[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 450x237, ted_logo[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1563164 No.1563164 [Reply] [Original]

Anyone got any interesting TED videos they would like to share?

>> No.1563171

nope.jpg

>> No.1563176

sadface.jpg

>> No.1563180

one second, i have the best one evrar, i'll find it in a second.

just hold on OP

>> No.1563187

http://www.ted.com/talks/eve_ensler_embrace_your_inner_girl.html

Best, most informative, and overall most scientific TED video out there

>> No.1563194

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

>> No.1563196

>>1563187
Wow, that really is a good TED video

>> No.1563208

>>1563196
>>1563187
i hereby nominate it for the best TED video of all time.

>> No.1563217

>>1563187
>>1563196
>>1563208
at first i knew there was some samefag going on here, but when i heard her say "vagina monologues" about 20 seconds in the troll became obvious
l2subtlety
2/10

>> No.1563223

Mooty moot!
http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for_anonymity_online.html

>> No.1563228

>>1563217
Actually, i only posted it and the "nomination" someone else posted the second one. The trolls here work together.

Also, on a side note, thats the video that made me lose all respect to TED

>> No.1563236 [DELETED] 

There's one on wireless power that the Tesla worshipers here would like.

>> No.1563242

moots talk was so fucking bad, holy shit

i could have done a better 4chan talk in my fucking sleep

what a faggot, he came off like a fucking idiot and a child

>> No.1563244 [DELETED] 

>>1563194
That's a good one. Fucking PC revisionists.

>> No.1563265

I like these for example.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/david_deutsch.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/andrea_ghez_the_hunt_for_a_supermassive_black_hole.html

>> No.1563277

>>1563236
Fuck yes, that one is amazing. I can't wait.

There's one about a helmet remote controller.

Hey Captcha, I don't have fucking tilda'd letters on my keyboard.

>> No.1563287

>>1563217
Worst part is the way she brings up her dad.

>> No.1563294

>>1563194
I HIGHLY doubt this mans evidence. It seems like a thin end of the wedge fallacy and an inverse positively lighted tuo quoque argument. Also he failed to take into account the improvement of medicine.

>> No.1563297

Yes.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html


a more in depth answer to some of the point he raised in the show
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

>> No.1563308

>>1563297
sorry, the blog post wasn't directly about his talk at TED.
those are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

>> No.1563309 [DELETED] 

>>1563297
I'll watch this, but I'm pretty sure it will be 100% bullshit.

>> No.1563316

>>1563187
Also he doesnt really understand genetics and hasnt read 'the selfish gene'.

Its men like this who try to put the new world order into a positive light.

>> No.1563328

Fuck TED, full of bullshitters that like to hear themselves talk

>> No.1563350

>>1563328
This

The only people who watch it are pseudo-intellectuals who like to feel smart. The speakers use all kinds of imagery and inspirational speech without actually doing anything or having any substance

>> No.1563352 [DELETED] 

>>1563297
So his example about how science can answer moral questions, he brings up corporeal punishment. He says some US schools allow it, and asserts that it is always done from a biblical bias about the well-being of the child. Then he says, "is there any real doubt about if this is best for a child's well being?" He makes not a single scientific argument for corporeal punishment being bad, but asserts that since that fits his personal bias, it must somehow be "science". He does the same thing with burqas. He beats up on Islamic societies, which is easy enough to do, and tries to imply without any single argument aside from ad hominem, that science therefore teaches that burqas must be bad. As I anticipated, 100% bullshit.

>> No.1563377

>>1563309
at least try before judging

>> No.1563381

>>1563352

Got any arguments for why those things are good?

>> No.1563389 [DELETED] 

>>1563381
It doesn't matter if I do or not. His premise is that there are scientific reasons why those things are bad, but he never gave any. He only gave his personal bias against them.

>> No.1563392

>>1563352
dud at least read the pages I've posted.
It was an 18 minutes talk. He couldn't go in depth on all the points he touched. And you mentioned only 2
points of the whole talk as if they discredited everything else.
It's not like beating of children is controversial among modern psychologists/psychiatrists/neurologists. There is a pretty strong consent that it's not the best way to educate children.
It's not like he could go on to list all the various examples.
It was a general talk. If you want a more in depth explanation at least read some of his essays on his site.

>> No.1563393

>>1563187

Not one shred of evidence. :3 But of course getting up on a stage and saying women good men bad is pretty much guaranyeed applause these days.

I couldn't get passed 2:05, what does she say about her dad?

>> No.1563397

>>1563389

I'm asking you a question. Do you have any reasons.

>> No.1563399

>>1563352

The science he speaks from is inferred..

He indeed is a neurologist, and several of his
so called "bias's" are well known facts in the
scientific community.

Obviously you are limiting yourself to the context
of the speech. This is an often occurrence with
fundamentalists concerning interpreting the bible
literally.

..but i suppose ignorance is bliss?

>> No.1563418

>>1563164
There was a Lennart Green talk that I am fond of.

End with a preposition?

There is a Lennart Green talk of which I am fond?

>> No.1563433 [DELETED] 

>>1563397
No, I don't have a position one way or the other on either issue.

