AGAIN A SCIENTIST IS CALLED TO (THE) ORDER (A to-think-about-article) Kees Deckers April 2013 Again a scientist is called to (the) order. This time it is Rupert Sheldrake, who wrote the book “The   Science Delusion - Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry”, also published under the title, he prefers himself  “Science Set Free”. Both titles are straightaway cues to why the talk, which Sheldrake held on TEDxTalks  has been removed from their YouTube channel.  Just the day before I found this information on the internet, I had started writing a short article, which I  wanted to give the title “Dumbing down is caused by extremely far-reaching ordening”. This information  made me decide to rewrite the article.  Again a scientist is called to (the) order. A year ago it was a scientist in The Netherlands who was called  back, because he dared to think too far behind the boundaries of the scientific world.  That scientist is Coen Vermeeren, he works at the Technical University of Delft as head of the Studium  Generale. He studied Aerospace Engineering at the same university. He dared propose that the U.F.O.-  phenomenon should be studied by the scientific world. His statements and opinion have caused quite a  stir in the small narrowed scientific world of The Netherlands. Like Rupert Sheldrake Coen Vermeeren  was ridiculised and blackened and threatened with banishment by extreme narrowed salvation believers  and direct science colleagues, of who the worst stated in a petty manner: ““Ufo-loony” can not be a  scientist”. In the meantime Vermeeren has written a book, with the title “Ufo’s simply exist - a scientific  view”, which is for sale from March 27.  Salient detail: In Vermeeren’s book on page 103 Rupert Sheldrake and his book “The Science Delusion”  are mentioned as an example under one of the reasons why the “cover-up” of the U.F.O.-phenomenon  takes place. The reason is, according to Vermeeren, that without that concealing a large part of the scientific house would collapse. He  gives Sheldrake as an example of a human being who has practised a “possible more healthy science”. At least someone who does not  practice science, which “has the primary and highly primitive tendency to disqualify all observations outside of the paradigm without any  substantiation, mostly ad hominem”.  Now, in a similar way Sheldrake is treated by his so-called “peers” and colleague scientists. On the blog of TED can be read:  After due diligence, including a survey of published scientific research and recommendations from our Science Board and our community, we have decided that  Graham Hancock’s and Rupert Sheldrake’s talks from TEDxWhitechapel should be removed from distribution on the TEDx YouTube channel.  We’re not censoring the talks. Instead we’re placing them here, where they can be framed to highlight both their provocative ideas and the factual problems with  their arguments... All talks on the TEDxTalks channel represent the opinion of the speaker, not of TED or TEDx, but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks  which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.  Internet reference (24-03-13):  Above is the argumentation by TED for their reasons to banish Sheldrake’s speech. I will come back to this later.  Below a part of the answer of Sheldrake on the same webpage:  ... Rupert Sheldrake  March 18, 2013 I would like to respond to TED’s claims that my TEDx talk “crossed the line into pseudoscience”, contains ”serious factual errors” and makes “many misleading  statements.” This discussion is taking place because the militant atheist bloggers Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers denounced me, and attacked TED for giving my talk a platform.  I was invited to give my talk as part of a TEDx event in Whitechapel, London, called “Challenging Existing Paradigms.” That’s where the problem lies: my talk  explicitly challenges the materialist belief system. It summarized some of the main themes of my recent book Science Set Free (in the UK called The Science  Delusion). Unfortunately, the TED administrators have publically aligned themselves with the old paradigm of materialism, which has dominated science since  the late nineteenth century.  TED say they removed my talk from their website on the advice of their Scientific Board, who also condemned Graham Hancock’s talk. Hancock and I are now  facing anonymous accusations made by a body on whose authority TED relies, on whose advice they act, and behind whom they shelter, but whose names they  have not revealed.  TED’s anonymous Scientific Board made three specific accusations:...  ...Obviously I could not spell out all the details of my arguments in an 18-minute talk, but TED’s claims that it contains “serious factual errors,” “many  misleading statements” and that it crosses the line into “pseudoscience” are defamatory and false.  Internet reference (24-03-13):  It is clear from Sheldrake’s answer, that what happens is an example of how a clique in the background, like everwhere else and on every  area of the current so-called societies, determines and limits what may be thought and what not, what may be done and what not and so  on. Here also there is a so-called authority, which anonymously has the power over and manipulates this part of human relaity.  Researching the by many “only-yes-nodding” scientists and so-called sceptics - who heavily abuse “the scientific method” - strictly  controlled, scientific reality itself is not allowed, unles it is in favour of that reality.  “We’re not censoring the talks” state TED. This is nonsense. First of all, they don’t have the right to censoring. Anyone may have his own  opinion and speak about it. Secondly, banning a speech, removing it from a distribution list, because the contents is not to your liking,  certainly is censoring. Thirdly, remarking thereafter that the talk is placed elsewhere to be underscored and highlighted with regard to  what is said and posed, again is censoring. Censoring is: The changing of, leaving out of or completely excluding of a report, document,  work of art or whatever item that carries information, a message, that the censoring party wants to suppress. And that is exactly what  TED is doing. The remark “...but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience”  demonstrates indeed censoring of a message and information. It is interesting to see how all of a sudden responsibility is used as a means  to push the discussion about the narrowed scientific world into a certain direction, which is justly called materialistic by Sheldrake. That  responsibility should really lead to accepting the message of Sheldrake as his own opinion, and offer other scientistst and non-scientists  the possibility to think about it in their own responsible way, as that is also done with the other talkers on TEDxTalks. So not controlled by  “dadda” TED or those who control TED as shadows on the background. The taking over of the responsibility of other humans is right from  the start always aimed at trying to control and gaining the power over (the opinion of) those humans. Besides, TED are at the same time  very cautious in their statements, as is clear from the phrase: “...which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience...”