in bringing subjects that are now brushed under the rug into the light. Involvement in SSE is, for me, a way of picking up Galileo’s proverbial telescope. We all know that you can’t discover astronomy if you’re not willing to touch the telescope…

        • craigweiler
          April 3, 2013

          I see the SSE as playing a role in the coming change. It’s popularity and influence will grow and eventually outstrip other, more conservative journals over the shrieking hysterical protests of doomsaying materialists.

  6. Fran Theis
    April 3, 2013

    Craig, those who contribute to your blog might be interested to know of an organization called the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE). One must be a scientist of some stature to be a member, but everyone interested in the sort of phenomena the mainstream ignores is welcome.

    http://www.scientificexploration.org

    Quoting the site: “The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, unidentified aerial phenomena, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology.

    The SSE was founded in 1982 and has approximately 800 members in 45 countries worldwide. The SSE publishes a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), and holds annual meetings in the USA and biennial meetings in Europe. Associate and student memberships are available to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend meetings and participate with the society.”

  7. Lazarusofsweden
    April 3, 2013

    Wow, soon we all will believe in witches and witchcraft, astrology, gnomes, goblins and the immacualte conception just because the crowd says so. What a glorious future.

    • Sly
      May 6, 2013

      I happen to belong to this “crowd” and I must say I do not like your tone. You are not going to convince anybody with comments like that. Don’t treat us as if we were dumber or less literate or less versed in natural sciences as you are, because we are not. Maybe even I have more knowledge in sciences as you have, but we are not going to compare the size of our d**k, isn’t it?

      You do not seem to realize that there is a middle-ground between “consciousness has no ontological reality” and “fairies exist”. Failing to recognize that, your own behaviour is actually very irrational.

      Also, I would humbly suggest you do some homework about the current state of the art in parapsychology before judging it – something I guess you have never done. A good place to begin would be: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

  8. C Scott Taylor
    April 3, 2013

    This controversy underscores the peculiar ideas and conversations about what constitutes science that has been ongoing for decades, in an area no one seems to be discussing: quantitative versus qualitative science.

    Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as science that does not depend on the ‘rational measurements of numerical units’. The Social Sciences are sciences, and have delivered a wide array of knowledge products to the Academy.

    If the discussion remains only about whether quantification can ‘prove’ the existence of consciousness as an underlying, a priori factor in Universe, the conversation will never be resolvable. As conscious beings, we are entangled in a conscious life experience that cannot be entirely measured, quantified, and statistically analysed. Other means must also be employed to explore the full range of life experience.

    TED has revealed its postion in the politics of science, with these latest foolish moves. Over the years it has provided a wealth of qualitative knowledge, truly ideas worth spreading, having nothing to do with the skeptics’ limited conceptions of reality, and now seems to have been overcome by a ‘science board’ with a real lack of ‘rational’ thinking.

    I for one would like to see the word ‘rationalist’ be either reclaimed, denoting those who embrace both quantitative measurements and qualitative assesment (my personal preference), or relegated to a kind of pejorative description of those who limit their thinking to one kind, that of a cosmology of molecular motions and the math that describes it. Either way would help us all move on in this conversation.

    Thanks for a well-written, thoughtful, and well-supported blog.

  9. Sandy
    April 2, 2013

    Chris Anderson actually deleted one of his comments on the new TED discussion page. I think he was taken by surprise that people are still asking him hard questions about the anonymous science board. The anonymous science board members aren’t accountable because they haven’t got a face, but he does, and people are going after him. So he retreated.

    I wonder how long before TED becomes a completely faceless organization? That’s the only way to avoid all accountability and get away with this kind of nonsense.

    • marcustanthony
      April 3, 2013

      Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker are closely allied with TED, so I suspect they are part of this anonymous science advisory board. Both are hardcore neo-Darwinnian zealots. There’s probably no formal group at all, just a few people they buzz at random to confirm their own biases. Clearly the board are extremely conservative in their views, and tight with the skeptics groups, as they use precisely the same language and make the same errors repeatedly – such as misrepresenting other people’s arguments and refusing to address the evidence.

