PSI WARS: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet

I imagine that most readers will be familiar with the story of TED taking down the TEDx talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock on the advice of their anonymous scientific board driven by Jerry Coyne and other militant sceptics who have been attacking and denouncing Rupert for many years. We reported briefly on this last year, and also on the episode involving member Suzanne Taylor with her Hollywood TEDx event. This book investigates the whole story and its background, as well as the continuing controversy over Wikipedia content edited by guerrilla sceptics. It is eye-opening read, but not so surprising for those who are familiar with the culture war that has been going on for many decades in connection with parapsychology and its scientific status. The author hopes that the controversy will be a significant milestone on the road to a fundamental cultural change, and one can only hope that he is right. Craig is a parapsychology blogger who is well read in the literature. As he points out, the underlying issues are philosophical rather than purely scientific, as they involve basic views of reality and what is correspondingly regarded as possible and impossible in an a priori sense.

The book reprints the correspondence surrounding the controversy along with responses from the protagonists. A key issue is the definition of pseudoscience, which is frequently used as a rhetorical device rather than an exact characterisation. Rupert is frequently branded as a pseudo-scientist, or worse still a 'woomeister', the ultimate in derogatory abuse. TED desperately wishes to retain the respect of the mainstream scientific community and is terrified of being identified with pseudoscience, which in a general sense can be equated with failure to convince mainstream science. This in itself may be due to the limitations of mainstream science rather than the lack of quality in the contested material. It may be a sign that the criticism is cultural rather than scientific. It can also be highly emotive, as Weiler points out: 'disparage the opponent with snide or otherwise unkind remarks, make sweeping generalisations about the speaker's work, back those up with irrelevant sources, and avoid all the hard questions that require actual knowledge of the subject in order to reply to them.' Rupert offered to debate with any members of the scientific board, but this was never taken up. The charge of pseudoscience is almost always the reflection of a narrow materialistic belief system. Science should be about proving one's assertions with evidence.

As well as giving the background of parapsychology and related disciplines, there are detailed sections on the James Randi challenge, which turns out to be a publicity stunt in which the organisers move goalposts as they see fit and then blame the applicant for failing to comply. The activities of CSICOP are also described. The author then moves on to a description of the editing process at Wikipedia, and its unhealthy relationship with Google rankings. This is a significant question, since the term parapsychology has 300,000 views a year, and Rupert's biography page 180,000. It turns out that 87% of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8! Weiler gives examples of experts who have not been able to edit specialist content, especially Prof Timothy Messer-Kruse, an expert on the Haymaker riot and trial of 1886. His primary source, the transcripts from Congress, was disallowed and his edit reverted back to the original. He was told that he should provide reliable sources for assertions and was overruled by the 'undue weight' policy stating that minority views do not get the same weight as majority views. Thus an expert who is obviously right against a consensus that is wrong cannot make the necessary corrections. To rely on consensus opinions in matters of expertise is clearly disastrous.

In the case of parapsychology and Rupert Sheldrake's page, ideological sceptics have captured the editing process by positioning themselves in a powerful position for arbitration and rules. They can then resist any rule changes and edits that might undermine their views. For Rupert, this means that the pseudoscience label cannot be removed, and ideologues can 'prove' their assertions in a self-referencing manner by citing opinion pieces by CSI or even The Sceptic's Dictionary. Thus opinions are presented as facts without any substantiating evidence. The Guerrilla Sceptics have about 90 editors operating via secret Facebook pages and congratulate each other on the impact of their edits, always drawn from a small number of sceptical sources. Weiler recounts his own attempts to edit Rupert's page and how he was systematically blocked as the group tried to have him banned. This leads to the rather dismal conclusion that the only way to win on Wikipedia is not to play.

Weiler devotes a separate section to the Hollywood TEDx event organised by Suzanne Taylor. A similar email exchange takes place and once again Jerry Coyne plays an instigating role by denouncing the meeting as 'sciencey sounding woo.' As many readers will also know, parapsychology is beleaguered in terms of funding and the possibility of publishing research in journals. Member Brian Josephson has also been at the receiving end of derogatory comments. The speakers at this event included Larry Dossey, Russell Targ and Marilyn Schlitz, all well-known in their fields and who have many peer-reviewed articles to their credit. Larry is a frequent lecturer at medical schools and wonders where he came up short so far as TED is concerned! Weiler characterises the relationship of the sceptics to science as what the Tea Party is to the Republicans. In the longer run, the Internet opens up platforms for argument and this episode may encourage other scientific groups come together to combat the editorial abuse so obvious on Wikipedia. See also the notice in the news section about the petition that PhDs and MDs can sign. TED should not simply be spreading conventional ideas and should encourage knowledgeable debate in these frontier fields rather than caving in to militant sceptical pressure. In addition, Wikipedia should undertake a proper investigation and put its house in order.