[daenz]

    And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to
    descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting
    people can find every day elsewhere in the media.

I read that as "it is controversial, so we don't want to talk about that." If some new science showed that human consciousness begins at X days after conception, would that not be aired because it is a hot-button topic too?

[tomjen3]

Why should he post a talk about that? You could get that information from any other source.

Whereas TED is the only place I can find a talk about taking criminals bicycling, the importance of the washing machine and why we should eat insects (that one does have a few doses of liberal morality though).

[daenz]

The TED audience seemed to like it and think it's appropriate. Watch it to the end, half of the audience gives a standing ovation. I've seen front page TED talks that don't get standing ovations.

[Gormo]

Science is science, and can be discussed without descending into a political debate. Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political, and have little value outside of polemic.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political

I really doubt that. Given that a Google for "study of effects of inequality" returns 13 million results, a citation of the absence of relevant citations is needed.

[daenz]

> Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political

Disagree. If the result of certain economic practices result in social inequality, is that entirely political? Economics is a social science, so why should some results be only political? It's not as black and white as you make it sound.

[Gormo]

> Disagree. If the result of certain economic practices result in social inequality, is that entirely political?

The concept of social inequality is inherently political. You can formulate methods of quantifying anything, but if what you're quantifying is inherently political in the first place, it doesn't make it any more objective or empirical.

> Economics is a social science

Exactly. Most social sciences are based upon subjective value systems and not objective empirical data; they're not really sciences in the same sense as physics, chemistry, or biology.

[daenz]

If I understand your point then, it's that nothing other than empirical data should be presented at TED? Then I should suggest you stop watching TED videos then, because this talk isn't a first to touch on political subjects.

[Gormo]

I'm not saying that at all - I'm just responding to the comparison involving some new scientific concept having potentially controversial implications.

TED conferences are discussions of ideas, and ideas are often engender controversy; some of them might influence people toward one political position or another, but that doesn't mean that the ideas don't have some relevance or value outside of politics.

In this case, though, I can't blame the TED organizers for eschewing the discussion of ideas that are entirely political, and which are ultimately only about engaging the controversy itself.

[daenz]

> ideas that are entirely political, and which are ultimately only about engaging the controversy itself.

If you read the same article I did, that's not the reason they claimed, so I don't know where you're getting that from. Here's the relevant portion:

> And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media.

It says nothing about the talk being only about engaging controversy, nor about the idea being entirely political. The reason was that it had potential to rile people up. You are confusing an idea that will unavoidably rile people up with an idea that is intended to rile people up. They are not the same.

[TeMPOraL]

If there was enough evidence, I guess it would. What differs TED from "elsewhere in the media" is that the former has content, the latter usually not so much.