      • Joan Hangarter
        April 3, 2013

        Part of the official debunking, trivializing and making fun of those who have the courage to stand up and reveal their findings, despite being made to look foolish.

  10. John Campbell
    April 2, 2013

    Great post, Craig! I wouldn’t be here either if it weren’t for this whole fiasco either, and in a way, quite pleased it all went down the way it did. Prior to three weeks ago, I didn’t know who Dean Radin, Michael Persinger, Russel Targ, Brian Josephson were, and today I’m looking forward to getting familiar with their work.

    The other thing is, as I suspected all along, the skeptics have overplayed their hand. I believe their real target was Sheldrake, but they knew they couldn’t go after Sheldrake without Hancock, so they went after both. That was a mistake Now we really are at a tipping point and they’ve brought on their own demise. Not a single person I work with and have pints with at my local bar would have a problem with either of these talks. And if they’ve been exposed to more than a dozen TED talks, they surely find it outrageous that either talk would be banned. I mean, it’s TED, right? Why would they do that?

    Why indeed.

    Well. it’s like you say, your “battle was never with TED, it’s with the skeptics pulling the strings behind the scenes at TED.” It’s exactly the same for me. It’s not like I was a big fan of TED. I’d seen at least a dozen of talks and liked some and didn’t like others and found it a little pretentious at times. But at least they seemed open to new ideas. That Sheldrake could be “banned” from TED was a sure sign to me that the same mindset behind (ir)rational skepticism project on Wikipedia are now at TED.

    This is most definitely a full blown “culture war”, as you put it. I’ve followed the battles through years of Wikipedia talk pages and revisions. It’s a real war.

    There’s my rant, post Sheldrake TED debate.

    Thanks for writing about it, Craig. I’ve been a regular visitor and now follow you on wordpress. I’ve really liked what I’ve read so far and look forward to more.

    • craigweiler
      April 2, 2013

      Wow! Thank you! :D

      • John Campbell
        April 2, 2013

        You’re very welcome! oh, and would you be so kind as to delete my previous (very shirt and incomplete) message? Got through by accident! thanks!

        • craigweiler
          April 2, 2013

          done.

  11. Red Collie (Dr. Horace R. Drew)
    April 2, 2013

    dear craig, if you google “hard factual evidence three paranormal crop circles” then “best intellectual puzzles in crop circle history”, you and others will see a true scientifically based background to what Suzanne made a film about “What on Earth?” and what she was going to talk about, before their license was taken away. once you read, you will see. best, collie

    • craigweiler
      April 2, 2013

      I had a quick look, but did not study it closely because crop circles are not my thing. I’m OK with the idea that at least some crop circles are not human made. I do consider them an open question and I don’t much care for the sloppy skeptical treatment of the evidence.

      If skepticism has taught me anything, it’s to be skeptical of skeptics.

      • Red Collie (Dr. Horace R. Drew)
        April 2, 2013

        thanks, craig, the reason I mentioned it was not only because of Suzanne, but because many people who get involved with subject have strong and sometimes verifiable psychic experiences. that aspect was not discussed in the review, because of the disdain which it would bring from mainstream scientists. for one example, please do a Google search on “kiesha crowther martin keitel”. this is all true, but will strain your belief systems. i had verifiable psychic contact myself in October 2008. the phenomenon remains poorly understood. best, collie

  12. Joe Martin
    April 2, 2013

    I sincerely hope that, when all is said and done, the end result of this current battle to reform science will be a science that is more astutely aware of its propensities for error. May we see a science that better understands the vital importance of its heretic/avatars.

  13. Joe Martin
    April 2, 2013

    Wow!……Jaw on floor……Can’t talk now…

  14. Michael Duggan
    April 2, 2013

    Craig, one word: Superb.

