It is probably a sign of my generation that I struggle to fathom how researchers and experts spread their ideas before the internet. I suppose people read books, attended public presentations, and simply gained knowledge through direct conversation.
 
TED talks are just one example of how far we’ve come. Some people love them, some people love to hate them. But these short videos have the power to change lives, attitudes, behaviours, and seriously boost egos.

For the uninitiated, TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talks are slick presentations uploaded to the internet on ‘ideas worth spreading’.
 
As a means of spreading ideas to a wide and diverse audience, the TED talk is a very effective mode. But how is it affecting public life, and the art of public conversation? 

In an opinion piece published in The Guardian, Michael Williams argues that public life has entered an era of TEDification. As the Director of the Wheeler Centre, an organisation devoted to the art of public conversation, Williams believes that public intellectualism has turned into a sales pitch, rather than a genuine challenge of ideas and minds.

As Williams puts it, “Free speech is all well and good but let’s not waste time on the bogus idea that all utterances are created equal. Empirical evidence should trump gut feelings. Knowledge deserves greater space than opinion.”
 
Williams makes a salient point. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone has an informed, educated opinion. Empirical evidence absolutely should be at the forefront of public discourse, and emotionally-charged opinions ought to be substantiated.

It is a sad reality that too often, pathos-appealing arguments will win out over hard evidence. This becomes even more of an obstacle when the hard evidence does not neatly fit into our pre-conceived beliefs and biases. It can seem like an uphill battle trying to convince someone that, say, sweatshop labour can be the path to prosperity for many undeveloped countries, when that person has always been told sweatshops are oppressive and exploitative.
 
However, Williams seems to miss the wider potential of TEDification. Rather than fight a model that have been proven to be highly influential, researchers can embrace the art of convincing communication.
 
Research and evidence matters, as does the time and dedication involved in being an expert on a subject. But without the human element and the emotionally compelling narratives, even the most well-researched ideas will only reach niche audiences.
 
Not all utterances are the same, and not all opinions are equal. But appealing to human sentiment need not dumb down our discourse. A genuine challenge of ideas means emotional opinions must stand up to factual scrutiny, and well-evidenced facts must resound with our emotions in order to spur action.