>> No.1563447 [DELETED] 

>>1563399
Get the fuck out. If he had something scientific to say, he should have included it in his speech. You're defending the speech by saying there's science somewhere, he just didn't mention it? And criticizing me for not trying to look up papers looking for research for the things he just claims to be true arbitrarily? The bullshit never ends.

>> No.1563473

>>1563447
The talk is about how science can give us a foundation to determine what is better for our well being, and thus a foundation to create a morality. How can he start listing peer reviewed papers, data, statistics, studies that validate his opinions in an 18 minutes long talk?

He is giving you a general view of what his idea entails. And it's not based on thin air, but on the scientific studies that he took. Now, if you are interested in the specifics you can go read osme long assed papers. Or should he make a 10 hours long speech?
And if you are even more interested you can go study neurology yourself and then criticize the papers the conclusion he reaches with you own newly acquired knowledge.

>> No.1563510 [DELETED] 

>>1563473
He never said, there are X scientific papers proving that corporeal punishment is bad for kids well-being. It wouldn't take 10 hours to make that statement. All he said was basically "does anyone here doubt that it's bad for their well-being?"

Same thing with the burqas. I have a hard time believing there are scientific papers showing that burquas are bad for the well-being of society. He certainly doesn't mention there being any. He spends all his time on the subject talking about irrelevant horrors if islamic societies. That's an ad hominem argument. Wearing burqas are bad because people who advocate it murder their daughters if they get raped.

It's bad logic, and a bad speech.

>> No.1563551

>>1563187
if you replace "girl" with "self" this is all jungian psychology

>> No.1563654

>>1563510
the bad logic is what you're using.

And the point of that speech wasn't to prove that corporal punishment was bad for human well being(and that's a point that shouldn't even be debated, as in the scientific community there isn0t much doubt about it. If you are interested then you can study the matter yourself. That's how science works. Knowledge is acquired with work, not dispensed magically).
No, the point of his discourse was that science can be the foundation of our morality.
Can science, more than anything else, provide us with facts on how reality works? Can science give us facts on how humans work? Can knowledge on how we work give us a better understanding on what is better or worse for us? Can understanding what is better or worse for us be a foundation, or one of the foundations, for deciding what is good and what is wrong?He says yes, that this is possible.
Do you reject this? Then the above are the concepts you should be rejecting.

Beating children? If we accept science as a source for moral codes, and science says it's bad then we should consider them wrong. But, if we accept science as a source for moral codes and science says it's good, then we should accept it.
As you can see, challenging whether corporal punishment is good or bad is irrelevant to the question on whether science can give us answers on morality. It'san application of that principle, not one of its foundatins.
And you are just picking at straws instead of discussing the actual concept.

And now I'm going to call you an idiot. And no, this is not part of my argument, I just get of on calling you that.

>> No.1563683

>>1563510

Oh, and as to why I called you an idiot:
Do you need fucking scientific papers to tell you that a girl who gets beaten or killed if she doesn't wear a piece of clothing and has to wear it regardless of her wishes, regardless of how uncomfortable it may make her feel8for instance if it's too hot, or if it gets wet) is in a worse condition of a girl who doesn't et beaten, and who can decide to put on what makes her feel better? Do you need a fucking paper to tell you that?
And do you need a fucking paper to understand that he was speaking of how some cultures, some moral values, cause more suffering than others and he was using the talibans as an example of a culture which breeds a lot of suffering? Do you needf fucking scientific papers to tell you that? Do you have no fucking ability to follow the logic of a speech? Are you mentally impaired?
And do you fucking need fucking papers to tell you that beating children does not contribute to their fucking well being? Are you that retarded?

>> No.1563701
File: 46 KB, 267x314, Neil Tyson.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1563701

>>1563265
Black holes you say?

>> No.1563707

>>1563654
>No, the point of his discourse was that science can be the foundation of our morality.
Yet he didn't show how. His two main examples that he concentrated on were two practices that he linked to religion, and then filled his talk with religion-related ad hominem argument against those practices. The point is that HE NEVER DREW ANY LINK WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THIS PRACTICES AND SCIENCE, which as you say was the premise... that this could be done.

>Can science, more than anything else, provide us with facts on how reality works? Can science give us facts on how humans work?
Observation provides fact. Science provides theories for explaining fact.
>Can knowledge on how we work give us a better understanding on what is better or worse for us?
A great deal of how we work is in the realm of philosophy and religion, rather than science. Science can provide is with information about what is better or worse for us nutritionally, for example. It can't give us information about what is better and worse for us spiritually.
>Can understanding what is better or worse for us be a foundation, or one of the foundations, for deciding what is good and what is wrong?
It can be one foundation. It can't be the only foundation.

>As you can see, challenging whether corporal punishment is good or bad is irrelevant to the question on whether science can give us answers on morality. It'san application of that principle, not one of its foundatins.
Right. But the speaker introduced it as an example of how the application could be made, and never made any statement suggesting that science says anything about it. Instead he appealed to the opinion of the audience on the rightness or wrongness of it.