. “...which  appear to have...”. This gives the impression, meant or not meant, that they are not really sure themselves. Even so, they let the balance  tip towards banning. But it is also language usage, which always can be abused later on by lawyers at for instance lawsuits. We never said  that... Just by placing the information on another location the speech of Sheldrake is not only banned, but also changed, although it is only a  change in the intention of TED with regard to especially this speech. An intention TED make public to influence with that the public  opinion. On their website TED state: “TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading.”  “It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds:  Technology, Entertainment, Design.” (internet reference (26-03-13): TED now states with their act that the Ideas of Rupert  Sheldrake are not Worth Spreading. On the grounds of a Scientific Board. As a matter of fact,  does that Scientific Board also determine the world of Design and the world of Entertainment  of TED? TED commit an intervention, they do not commit with other humans who give a talk on their medium. With that they state themselves,  that they do this “ highlight both their provocative ideas and the factual problems with their arguments”. A sentence which not only  says that they do not agree with the contents of the speech, as is clear from the words “provocative” and “problems”, but which also  states that they want to “highlight” this. This emphasising is done to suppress the information, the message. Humans, watch out, for...!  Beware, because...!  TED’s action has nothing to do with positive human behaviour, but everything with the sharp demarcation of the determining and limiting  boundaries of the scientific reality. This is what a scientist is allowed to think, that not, states the Scientific Board. That is tantamount to  bringing about an own ordening, which others have to follow obligatory.  The fear of these tense, severe straight-jacket tailors and calculators is, that their by “the scientific method” laid down and fixed ordening  gets more lose and less orderly, as a result of which they lose their power over it. But in the end even pseudoscience more than once has  been proven to be science after all. Or else, cosmologists like Stephen Hawking would still be pseudoscientists.  Very simple: It are all humans together who dedide what science is, not just a clique of so-called experts.  Dumbing down is caused by extremely far-reaching ordening  Again a scientist is called to (the) order. He is called to the order to prevent that the sacred order is trodden upon, to prevent that the  boundaries of the sacred order are broken. There lies the problem. Exactly what Sheldrake himself says: “my talk explicitly challenges the  materialist belief system.”  I propose that the dumbing down of human starts with the extreme ordering of everything around him. Mind you, it is not the ordering in  itself, that makes human more stupid, but it is a step he makes thereafter. That is the step to create far-reaching order himself, where this  is not necessary. In this way, humans with so-called high Intelligence Quotients (I.Q.’s) are ordered in universities, laboratoria and  research centres. There these humans are obliged to feel, act and think according to rules and laws, known as “the scientific method”.  Most of the time even narrowed down to only the thinking and acting. Feeling, acting and thinking outside of this order is regarded as  chaotic, but feeling, acting and thinking within this order leads to killing creativity and open research. At the same time, with this  orderliness is suggested and stated that all humans who stand outside of these universities, laboratoria and research centres, can not have  a high I.Q. and herefore can not have new ideas and can not do inventions.  Humans, who live and work within the neatly arranged, scientific world, may not put ideas on the table, which offend or undermine the  ordered rules and laws of “the scientific method”. They immediately are called back and constrained or when showing persistent behaviour  are banned from this world. The most important way to maintain the scientific world and to guard and preserve this orderliness is through  rivalry, buying and selling of humans with a so-called high I.Q. Therefore new ideas and inventions may only come from this world and not  from the outside world. If the last is the case, then the idea or the invention has to be undermined as soon as possible. The human behind  it reviled, denigrated, ridiculised or even worse. If the idea unfortunately still finds its way to the public awareness, to the world outside  the small scientific world, then this last world tries to bribe this human as soon as possible, tries to buy her or his idea or tries to prove  that they themselves have been working on an equivalent, and an even better idea or invention. But that, because of certain reasons, they  are not ready to make it known public yet. So-called, obligatory “peer reviews” are abused to maintain the power over the work of others,  as well as within as outside of the narrowed scientific world.  What certainly may not happen, is breaking the order. All really new and good ideas and inventions can only take place within the small  world of science itself. Never outside of it. That is how it should be, that is orderly. Otherwise everything would get more chaotic. And  chaos let’s itself not be overruled, can not be dominated, is not in the hands of humans and in their by-their-own-ordening-created power.  Do not think, this only takes place in the scientific world. It takes place everywhere, where competition is more important than living  together, working together and sharing together. So also in the world of sports, the world of music, the world of television, the world of  computer programming, the world of politics (humans who are no politicians can not make a choice, so referendums are unacceptable),  the world of belief and of religion and so on.  It is the extremely far-reaching ordening, invented by himself, made by himself, and compulsively imposed on himself, but especially on  others, which holds back the real progress of human. Which forces humans into a straight-jacket. If they are standing inside or if they are  standing outside of one of these worlds. Only every now and again a few escape and some are even allowed to escape to be the  exceptions of the rules. Why? Because the extreme order-arrangers and the extreme narrowers of reality know they themselves can not  escape the fact that their reality is not true. Therefore they use human often as examples, to show what happens to them, when they  disturb and break through the extremely far-reaching order.  That is why again a scientist is called to (the) order.  Up