TEDx talks aren't science, they're popularization. Whereas investigating new and untried ideas scientifically is important, promulgating them to laymen isn't.
When Galileo made his discoveries he didn't start handing out pamphlets in the city square, he worked to persuade other astronomers first.
It isn't as if scientific discourse is off limits to non-professionals. Many journals are free, and you can probably get most at a good public library. But if you find journals to be too hard to read, then you don't know enough about the field to usefully have an opinion on heterodox viewpoints in it.
When Galileo made his discoveries he didn't start handing out pamphlets in the city square, he worked to persuade other astronomers first.
And when he failed at that, he did the equivalent of handing out pamphlets in the city square - he wrote a popular book. That is what he got punished for.
I don't even think they are popularization to be honest. As that would involve an effort to educate or inform about the state of the art. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an effective popularizer (but not a very good one); Richard Feynman excelled as a popularizer.
TEDx seems to be more about entertaining than informing a certain audience that attends because they want to feel part of the brand. It's like how Reader's Digest and Book-of-the-Month clubs formulated middlebrow culture and profited from middle class desire.
It could be argued that TEDx is the contemporary equivalent of salon culture that flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries. [0]
The thing that makes TED(x) interesting is the broad range of topics, new ideas and unknown facts being presented, even if they are on the fringe of science. It's supposed to provoke thought, questioning and insights. If instead it becomes just another platform for established, proven ideas, what makes it different from a guest speaker round in a local school?
Now granted, I'm still in (probably) the first third of my life, but one thing I've come to realize is that there is too much stuff for me to learn. Even if all I ever did was sit in a room and learn stuff, I would never learn it all. Not just that, but if I sat in a room and learned only the interesting stuff, I'd still probably croak from natural causes before finishing. And even if that was all I did, why would I want to just sit in a room learning stuff if I never had time to apply it and build interesting things?
Maybe you learn faster than me. So be it. But, given all that--that I don't even have enough time in my life to learn all the interesting, no, fascinating, things that are so boring as to be considered the current scientific consensus--why should I want to waste my time listening to things that are likely to be bullshit? I don't. I don't have time for bullshit, and neither should you. But the thing is this: Just because you exclude the bullshit it doesn't follow that you can't have talks that cover the cutting edge of research in science and the humanities.
When Galileo made his discoveries he didn't start handing out pamphlets in the city square, he worked to persuade other astronomers first.
It isn't as if scientific discourse is off limits to non-professionals. Many journals are free, and you can probably get most at a good public library. But if you find journals to be too hard to read, then you don't know enough about the field to usefully have an opinion on heterodox viewpoints in it.