I can't tell if this comment is serious or not but I find it odd that people who know fuck all about science go around bashing people over the head with it.

I think it's a serious comment lamenting the rise of "scientism" which is a dogmatic belief in the supremacy of rationalism and materialism.

it's possible to be very opposed to scientism while also being very supportive of good science.

The dogmatic belief also has side effects. If you have ever been with someone you considered generally wise but also held on to some non-scientific belief, you know two things.

1. Taking away the non-scientific belief will cause a genuine vacuum in their life, and what comes in to fill it usually takes away the happiness they had earlier

2. The dogmatic folks don't put any/much importance on what a moving target science is, and how badly it conflicts with normal folks need for permanence. Some of them will scoff at this as "unwillingness to change", but realistically speaking no one likes change just for the heck of change unless it is an actual improvement of some aspect of their life. Society has "changed" towards embracing more materialism, but its side effect of less human connection is not an improvement that most people actually desire.

So do you wish to be happy and contented? Don't expect science to give you an answer.

If there is something that science cannot provide, then it is just another tool in your toolkit and will continue to co-exist with other things which can make you happier, no matter how "unscientific" those things are.

What's the alternative to rationalism and materialism? How can good science be practiced without rational reasoning and physical (i.e. material) evidence?

you missed something important

> dogmatic belief in the supremacy of rationalism and materialism

good science absolutely must take a rationalist and materialist view. however, the needs of good science are not necessarily the supreme values which to make any and all decisions.

What else do you base decisions on?

Lots of things! Because I'm not actually a practicing researcher. And the set of practicing researchers I've known is, perhaps not so oddly, disjoint with the set of dogmatic scientific positivists I've known. No one has a better grasp of the vast difference between ideal science and real science than someone who actually does science for a living.

Can you name some of those lots of things?

Science can tell you how things work and how to achieve particular results. It can't tell you what is important, because that's fundamentally a question of human values.

They only bash in defense. Non scientific people have been bashing people over the head with non science for centuries.

*Pop science

I don't think any scientists consider TED talks a serious venue. Anyone who thinks they are learning rather than being entertained is mistaken. Not saying there is anything wrong with entertainment, it is just bad for us all when people confuse the two.

Sometimes it does show serious topics that are or have been pretty seriously researched. It'd is quite easy to filter out the entertainment or worthless talks in fact: See if math or diagrams are used.

Some talks are pie in the sky idea talks, essentially fuel for hypotheses. Filtered by talking about a serious subject but not showing math or diagrams.

And finally there are stories. Spotted by a typically "human" talk and "social" topic. Not useful.

But that's the whole point of TED. It's upmarket standup that you can feel like you're improving yourself by watching, which is why so many of the jokes suck - laughing might make the pretense impossible to maintain.