>And now I'm going to call you an idiot.
Which is precisely what I would expect from someone who defends such foolishness.

>> No.1563717

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/eve_ensler_embrace_your_inner_girl.html

All my hate

>> No.1563726

>>1563683
You've just completely undermined the point you're trying to defend. You've illustrated that your positions on these practices come from emotional response, and NOT from science. You've illustrated that science is NOT the basis from which you these practices are being adjudged.

This is the same sort of bait and switch used by the speaker. He first promises a scientific basis of morality, and instead delivers an emotional basis for disagreeing with the religious basis of morality.

No wonder it appeals to /sci/. It's anti-religious trolling dressed up as science.

>> No.1563734

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

This shit. Right here.

>> No.1563739

i totally forgot about TED, guess ill start checking it out.

thanks OP :)

>> No.1563757

OP here, been AFK a few hours but I'm back now, thanks for the contributions.

>> No.1563760

>>1563707
>Observation provides fact. Science provides theories for explaining fact.
Irrelevant objection on choice of words. Observation is a part of the scientific method, and it needs to be confirmed with tests and trials.

>A great deal of how we work is in the realm of philosophy and religion, rather than science. Science can provide is with information about what is better or worse for us nutritionally, for example. It can't give us information about what is better and worse for us spiritually.
THAT was the whole point of his speech.
And you've said ain idiocy. Because psychology, neurology and psychiatry can tell us exactly what is better for us "spiritually", which is by the way, an horrible choice of word, because "spirituallly" can mean everything and nothing, and is really an irrational way to describe the realms of our emotions, feelings, connections with others, and of our mind in general.
Meanwhile religion would cure schizophrenia with exorcisms. Truly better for our "spirit" than science, right?
>It can be one foundation. It can't be the only foundation.
At least you're conceding that it can be one foundation. Now you should tell us what should be the other foundations, and on what basis we should consider them reliable.

>Right. But the speaker introduced it as an example of how the application could be made, and never made any statement suggesting that science says anything about it. Instead he appealed to the opinion of the audience on the rightness or wrongness of it.

blah blah blah. It's still an irrelevant point to be picking about.

>Which is precisely what I would expect from someone who defends such foolishness.
I called you an idiot because you deserve it. And with you post you've shown it again. So this time I'll call you a big idiot. That's what you are. Think about it the next time you look at yourself in the mirror.

>> No.1563791

>>1563760
>idiot...idiot..idiot
meh... you've demonstrated you're both brainless and an asshole. I'm done. Fuck yourself.

>> No.1563800

>>1563726
No, you retard. My reasoning in support of that was in the previous post.
The one you quoted was just telling that anon something that they deserved to be told.

And you rant about emotions is laughable.
Emotions are a fundamental driving force in human and life, and, since they are mostly produced by chemical elements and electrical connections in our brain and body, they can also be studied scientifically. And, emotions exist,and they are a fundamental aspect of our life. It would be unscientific to ignore them.
And, without emotions we wouldn't care for anything at all, there wouldn't be any need for morality, ethics, religion, philosophy, society, science or anything at all for that matter. It's rather obvious that a speech about morality is going to touch the subject of morality.

And, as for you accusation on him using emotional techniques to sway the public, it's already been addressed.
read those other posts, and the links I posted
>>1563473
>>1563399
>>1563392
>>1563308
>>1563297

>> No.1563808

>>1563791
Ha ha. Nice to see how you quickly jumped on the opportunity to avoid addressing the points I made and instead resorted to using a quick escape route.
I'm not brainless, and I'm perhaps an asshole, but you deserve to be called an idiot, and have demonstrated it again with your latest post. I say it with no malice.

>> No.1563822

>>1563734
meh, he's wrong about a lot of stuff. Of course, there's a lot of things that are widely believed that shouldn't be, like the dangers of frankenfood. But he's wrong that all alternative medicine is placebo. Some is, some isn't. The studies don't all say what he thinks they say. Also, I think it's legitimate to be wary of the effects of immunizations that haven't been around long enough to observe their long-term effects. It's a risk/reward scenario that doesn't only have one acceptable answer.

>> No.1563829

>>1563734

Fuck year

>> No.1563844

I don't know, I enjoyed that "girl cell" video. She is not necessarily saying that goodness = girlness and evil = masculinity. If anything, she's using the term "girl cell" as a metaphorical term to convey that there is emotion inside all of us, emotion that is too often discredited and ridiculed, whether you are a man or a woman.

There should always be a balance between rationality and emotion. Unfortunately, one is glorified while the other is scorned.

>> No.1563853

>>1563844

Yeah, why is rationally so scored these days?

>> No.1563859

>>1563844
Wait, wat? You think rationality is overvalued in the world? I only managed to watch a couple minutes of the vid.

>> No.1563866

>>1563844
emotions are the reason girls cannot into SCIENCE! or math.

rationality explains the universe while emotion kills people.

Also, she said it was bad that a little girl's parents wouldn't let her take a hot air balloon around the world by herself. whatthefuck

>> No.1564068

>>1563866
but we're humans.

we should be able to do anything at any time.

>> No.1564075

http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html

This gives me so much hope for the future.