  15. Christoffer
    April 2, 2013

    It is great to see so many oppose the materialism paradigm and showcase science and experience that give food for thought. At the same time do I find it scary that materialism has such take as it has; not only do I find it at TED, but processes which goes in much more silent seem to have a dangerous role as well. One example I have become aware of is the way psychiatry take in example. According to George Graham (2010) it may be a question of time before psychiatry converts to neurology, making theories of consciousness, mind and cognition history as they are replaced by materialist thinking through classical neuroscience and biology. The history of mental disorders seems to show us the same; instead of seeking answer throught philosophy of mind the research has progress toward seeking a physiological answer described by materialism alone. This actual progress scare me and I’m afraid that it happens on other instituitional areas as well. The need for awareness of this is more important than ever, and the field of psi may only be a small part in this. We have to save the idea of mind and consciousness if we are to be able to explain all our experiences through science. For what, other than a dangerous tool of power, is a science who are not able to answer our questions and respond to our experiences?

    Source:
    Graham, G. (2010). The Disordered Mind: An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Mental Illness. UK: Routledge.

    • craigweiler
      April 2, 2013

      I actually have that book! I don’t think you need to worry that much. From people I talk to, what is happening is a widening gap between practicing psychiatrists who treat actual people and researchers who treat people like complex machines.

      The practicing psychiatrists tend to take this research with a grain of salt, nod and then get back to the business of being caring, decent, real human beings.

      • Christoffer
        April 3, 2013

        I hope you are right, but I’m not sure about it. It has already happen much the past 30 years which have given materialism a stronger foundation in psychiatry with the result of less research from other perspectives and limited availability of psychiatric tools. As the situation is now, many areas which was covered by a philosophy of mind in the past has been limited to such an extent that it does not exists a therapeutic alternative for it, despite that the experience of it still is as common as it was before. The DSM-V (which I find a great resource) with its focus on scientific validity rather than reliability make also a better foundation for a materialism.

        What I’m scared of is what might happen when the only research approved to practice on is that of a materialistic character; then a gap between theory and practice would be a personal matter which cannot be applied to professional practice. Both based on own research as an educational scientist and personal experience with the psychiatry, I believe this might be a possible challenge which I do not want to go unnoticed before it eventually is to late to change it.

        • craigweiler
          April 3, 2013

          From what I understand, the DSM is mostly used for official paperwork when someone needs to be classified for some official reason usually relating to insurance or government. Otherwise it is a useless paperweight to them.

          As far as research goes, you may take some comfort in knowing that for the past 70 years, the materialists have never succeeded in taking complete control despite their best efforts. There will never be enough of them for that.

          • Christoffer
            April 3, 2013

            For the history of materialism with it ideas back to the old greek the materialists has never succeeded in taking control over so much areas as they do today, that it was I’m considered about.

            DSM is much more than some official paperwork, it has implications for the research direction of mind, consciousness, cognition and so, and a full materialist overtake may mean much more difficult conditions for researchers into consciousness and mind than today seen. With DSM-IV, materialist scientists are not able to explain a range of experiences; including psi, with DSM-V they have much more power to explain them away as a disease.

            • craigweiler
              April 3, 2013

              It’s just one of the many things we’ll have to change . . .

  16. ideas worth spreading !

  17. Fran Theis
    April 2, 2013

    A good analysis, Craig. Academia is currently in the process of shifting attitudes, and I predict that serious discussion of consciousness and psi will increase with student demand. One nationally respected university is among those leading the way — the University of Michigan. Open discussion of the mind, brain and consciousness has been going on there quietly for many years, probably because student interest has grown exponentially.

  18. Shanti Mai
    April 2, 2013

    It’s because of their actions that I found you; I am one of your new readers. I thank them! :~]

    • craigweiler
      April 2, 2013

      I do have a lot to thank TED for.

    • Thomas Jespersen
      April 2, 2013

      Same here. I saw a link on Dean Radins blog :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on April 2, 2013 by in Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments and tagged , , .
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 564 other followers

%d bloggers like this: