Esileht > ajuteadus, viited > TEDxCaltech: AJU

TEDxCaltech: AJU

Eelmisel aastal Eestis toimunud TEDxi üritustel sai ka kuulda ajuteadust – Tallinnas oli mitu ettekannet ajust ja ka Tartu TEDxil mängisime Shiela Nierenbergi videot -, kuid eks Kalifornias on alati kõik suurem ja parem. Selle aasta TEDxCaltech oli täiel määral pühendatud AJUle! Mõistagi on nüüd vaatamist palju. Ettekandjate nimekiri on muljetavaldav, nii et varuge mugimist ja asuge nautima! Aitäh Renatele vihje eest!

Toon soojenduseks esile Jeff Lichtmani ettekande, mis annab hea huumoriga edasi ajuteaduse suuri väljakutseid, kuid eks andke kommentaarides teada, kes teile kõige rohkem muljet avaldas!

Rubriigid:ajuteadus, viited
  1. john smith jr.
    veebruar 28, 2013, 2:31 p.l.

    suur aitäh nende viidete eest!

  2. MargusM
    märts 24, 2013, 11:42 p.l.

    Rupert Sheldrake käsitles Whitechapeli ettekandes teadvuse ja teaduse teemat, mis paistis korraldajate maailmavaatest liialt erinevat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE ning eemaldati nimekirjast. Sellega seotud arutlust on märgata http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

  3. jaanaru
    märts 25, 2013, 6:32 e.l.

    See on minu arvates õige, et TED üritab kontrollida, et lokaalsetel TEDxidel pakutaks teaduse jaoks progressiivseid ideid, kuid mitte ulmelisi mõtteid, mis on õiged vaid mõne fanaatiku peas. See on tegelikult üsna keeruline, kuna teaduse arenguks peabki vahel asjaolusid natukene teistmoodi vaatama ja raske on öelda, kustmaalt algab fantaasia.

    TED selgitab seda täpsemalt:

    One option would be to have an “anything goes” policy. We could just say that these events are the responsibility of the local organizer and wash our hands of it. The problem with that stance is that we would soon find the TEDx brand and platform being hijacked by those with dangerous or fringe ideas. And eventually credible speakers would not want to be associated with it. TED’s mission is not “any old idea” but “ideas worth spreading.” We’ve taken a deliberately broad interpretation of that phrase, but it still has to mean something.

    The hardest line to draw is science versus pseudoscience. TED is committed to science. But we think of it as a process, not as a locked-in body of truth. The scientific method is a means of advancing understanding. Of asking for evidence. Of testing ideas to see which stack up and which should be abandoned. Over time that process has led to a rich understanding of the world, but one that is constantly being refined and upgraded. There’s a sense in which all scientific truth is provisional, and open to revision if new facts arise. And that is why it’s often hard to make a judgement on what is a valuable contribution to science, and what is misleading, or worthless.

    (http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Lisa kommentaar

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 / Muuda )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s